Print Friendly, PDF & Email

 [T]he law is ignored and justice is never upheld. For the wicked surround the righteous; therefore, justice comes out perverted. (Habakkuk 1:4)

November 19, 2013, was the 150th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. The speech has become iconic. On June 1, 1865, Senator Charles Sumner described the Gettysburg Address as a “monumental act” and “the battle itself … less important than the speech.”1

Iconic, yes. But the fact that the speech came from the lips of President Lincoln2 and that it’s so often used to represent the Constitutional Republic is a red flag. But more important, how does it fare when compared with Scripture?

Created Equal

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

This is, of course, referring to Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. The language is that of the Enlightenment (perhaps even Masonry), but not the Bible. The Bible never declares that all men were created equal. In fact, quite the opposite. For example: Before the foundation of the world,3 the Israelites were chosen by Yahweh4 to be His wife5 (under both Old and New Covenants alike6). This is an exceptionally privileged position, “above all people that are on the face of the earth.”7 In Romans 9:10-13, the Apostle Paul informs us that before Esau was born, he was destined to serve Jacob so that “the purpose of God according to election might stand.” It may not be politically or religiously correct, but men were created to be anything but equal.

Conceived in Liberty

President Lincoln began his speech by claiming that the United States Republic was “conceived in liberty.” The Preamble of the United States’ Constitution states one of its purposes was to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” 2 Corinthians 3:17 informs us “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” How then could a document that is devoid of Yahweh (except, perhaps, as the Paper’s timekeeper in Article 7), Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit secure true liberty for anyone?

R.J. Rushdoony pointed out the sophistry of governments based upon freedom:

….[A] society which makes freedom its primary goal will lose it, because it has made, not responsibility, but freedom from responsibility, its purpose. When freedom is the basic emphasis, it is not responsible speech which is fostered but irresponsible speech. If freedom of press is absolutized, libel will be defended finally as a privilege of freedom, and if free speech is absolutized, slander finally becomes a right. Religious liberty becomes a triumph of irreligion. Tyranny and anarchy take over. Freedom of speech, press, and religion all give way to controls, totalitarian controls. The goal must be God’s law-order, in which alone is true liberty.8

Societal liberty is found only in the Bible’s perfect law of liberty:

But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. (James 1:25)

James was not describing some New Covenant law that allegedly frees us to do whatever we wish. That kind of freedom is nothing more than baptized humanism, which eventually leads to anarchism, one of the quickest paths to legal slavery. What James was describing was the same perfect law of liberty—Yahweh’s commandments, statutes, and judgments—that King David wrote about:

So shall I keep thy law continually for ever and ever. And I will walk at liberty…. (Psalm 119:44-45)

This was the same law David described as “perfect” in Psalm 19:7.

Forgiveness (liberty from our personal sins) is realized through Jesus’ blood-atoning sacrifice and resurrection from the grave. All other liberty is found in the implementation and enforcement of Yahweh’s perfect law of liberty—never in the hollow promises of man-made covenants, such as the United States Constitution. Yahweh’s grace on the personal level and Yahweh’s law on the community level are our only means to true freedom. When either of these is abused, freedom is also abused:

Whenever freedom is made into the absolute, the result is not freedom but anarchism. Freedom must be under law, or it is not freedom…. Only a law-order which holds to the primacy of God’s law can bring forth true freedom, freedom for justice, truth, and godly life. Freedom as an absolute is simply an assertion of man’s “right” to be his own god; this means a radical denial of God’s law-order. “Freedom” thus is another name for the claim by man to divinity and autonomy. It means that man becomes his own absolute.9

The Spirit of the Lord cannot be found in the Constitution because Yahweh and His perfect law of liberty were flagrantly disregarded by its framers.10 Without the Spirit of the Lord, true liberty is impossible.

[M]y people are gone into captivity … because they have cast away the law of YHWH of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel. (Isaiah 5:13, 24)

Abraham Lincoln was wrong. The United States Constitutional Republic was not conceived in liberty but instead in bondage to a political system hostile to Yahweh’s.10

See Part 2.

 

Related posts:

Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

Rights, Rights, Everyone Wants Their Rights

America’s Hell: Paved With Rights

 

1. Abraham Lincoln Online, “The Gettysburg Address,” <http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm.>

2. The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, Thomas DiLorenzo.

3. Ephesians 1:4

4. 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. It was unlawfully deleted by the English translators. In obedience to the Third Commandment and the many Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, we have chosen to memorialize His name here in this document and in our lives. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”

5. Jeremiah 3:11-14

6. Romans 9:3-4; Hebrews 8:8-9.

For more regarding to Yahweh’s marriage to Israel under both Old and New Covenants alike, see The Mystery of the Gentiles: Who Are They and Where Are They Now?

7. Exodus 19:5; Deuteronomy 7:6,14, 10:15, 14:2, 26:18-19, Psalm 135:4; 1 Peter 2:9

8. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) p. 581.

9. Ibid., p. 583.

10. Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

  1. Gregory Alan of Johnson says:

    The only Biblical government that will exist on this planet is the Thousand-year reign of Christ. By the issue of the nonredeemable flesh of Man it cannot exist otherwise.

    • Gregory, thanks for responding. But, are you suggesting that until “then,” Christians should just sit back, stare off into heaven, and twiddle their thumbs and wait, and wait, and wait… for the millennium? Doesn’t that depict what, in Matthew 5:13, Christ described as salt that’s lost its savor, good for nothing but to be trampled under the foot of man?

      Which would you prefer? Today’s humanistic government of, by, and for finite man based upon man’s fickle traditions (Matthew 15:6-9) or the 1600 Colonial governments of, by, and for Yahweh based upon His immutable morality as codified in His perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-11)?

      Did the Colonials get it perfect? Of course not–they were finite men. But, I can tell you this: Being they began with Yahweh’s perfect law, they got much closer to perfection than did those who began with man’s traditions. And any debacle stemming from their departure from Yahweh’s moral law only goes to prove what happens when man strays (in area of life) from His everlasting righteousness and immutable morality as reflected in His commandments, statutes, and judgments.

      • Isabella says:

        Please tell me do you have an opinion whether we should work to establish a theocracy in the United States?

        • Isabella, thank you for responding.

          The fact is, what we have today is a theocracy. When one understands that the principal means by which we keep the First Commandment is by observing Yahweh’s other moral laws and that idolatry is not so much about statues as it is statutes, it becomes clear that all governments are theocratic, serving either the true God or some false god, demonstrated by what laws they keep and consider the supreme law of the land.

          Furthermore, all non-existent false gods (1Corinthians 8:4-6) always have been and always will represent we the people in one form or another.

          “…There is no escaping theocracy. A government’s laws reflect its morality, and the source of that morality (or, more often than not, immorality) is its god. It is never a question of theocracy or no theocracy, but whose theocracy. The American people, by way of their elected officials, are the source of the Constitutional Republic’s laws. Therefore, the Constitutional Republic’s god is WE THE PEOPLE.

          “People recoil at the idea of a theocracy’s morality being forced upon them, but because all governments are theocracies, someone’s morality is always being enforced. This is an inevitability of government. The question is which god, theocracy, laws, and morality will we choose to live under?…”

          For more, see online Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.html.

      • Gregory Alan of Johnson says:

        Thanks for your response, Brother.
        My efforts are to either cancel or take authority over ALL municipal contracts that exist because I was gestated from my Mother’s womb. I’m also in efforts to establish my un-a-lien-able right of Travel, so as to NOT have ANY contract with the Luciferian controlled (Matthew 4) municipal authorities. I’m also learning mathematical English (Preposition-Article-Noun phrasing), due to the knowledge that the municipal corporations use verb/adverb fiction phrasing.
        As you want a government on this earth that is exclusively Y’hoVah-God run, I stand that my efforts might be more viable by a hair. By no means am I “inactive”.
        As for the Colonial days, Freemasonry/Illuminati was much more influential than we’ll ever know. I especially consider Ben Franklin 10X the traitor than Benedict Arnold could ever dream of.
        The Bible was part of America’s beginning, and only one of many books used by the Founding Fathers.

        • Gregory, when speaking of the Colonial days, I’m referring to the 1600 Puritans, not the late 1700 framers and founders.

          • Isabella says:

            Many theologians would disagree that Calvin began with God’s perfect law. I think he began with a lot of imperfection from the Catholic Church, Ted. I am thinking of the Nicean Counsel and the rewriting of scripture by the Popes that ensued. Thank you for your response.

          • T. Edward Price says:

            Isabella, you are correct. There is absolutely no doubt that Calvin lacked adequate understanding of Yahweh’s perfect law. This is one of the major problems with the entire reformation movement. By the time of the reformation, Scripture had become so distorted by Romanism, that the reformers held presuppositional views that were grounded in error. This was set in motion long before Nicea, but the original Nicean Council codified the Catholic Church, as the counterfeit usurper of Yahweh’s perfect, immutable law, and it’s administrator here on earth. I can’t speak for Ted, but I’m sure that he would agree with me, at least in part. The Puritans had a much better understanding of Yahweh’s perfect law, than did either the papists, or the typical reformationists. A better path to the proper understanding and implementation of Yahweh’s law, would be taking a restorationist approach, seeking to restore the gospel, (including His perfect law) to its original state, during the time of the apostles and early disciples. It is in the restoration of the church, and God’s Kingdom here on earth, that we can once again ,truly enjoy Christian liberty.

          • Isabella says:

            My understanding is the lack of tolerance among religious groups, held over from the European religious treachery and wars they were fleeing, was grounds for the formation of states here, in the states back then. Were problems experienced in Europe lessened here by the colonists’ separation from Europe? My history courses in college did not give details like these.

            Secondly, why did the Romans see the need to rewrite, ignore, discard – in some cases I have heard – burn, ancient writings? That knowledge is so violent to one’s testimony of the gospel. What can be done, and is anyone doing restoration?

        • the cat's name is Bob says:

          And it isn’t nation building.

      • the cat's name is Bob says:

        ***until “then,” Christians should just sit back, stare off into heaven, and twiddle their thumbs and wait, and wait, and wait… for the millennium***

        You were given something to do, and it wasn’t a suggestion…

        1 Corinthians 11:1

        And it wasn’t nation building

  2. Fr. John+ says:

    Excellent post, sir.

  3. Jim Rizoli says:

    Being a believer that man has failed to rule himself PS 127:1…I am at odds with Ted on the topic of man coming up with any Govt even coming close to representing Gods righteous Govt. on this earth today, no matter how righteous they try to be, or how well they get their act together.
    Secondly the Bible speaks of a cleansing of the earth and the removal of all man made govts. and the establishment of Gods Kingdom Dan 2:44. NOT made with mans hands at all but entirely made by God. It might sound like I’m a deftest on man attempting to pull anything off in redeeming himself or this earth but man has been judged and now awaits the winds of destruction. Rev 7: 1-4
    The only positive thing we can do is living a life that represents being a candidate for living within the realms of God Kingdom, and helping others to see that Gods Kingdom is the only hope for mankind.
    There are too many forces in opposition to Gods Govt on this earth today to ever get any movement by men/women to be a force for good. The main obstacle is religion itself
    with the mainland Apostate Christian counterfeits and the Synagogue of Satan itself the Jews who are the main opposers of what is true and righteous.
    All of them will be on the receiving end of what Rev 18:4-6 says.
    So it all comes down to this are we to waste our time and efforts in building on a rotten foundation or are we better off starting from scratch.
    I take the promises mentioned in Dan 2:44

    Jim Rizoli
    jjrizo on youtube
    CCFIILE.COM

    • Jim, thanks for responding.

      You wrote, “I am at odds with Ted on the topic of man coming up with any Govt even
      coming close to representing Gods righteous Govt. on this earth today,
      no matter how righteous they try to be, or how well they get their act
      together.”

      I agree that finite fickle finite man will never get it perfect–after all, we’re finite and fickle. That said, do you think, man will get closer to perfection using some form of his own finite fickle “law” or by employing Yahweh’s perfect law (Deuteronomy 4:5-8, 28:1-14, Psalm 19:7-11, etc.) as the the standard for society?

      Who do you think Yahweh was more pleased with: the late 1700 founders who established governments of, by, and for the people, based upon capricious Enlightenment and Masonic concepts or the 1600 Colonials (fail as they did to get it perfect) who established governments of, by, and for God, based upon His immutable moral law?

      Daniel 2:44, Isaiah 9:6-7, etc. are some of the passages I love and point to. Does man’s involvement in trying to implement the kingdom here on earth as it is in heaven via Yahweh’s law mean that man is trying to do it on his own? Who do you think Yahweh’s views did it on their own: The late 1700 founders or the 1600 Colonials?

      Just some additional thoughts to consider.

      I know you probably already read them and disagree, but for those haven’t, let me recommend the two-part blog series “Republic or Kingdom: Which are YOU Promoting?” Parts 1 & 2 at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/republic-or-kingdom-which-are-you-promoting-pt-1/, followed by “10 Reasons the Kingdom Here on Earth Isn’t Mission Impossible” at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/10-reasons-the-kingdom-here-on-earth-isnt-mission-impossible/.