Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In this article, I address another of the Constitution’s more serious “camels”—which Christians should be choking on instead of swallowing.

Article 6s Seditious Supreme Law of the Land

Article VI of the Constitution requires all state and federal officials to support that Constitution as the “supreme Law of the Land.” The America people ask no more and deserve no less. (Judge Roy S. Moore, “A Higher Authority,” Wall Street Journal, 30 June 2005)

The framers proclaimed the Constitution, and all laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof, the supreme law of the land. This was done without so much as a nod in the Constitution to any kind of subordination to the law of Yahweh.1 Along with their failure to acknowledge Almighty God as anything more than the document’s timekeeper, this glaring omission is damning testimony that they could not have been the ardent Christians it is so often claimed they were2:

The framers were fully cognizant of the word “supreme” and its meaning when they declared the supremacy of the Constitution. In so doing, they made the law of Yahweh subservient to the law of WE THE PEOPLE.

“Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matthew 15:6-9)

The framers, and today’s political leaders and Constitutionalists pay homage to the traditions and commandments of men as the supreme law of the land. Even the Pharisees of Jesus’ day weren’t so brazen as to call their man-made traditions supreme.3

Sedition is defined as a rebellious act against authority. To enact a law superior or contrary to an authority’s law is, therefore, treason against that authority. Since all authority resides in Yahweh and because the Constitution is replete with edicts contrary to His sovereignty and morality, the Constitution is seditious against Him and His kingdom.

A supreme law can only come from a supreme being. The claim that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land is another witness to the clandestine assertion in the Preamble that WE THE PEOPLE is the god of the United States government. Accordingly, it becomes the god of anyone today who looks to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. (See Chapter 3 concerning the serious implications of WE THE PEOPLE as a deity.) How can Constitutionalists claim to believe the following passage?

“Thine, O YHWH, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O YHWH, and thou art exalted as head above all. Both riches and honour come of thee, and thou reignest over all; and in thine hand is power and might….” (1 Chronicles 29:11-12)

This and numerous other passages declare Yahweh and His law supreme.3

Christians can’t have it both ways. They can’t advocate the Constitution as Biblical while at the same time claiming Yahweh’s law is supreme. The Constitution demands otherwise.

[T]he Constitution as “supreme law” is a self-contained legal system:

“Our Constitution is a closed legal … system that declares itself and the laws made pursuant to it, to be the supreme law of the land, and that is the only law it allows.” (Thomas James Norton, The Constitution of the United States, Its Sources and Its Application, published by the Committee for Constitutional Government, circa 1922.)

What does this say about the numerous Biblical laws in disagreement with the Constitution?…:

“…a law repugnant to the Constitution is void….” (Marbury v. Madison, 1803)

If we believe the law of WE THE PEOPLE is supreme, then all law that contravenes the Constitution, including Yahweh’s commandments, statutes, and judgments, is null and void.3

If, instead, we believe the law of Yahweh is supreme, then we must also believe that the numerous componetns of the Constitution that contravene His law are null and void.

Some people contend that the government’s funding and promotion of infanticide4 and sodomy are outside constitutional parameters. Many constitutional scholars would argue otherwise. Even if we were to concede they are unconstitutional, it is incontestable that both are openly practiced today under the auspices of today’s Constitutional Republic because the framers failed to expressly establish government upon Yahweh’s immutable morality as codified in His supreme law. Regardless how you view it, infanticide, sodomy, and many other Biblically abhorrent practices are rampant today in America thanks to the secular Constitution having been made the supreme law of the land.

Judge Moore’s statement at the beginning of this article is tragically true. Americans could have Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-11). Instead, most (even most Christians) are asking for the seditious Constitution. They’ve gotten what they deserve.

Stay tuned for Part 8.

 

Related posts:

Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH”

Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land”

 

1. YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. In obedience to the Third Commandment and in honor of His memorial name (Exodus 3:15), and the multitudes of Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, I have chosen to use His name throughout this blog. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”

2. For more regarding some of the key founders’ religious beliefs, see Dr. Albert Mohler’s Radio Interview With Dr. Gregg Frazer, in which Dr. Frazer reveals by some of the key founders’ own writings that they were neither Deists in the purest sense of the word, nor were they Christians in the Biblical sense of the word. Dr. Mohler is President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Dr. Frazer is Professor of History at the Master’s College in California.

3. Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

4. I refuse to use the word “abortion” to describe the murder of infants in their mother’s womb. The battle against this atrocity begins with identifying it correctly. By calling it “abortion,” we’ve already acquiesced to the opposition’s terminology. Look up “abortion” and “miscarriage” in any dictionary. A miscarriage is an abortion. What doctors (and parents) do to infants in the womb is infanticide. Had Roe v. Wade been waged over infanticide rather than abortion, it would have never made it to the courtroom. In fact, by employing the word “abortion,” Roe v. Wade was won before it ever got to court. Christians need to stop using watered-down, politically correct terms such as “abortion” and “gay” instead of “infanticide” and “sodomy.” The former terms hold no power over evil.

  1. BillFortenberry says:

    Have you ever actually read the text of Marbury v. Madison?

    • David Hodges says:

      Have you ever actually read Psalms 19: 7?

      • BillFortenberry says:

        Why, yes, I have read it many times. How many times have you read Marbury v. Madison?

        • David Hodges says:

          How many more times will you have to read it before you will believe it?

          • BillFortenberry says:

            I believe it wholeheartedly, and have believed it from the very first time that I read it.

          • David Hodges says:

            So, His law is perfect, but the union is “more perfect” now that His law has been abandoned?

          • BillFortenberry says:

            Not at all. I have never claimed that the union is perfect at all, let alone that it is more perfect than the Law of God.

          • T. Edward Price says:

            David, he’s not worth the effort. Whether intentional or not, he insults my wife, and all other women who have been unable to bear children, through his careless and reckless misuse of language, and his only response is a callous retort? He willingly admits he is lawless (antinomian), instead of lawful (pronomian). He responds with arrogant, pompous, smug replies devoid of humility. And he acts as if though he is of a more sound and substantial intellect than all others. I have encountered his type many times, a few who would even boast that they were the smartest in the room. It’s funny how someone like that honestly believes they will win the argument on such a boast alone!

          • David Hodges says:

            And like a cat-chasing, seeing-eye dog, he does love a distraction. Now he is straining over the gnat of how Ted used the widely quoted: “’All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.’ (Marbury v. Madison, 1803).” Perhaps he would have preferred the several-page-long gobbledygook legalese (“tongue thou shalt not understand,” according to Deuteronomy 28: 49) that says the same thing. He never denied the accuracy or pertinence of Ted’s quote. He seems to be attempting to use Marbury’s sour grapes over the non-implementation of John Adams’ unbiblical political intrigue as a distraction from a camel-sized lump in his throat. I applaud Ted for shining the light of Yahweh’s word on the anti-Christianity that runs rampant in our nation.

    • Yes, Bill, I have. Every word of it. What’s your point?

      Certainly, you’re not going to try to convince us that Marbury doesn’t apply (even more so) to law systems outside Constitutional parameters (for example to the laws of the USSR) when opposed to the Constitution’s!?!

      • BillFortenberry says:

        I’m curious as to why you misquoted that decision as saying that, “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Before I address your misconceptions about this decision, I would like to determine whether this was merely a typographical error on your part.

        • Ah, you’re right. When originally employing it, I Googled it and must have borrowed it (without checking it against the original) from someone who has misquoted it.

          It should be “a law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”

          Thanks for the correction, corrections will be made in my materials to that effect. Lord willing, I’m headed to a homeschool convention in Denver and, therefore, won’t be able to get to this until next week.

  2. Isn’t Judge Roy Moore the same one who was busted for refusing to remove a monument of the 10 commandments from his courtroom? I find it ironic that he would say something like “the America(n) people…deserve no less” in discussing the supremacy of the US Constitution. It seems that Moore, along with millions of other American Christians, has openly stated his support for this argument and, like Ted’s last line states so clearly, got what he deserved.

  3. BillFortenberry says:

    Ted, I have just completed the first section of my next book. It is an analysis of the biblical precedent for popular sovereignty and is currently entitled “We the People.” In the current article, I demonstrate that God recognized the validity of government by the people in His Word, and I show how that concept has been conveyed by various Christian scholars throughout history. You can read my conclusions online at:
    http://www.increasinglearning.com/we-the-people.html

    • Thank you. I will take a look first opportunity I get.

    • Do you have a Word copy you could send me so I can print a hard copy for reading? If you do, send it to tweiland@vistabeam.com.

    • Bill, although I’m in agreement with some of your conclusions (e.g., our response to tyrannical rulers), I consider your premise dangerously close to heretical. Once again, what appears, to be an overriding drive to protect the Constitution and its god WE THE PEOPLE has, in my opinion, contributed to an attempt to force the Scriptures to say something that is the antithesis of what they actually declare.

      Despite your claim that you’ve proved your point, NOWHERE does the Bible (Old or New Testament) call upon God’s servants to be sovereigns (either individually or popularly). Instead, the Bible is replete with its requirement that we are to be slaves—the opposite of sovereigns—wholly surrendered to Yahweh’s will and none other. The Bible speaks of a master/slave relationship NOT a two sovereign relationship. Furthermore, ours is not to RATIFY ANYTHING but to SUBMIT to EVERYTHING Yahweh requires.

      “Or do you not know that … you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

      “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me.”(Galatians 2:20)

      “…as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men [including ourselves]….” (Ephesians 6:6-7)

      All of these passages and the tenor of the entire Bible declares we’re not sovereigns—except, WHEN IN REBELLION TO YAHWEH.

      In my opinion, your position transposes what we find in the Bible. For example, your premise is pretty well summed up in the last sentence of your last paragraph on page 1:

      “The people were granted SOVEREIGNTY to either accept or reject God’s OFFER….”

      I suggest that this should, instead, read:

      “The people were granted the CHOICE to either accept or reject God’s SOVEREIGNTY….”

      Sovereignty and choice are not comparable. If they are, then consistency demands you claim the same about Yahweh’s sovereignty, which greatly dilutes His sovereignty. He doesn’t choose to be who He is. He is and always has been who He is. He’s not who He is because He has chosen to be so but is, instead, “I am that I am.”

      Another example of your transposition is found on page 10. Immediately following the heading “The Right of Resistance,” you wrote, “One of the concepts inherent in the doctrine of popular sovereignty is that of the right of the people to resist the usurpation of power by a tyrant….” There’s no right to it (sovereign or otherwise). As subjects of the King of kings, it’s our RESPONSIBILITY to resist any usurpation of Yahweh’s power or authority by anyone. If it is a sovereign choice granted to us by Yahweh, then He would have no grounds for punishing anyone who chooses wrongly.

      Providing the people the sovereign right to not choose Yahweh’s sovereignty is itself the very kind of usurpation you should be condemning instead of promoting. In fact, your position comes very close to promoting a popular right to rebellion against God.

      • BillFortenberry says:

        Thank you for taking the time to read through my research, Ted. I appreciate your feedback, but I think that you are mistaken in several points.

        You have objected by saying that “NOWHERE does the Bible … call upon God’s servants to be sovereigns,” and you claim that the Bible “speaks of a master/slave relationship NOT a two sovereign relationship.” This is entirely false. The Bible never once states that the nation of Israel was to be a slave to God. In fact, God even asked Jerusalem “Is Israel a servant? is he a homeborn slave? why is he spoiled?” (Jer. 2:14) The context shows us that the answer to this rhetorical was an obvious “No.” The nation of Israel was not God’s slave. Rather, God told Pharaoh “Israel is my son, even my firstborn.” (Ex. 4:22) And to the Israelites themselves, He said, “Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.” (Psalm 82:6) This verse was even repeated by Christ when He said:

        “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” (John 10:34-36)

        According to Webster’s dictionary, the concept of sovereignty is an inherent component of the title of god, and here we have both the Old Testament and the New Testament in direct quotations of God the Father and God the Son stating that the children of Israel were called gods by none other than the true God who cannot lie. Thus we see from Scripture that God did not view the nation of Israel as His slave but rather as His firstborn son and as gods themselves. In order for you to justify your claim that the Bible never recognizes Israel as being sovereign, you must demonstrate how the title of gods and the position of the firstborn son of God can properly exist in the absence of sovereignty. I don’t think that you can make such a demonstration for the simple reason that to do so would be to deny the sovereignty of Christ who is also called God and given the position of the firstborn Son of God.

        Additionally, Philippians 2:7 assures us that one can be both a servant and a sovereign, for there we read that Christ became a servant as we also see in Isaiah 53:11, Zechariah 3:8 and Matthew 12:18. But Christ did not cease to be sovereign by becoming a servant, for we read throughout the Gospels that He was properly referred to as Lord. Clearly, the Scriptures disagree with your conclusion that it is impossible to be both a sovereign and a servant.

        You are also mistaken in concluding that to attribute the act of choosing to God “greatly dilutes His sovereignty.” If that were true, then the Bible itself would be guilty of that charge, for there are many verses in Scripture which say that God made choices. For example, Deuteronomy 7:6 tells us that God chose the nation of Israel “to be a special people unto himself.” Deuteronomy 18:5 says that God chose Levi “out of all thy tribes, to stand to minister in the name of the LORD.” I Samuel 10:24 states that God chose Saul to be the second king of Israel. I Corinthians 1:27 tells us that “God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.” etc. etc. etc. There is simply no way to deny that the Bible records God making choices, and therefore, it is incorrect to conclude that there is no comparison which can be made between sovereignty and choice. Both are obviously characteristic of God, and thus, there is, at the very least, some sort of relationship between the two.

        • As expected, you paradigm (which, in my opinion, originates from your intense drive to protect the Constitution) only continues to influence your interpretation of Scripture (whereas, it should be the reverse). For example, if your point is true about the word “slave” in Jeremiah 2, then it is also true regarding the word “servant.” (Actually, they’re the same Hebrew word, used only once in Verse 14.) One only needs to do an Englishman’s Concordance search to see how wrong you are about this word and your interpretation regarding Israel’s relationship with Yahweh. For example:

          “O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones.” (1 Chronicles 16:13)

          “…the children of Israel thy servants…” (Nehemiah 1:6)

          “And gave their land for an heritage: for his mercy endureth for ever: Even an heritage unto Israel his servant…” (Psalm 136:21-22)

          “But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away.” (Isaiah 41:8-9)

          Your other points are just as easily answered. However,I don’t have the time or inclination to get into another tit-for-tat with you. If others have the prerogative to do so, I’ll leave that to them.

          • BillFortenberry says:

            You must be insanely busy to not even have time to jot down a few easy answers. With so little time to write, do you think that it is possible that you have not been able to devote sufficient time to studying my position before answering it? That seems like a good possibility to me. It would certainly explain why you consistently accuse me of having an “intense drive to protect the Constitution.” Boldly asserted ad hominems take up much less time than detailed analyses of an opponents arguments. For example, it would take me no time at all to just conclude that you are giving in to an intense desire for sensationalism, but that would be a violation of Proverbs 15:28.

          • “Insanely busy”? That’s perhaps not the term I would have chosen under the circumstances, but it comes pretty close to describing my schedule. Furthermore, did I miss something? It seems to me, I already did jot down “a few easy answers” to your chapter and your response. In other words, I devoted the time to this that I choose to give to it.

            From where you stand, I think it would be natural for you to think that I’m given to an intense desire for sensationalism, and you would have the right to think this. Provided you don’t depict it as a fact but only your opinion of me, I also wouldn’t consider it either an ad hominem attack or a breach of Proverbs 15:28. If you were to suggest this to me, it could be that you simply love me enough to try to wake me up to what you perceive as a possible sin in my life and that’s wrongly influencing the position I’ve taken.

            However, I would caution you about accusing me of ad hominem attacks. Among other things, on at least two different occasions, you’ve implied (all but accused me) of not being a man unless I step up to the plate, and, of course, under your terms for doing so.

          • BillFortenberry says:

            Ah, so you’re not too busy for a bit of tit-for-tat. In that case, let me point out that I presented the following four arguments.

            1. The nation of Israel is never said to be God’s slave.
            2. The people of Israel are specifically called gods and the nation is called the firstborn son of God both of which are terms of sovereignty.
            3. Sovereignty and servitude are not mutually exclusive.
            4. God does make choices.

            You responded to argument 1 by saying that while the nation of Israel is never called a slave in the Bible, it is called a servant. You did not respond to any of the other arguments; but you see, by not responding to any of my other arguments, you argument resolves to:

            1. No one can be both a sovereign and a servant.
            2. Israel was God’s servant.
            3. Therefore, Israel had no sovereignty.

            However, if you will notice, I directly refuted your first premise in my third argument. Christ was both a servant and a sovereign. Therefore sovereignty and servitude are not mutually exclusive. Your entire argument seems to rest on this premise, and I have shown it to be false. Therefore your entire argument is false.

  4. BillFortenberry says:

    In regards to the statement in Article VI that the Constitution is the “supreme Law of the Land,” let me point out that the founders never intended by the use of this phrase to claim that the Constitution was superior to the Law of God. They intended only to convey the idea that of all the laws written by the various states of the land, the Constitution is to be considered supreme. It is superior to all other “laws of the land” not to all other laws.

    That this was the view intended by the founders is evident from Federalist Paper Number 44 which states:

    “The indiscreet zeal of the adversaries to the constitution, has betrayed them into an attack on this part of it also without which it would have been evidently and radically defective. To be fully sensible of this, we need only suppose for a moment, that the supremacy of the state constitutions had been left complete, by a saving clause in their favour.

    In the first place, as these constitutions invest the state legislatures with absolute sovereignty, in all cases not excepted by the existing articles of confederation, all the authorities contained in the proposed constitution, so far as they exceed those enumerated in the confederation, would have been annulled, and the new congress would have been reduced to the same impotent condition with their predecessors.

    In the next place, as the constitutions of some of the states do not even expressly and fully recognize the existing powers of the confederacy, an express saving of the supremacy of the former, would in such states have brought into question, every power contained in the proposed constitution.

    In the third place, as the constitutions of the states differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law of great and equal importance to the states would interfere with some, and not with other constitutions, and would consequently be valid in some of the states, at the same time that it would have no effect in others.

    In fine, the world would have seen for the first time, a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all government; it would have seen the authority of the whole society every where subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members.”

    The Law of God was never considered by the founders to be inferior to the Constitution. In fact, they rested the justification for their independence solely upon His Law as I explained in this article: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/current-events/what-is-the-law-of-natures-god

    To view the Constitution as superior to the Law of God would have been completely foreign to the founders. They were all well acquainted with the commentaries of Sir William Blackstone who wrote that, “Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law
    of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human law
    should be suffered to contradict these.” (http://www.increasinglearning.com/the-source-of-the-law.html)

    And James Wilson, one of the few founders to have signed both the Declaration and the Constitution as well as one of our first Justices of the Supreme Court, wrote that “Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law, which is divine.” (http://books.google.com/books?id=UlxHAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA103)

    To say that Article VI abrogates the Law of God is to wholly disregard the intent of that article and force upon it your own flawed perspective.

    • I know you wish this is how it was. In fact, as long as you claim to be a Christian on one hand and promote the Constitution on the other hand, what other choice do you have but to say that the Constitution is subservient to Yahweh and His law? However, wishing it were so and being so aren’t the same thing.

      Since the inception of the Constitutional Republic, our history is replete with statements like Wilson’s. And, while I wish Wilson (and so many others) really meant what he said, the fact is, what he said isn’t worth a hill beans the moment he put his name to a document that in so many places is both antithetical and seditious to Yahweh and His law. He either didn’t know Yahweh’s law well enough to know what he was doing or his statement was nothing but lip service. Regardless, Matthew 7 applies to him and his statement:

      “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness [anomian].'” (Matthew 7:21-23)

      Without adjudicating Yahweh’s triune law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments), his statement is as meaningless as when, in 1982 in Public Law 97-280, Congress declared the Bible is the “Word of God” and “Holy Scripture.” Wilson’s comment accomplished little, if anything, more for Yahweh and the application of His law than did Public Law 97-280.

      As for the god and laws referred to in the Declaration of Independence, they certainly were not Yahweh and His laws. Thomas Jefferson was an antichrist who cut the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and ascension of
      Christ – what he described as a “dunghill” – out of his cut-and-paste
      New Testament (Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 24 January 1814, Lester J. Cappon, ed., The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams (Williamsburg, VA: Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1988) p. 384.) As such, according to 2 John 1:7-9, the god he promoted in the Declaration is not Yahweh. Instead, it was the generic god of the Rationalists and Freemasons.

      Be careful that you don’t find yourself participating in Jefferson’s sins: 2 John 1:10-11.

      • BillFortenberry says:

        Your response brings to mind a question that I have often thought of asking you, and I suppose that this is a good time to do so. Do you hold to the opinion that the entire Law of God is still in effect for everyone today, or do you postulate that only certain portions are still effectual while other portions are no longer applicable? If you don’t mind, I would appreciate it if you would provide scriptural support for your position in either case.

        As for the God that Jefferson referenced in the Declaration, I would like for you to consider the position that I advanced in this article: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/current-events/what-is-the-law-of-natures-god.

        • Surely you’ve got to know that Lord Bolingbroke’s religion and god was nearly as suspect as Jefferson’s. Even if it hadn’t been, this changes nothing about what I wrote above.

          As for your question regarding the Law of God: see “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/law-kingdomFrame.html.

          • BillFortenberry says:

            Thank you, Ted. I suspected that you probably had something already written on that question. I agree with much of what you said in that article, but I noticed something peculiar. The section labeled “What Exactly” is without any Scriptural support. How do you know that the portion of God’s Law which was added at Mt. Sinai was limited to “the Levitical priesthood, obligatory compliance to Yahweh’s already existing commandments, statutes, and judgments, and animal sacrifices for justification”? More particularly, can you point to a passage of Scripture which indicates that stoning itself (not the sentence of death but this particular method of execution) was part of God’s original Law and was not added at Mt. Sinai?

            As for Bolingbroke’s beliefs, let me direct you to one of the discussions of that topic which I participated in over at the American Creation blog: http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2013/04/bolingbroke-and-influence-of-english.html

          • You’re welcome.

            Actually, if you understood what I wrote previous to the section entitled “What Exactly,” nearly everything therein provides Scriptural support for that section. The fact that you have asked this question, indicates you perhaps didn’t completely understand it or I did a poor job of explaining myself.

            Although there is no one passage that explains what laws have been carried over to the New Covenant, except for the extreme antinomians who don’t even believe the Ten Commandments are for today, everyone else (pronomians and antinomians alike) makes a determination regarding what laws are for today and what laws are not. You claim to be a pronomian; how do you make that determination? I hope it’s not by only what’s repeated in the New Testament. In that case, you would have to eliminate the Third Commandment, the statute prohibiting bestiality, and a number of other statutes which I’m confident you wouldn’t do.

            There are many laws that are neither specifically provided in the Pre-Sinai Old Testament, nor in the New Testament that I think you would agree were in effect in all three covenants, and, in fact all the way back to Adam and Eve–once again, bestiality for one example. Yahweh’s basic morality doesn’t change and, therefore, I would, once again, hope that you would agree that bestiality has always been and always will be abominable to Yahweh.

            With this in mind, knowing that His Ten Commandments reflect His morality, we can agree that His Commandments (and the statutes that explain them, and the judgments that enforce them) were in effect before Mt. Sinai and have not changed today under the New Covenant.

            As for stoning (particularly if we really believe Psalm 19:9), we no more have the right to change His method than we do the death penalty itself, particularly when other requisites (such as the requirement for the witnesses to throw the first stones) are tied to it.

            I hope these briefs thoughts prove helpful.

            Thank you for the discussion link; I’ll take a look first opportunity I get.

          • BillFortenberry says:

            Forgive me for taking so long to respond. I had a few things come up that needed tending to. Now, you still haven’t explained exactly how you determine which laws are part of God’s eternal covenant and which were added at Mt. Sinai. You have stated that everyone makes such judgements, but unless you can point out an exact method for determining whether a particular law must be followed today, then I don’t see why anyone should agree with your selection instead of making their own determination about which laws to follow.

            You mentioned the Ten Commandments reflecting God’s morality, but you haven’t proven that from the Scriptures. I’m not saying that you are either right or wrong in that statement. I’m simply pointing out that you have not given any reason for anyone to agree with you unless you expect everyone to accept your opinion as a revelation from God.

            You also made an extension from the Ten Commandments to all the statutes and judgements associated with those commandments. The only Scripture which you provided to justify this extension was Psalm 19:9, but interpreting Psalm 19:9 to mean that every judgement which God ever gave is to be permanently followed by all godly governments would mean that Psalm 19:7-8 should be interpreted to say that the entire content of the Pentateuch should be followed today. There is no distinction in this Psalm between the laws, commandments, statutes and judgements which were to be followed for a limited time and those which are to be followed in all times.

            Your interpretation of Psalm 19:9 would mean, for example, that you are still bound by Numbers 15:38-40 which states:

            “Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue: And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring: That ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God.”

            This is clearly a statute which is associated with all of the commandments, both those which apply today and those which do not. Do you think that you are required to have fringed borders and blue ribbons on your garments? If not, then you need to provide an explanation beyond Psalm 19:9 to explain why.

            In regards to stoning in particular, let me ask you an additional question. If the statutes and judgements are just as permanent as the commandments with which they are associated, then that means that they must have been just as binding before the Law given at Mt. Sinai as they were afterwards. In light of this, can you demonstrate that stoning was always the means by which God expected His commandment against murder to be carried out?