I appreciate much that Pastor Baldwin stands for. As compared with most of today’s pastors, he’s one in a million. Given the time to sit down and compare notes, he and I would probably find more that we agree than disagree on. Nevertheless, I couldn’t differ with him more when it comes to his promotion of the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land, per Article 6. In fact, he undermines much of the good he could otherwise accomplish if it weren’t for what seems to be an undying devotion to the biblically adverse Constitution. This is tragically true of not only Pastor Baldwin but of many of today’s pastors and ministry leaders.
As well-intentioned as I’m confident Pastor Baldwin is in his article “How Christians and Conservatives are Helping to Destroy America,” I cannot in good conscience let this article stand unchallenged. There’s far too much at stake. Consequently, it merits a response:
Chuck Baldwin: “What makes America America? What distinguishes this country from the nations of the world—or from world history, for that matter? Even casual historians must admit that there has never been a country like the United States of America ever to exist. This nation is unique to world history. There has never been a country like this—and probably will never be one like it again.”
Ted Weiland: America’s greatness is equivalent to God’s blessings upon her. So why did America become such a great nation? Deuteronomy 28:1-14 provides the answer. Yahweh1 pours out His blessings upon nations that look to His moral law as the supreme law of the land:
Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as Yahweh my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as Yahweh our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day? (Deuteronomy 4:5-8)
Consequently, America’s greatness was not the result of the late 18th-century humanistic government of, by, and for the people, based upon Enlightenment and Masonic concepts. Instead, Yahweh blessed America as a result of the 17th-century’s Christian Colonials’ governments of, by, and for God, based upon His immutable moral law.2
Because Yahweh is also true to His word in Deuteronomy 28:15-68, we know America began to be cursed the moment the Constitution was adopted. It was only by God’s grace and mercy she lost her blessings incrementally. However, without repentance for our national apostasy, it was inevitable America would find herself where she is today: well on her way to being fully cursed.
CB: “As hard as it is for the anti-God types to admit, America has a deeply-rooted Christian history and culture. However, when one says, “America is a Christian country,” (usually spoken by a Christian, of course), he or she may mean something that NEVER existed. So, let’s set the record straight: America was never founded as a theocracy. And even though there are some well-meaning, albeit naïve, Christian people today who pretend that America once had, and should have again, a theocratic-type government and society, the fact is, America was NEVER a theocracy.
TW: Pastor Baldwin could not be more incorrect about theocracies, and for two reasons.
First, if we’re to believe men such as Alexis de Tocqueville, William McGuffey, and Pastor John Cotton, then America (or at least portions thereof) was in fact a Biblical theocracy:
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835:
They [the 1600 Colonials] exercised the rights of sovereignty; they named their magistrates, concluded peace or declared war, made police regulations, and enacted laws as if their allegiance was due only to God. Nothing can be more curious and, at the same time more instructive, than the legislation of that period; it is there that the solution of the great social problem which the United States now presents to the world is to be found [in perfect fulfillment of Deuteronomy 4:5-8].
Amongst these documents we shall notice, as especially characteristic, the code of laws promulgated by the little State of Connecticut in 1650. The legislators of Connecticut begin with the penal laws, and … they borrow their provisions from the text of Holy Writ … copied verbatim from the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy….
America was exalted in the eyes of the world because of her applied righteousness, embodied in Yahweh’s perfect law. Since 1788, when the United States of America, as a nation, [officially and nationally] stopped following Yahweh’s laws and began following the laws of WE THE PEOPLE, our legislation has ceased providing righteous instruction to others. Instead, the rest of the world now holds America in disdain. If America hopes to regain her favored status in the eyes of the world, she must return to her original Constitution.
McGuffey’s Eclectic Reader, America’s most popular school book in the 1800s, also testified to America’s early form of theocratic government:
Their form of government was as strictly theocratical insomuch that it would be difficult to say where there was any civil authority among them distinct from ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Whenever a few of them settled a town, they immediately gathered themselves into a church; and their elders were magistrates, and their code of laws was the Pentateuch…. God was their King; and they regarded him as truly and literally so….
William McGuffey was undoubtedly influenced by the writings of renowned early American preachers such as John Cotton:
The famous John Cotton, the first minister of Boston … earnestly pleaded “that the government might be considered as a theocracy, wherein the Lord was judge, lawgiver and king; that the laws which He gave Israel might be adopted….” At the desire of the court, he compiled a system of laws founded chiefly on the laws of Moses….3
Were de Tocqueville, McGuffey, Cotton, and others naive for viewing Colonial America as theocratic, as was suggested by Pastor Baldwin? I don’t think so.
The second reason Pastor Baldwin errs regarding theocracies is because all governments are theocracies.
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 apparent that all governments are theocratic. They serve either the true God or some false god, as demonstrated by what laws they keep and consider the supreme law of the land.
Furthermore, all nonexistent false gods always represent we the people in one form or another. In other words, today’s We the Peopleism is just a contemporary form of Baalism.4
…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?…5
CB: The only theocracy in the history of the world was Old Testament Israel under Moses.
TW: Obviously untrue.
CB: After the death of Moses, God expected Israel to be governed by the principles established through Moses…. Only through Moses did God directly govern the people. And even within the government of Israel, God established the roots of what became known as republican (small “r”) government….
TW:
…Constitutionalists insist the United States government is a republic, not a democracy, but they never stop to consider that the two are virtually the same regarding sovereignty.
Christian Constitutionalists further insist republics are Biblical. However, because republics (like democracies) rely upon the majority vote of the people for the selection of their leaders, rather than upon Yahweh’s choice (as per Deuteronomy 17:15), republics are not anymore Biblical than are democracies. Both democracies and republics culminate in a government of, by, and for the people rather than a government of, by, and for Yahweh. The same is true with other issues voted upon by the people: ultimately the majority’s will is exalted over Yahweh’s will.
As demonstrated in Chapter 3, both republican and Christian governments are ultimately theocracies. As a result, they are incompatible and hostile to each other. A republic looks to the people as its sovereign; a Christian theocracy looks to Yahweh. The very definition of a sovereign, or supreme ruler, excludes simultaneous sovereigns….6
CB: So, if by “Christian nation” people mean that America was established as some sort of theocracy, they are gravely mistaken. It is also unfortunate that some well-meaning (at least, I think they are well-meaning) Christian people give the unchurched world the impression that they are trying to create some sort of theocracy in America today. Some even go so far as to teach that we don’t need a Constitution or State and municipal laws—and any such laws are themselves evil. This is an asinine philosophy, to say the least.
TW: Such laws are evil only if they violate Yahweh’s moral triune law.7 This is the standard by which everything (including the U.S. Constitution) must be ethically examined.
When the Constitution is actually examined by this standard, it’s found to be anything but biblically compatible. In fact, there is hardly an Article or Amendment that is not antithetical, if not seditious, to Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality.8
CB: I, for one, would never want a so-called theocracy administered by the likes of the vast majority of Christian teachers and pastors today.
TW: Nor would I. Most of today’s Christians pastors and teachers would never be in the position of administering a Biblical theocracy because the majority of them do not meet the Biblical qualifications.9
CB: Are you kidding? Most of them can’t even govern a small congregation of believers who are ostensibly assembled under the same ideology, same eschatology, same ecclesiology, etc. Have you been to a church business meeting lately? You really want those people dictating national laws? God forbid!
TW: Although Pastor Baldwin has a legitimate concern regarding today’s pastors and teachers, his objection is nonetheless a straw man. His concerns about the dearth of biblically qualified men does not trump the fact that government and society should be established on Yahweh’s moral law.
Follow Pastor Baldwin’s reasoning to its logical conclusion and one can only conclude that he prefers a government administered by unregenerate men employing their own fickle finite “laws” (Judges 21:25, Matthew 15:6-9) over biblically qualified men employing Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-11) as the standard for society.
CB: No! There is no Moses on the scene today with new revelation dictating God’s will for the nation.
TW: We don’t need a Moses today. God has already provided us with His triune moral law by which we’re to be governed.10 What we need are biblically qualified judges who will implement and adjudicate Yahweh’s law instead of their own capricious edicts:
Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers…. And let them judge the people at all seasons…. (Exodus 18:21-22)
The Bible stipulates, among other things, that judicial appointees must be men of truth who fear Yahweh and hate covetousness. (See Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” for a list of additional Biblical qualifications.) The United States Constitution requires no Biblical qualifications whatsoever. Nowhere does the Constitution stipulate that judges must rule on behalf of Yahweh, rendering decisions based upon His commandments, statutes, and judgments as required in Exodus 18. That not even one constitutional framer contended for Yahweh, as did King Jehoshaphat, speaks volumes about the framers’ disregard for Him and His judicial system:
And he [King Jehoshaphat] set judges in the land throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city by city, and said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for YHWH, who is with you in the judgment…. And he charged them, saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of YHWH, faithfully, and with a perfect heart. (2 Chronicles 19:5-9)11
CB: That being said, there is no mistaking the fact that America has a deeply-rooted, rich Christian tradition.
TW: Indeed! A rich and deeply-rooted 17th-century American Christian tradition when the Christian Colonials established governments of, by, and for God, based upon His moral law. That all changed when the constitutional framers rejected Yahweh’s law for their own Enlightenment and Masonic concepts.12
CB: America’s founders, even those who were not professing Christians [emphasis added], as we understand the term today, acknowledged that fact….
TW: Pastor Baldwin has inadvertently highlighted one of at least two reasons why the Constitutional Republic was doomed from its inception:
Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. (Matthew 12:25)
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)
The second reason is found in the following passage:
And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. (Matthew 7:26-27)
The house known as the Constitutional Republic was not built upon the rock of God’s Word but upon the sand of non-Christian Enlightenment thinkers, such as John Locke.
CB: Noah Webster (himself an outspoken Christian, of course), said, “The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free Constitutions of Government.”
TW: The standard for determining whether the Constitution is Biblical is not a bunch of dead men’s (often cherry-picked) quotations but instead the Word of God—particularly His immutable moral law:
Recognizing the Bible and Christianity’s influence upon society is not the same as legislating and adjudicating according to Yahweh’s law. One only needs to look at the record to know there has been a dearth of the latter since the Constitution’s ratification.13
Why is this? This was not the case in the 1600s Colonial governments.
In order to conclude the Constitution is a Christian document, today’s Christian Constitutionalists have severed the framers’ words from their actions. To date, the battle between Christians and secularists over the Constitution has been a war of quotations—and there are plenty to go around for both sides, often from the same framers….
The only means of determining whether the framers were Christians is to compare their actions to the Word of God:
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity [anomian – lawlessness]. (Matthew 7:21-23)
This is a perfect description of the constitutional framers. Although some of them claimed to be Christians, they openly practiced lawlessness [beginning with the Constitution they framed].13
CB: Webster also said, “When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God. The preservation of a republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty.”….
TW: Although I appreciate Webster’s sentiments, God never entitled man to vote for anyone. The framers usurped the Biblical election process by which we end up with the best of the best of two or more biblically qualified candidates, every single time. They replaced it with constitutional elections (what amounts to not much more than a popularity contest) that, thanks to Article 6’s Christian test ban (which all but eliminated Biblical qualifications) can, at best, only provide the best of the worst.14
CB: Daniel Webster noted the following: “Finally, let us not forget the religious character of our origin. Our fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the Christian religion. They journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary.”….
TW: Indeed! Our 1600s Pilgrim and Puritan fathers. This is not true of most of the late 1700s lawyers, Freemasons, and Enlightenment boys.
For more regarding the late 1700s founders’ true religious persuasions, see Dr. Albert Mohler’s interview with Dr. Gregg Frazer. Dr. Frazer proves from the key founders’ own writings that they were neither Deists in the purest sense of the word, nor Christians in the Biblical sense. Instead, they were Theistic Rationalists.
Dr. Mohler is President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Frazer is Professor of History of the Master’s College in California.
CB: America’s founders never thought they were creating a theocracy, but they did have a “high veneration” for the Christian faith and “sought to incorporate its principles” into American government.
TW: Then why is there hardly an Article or Amendment that’s not hostile to Yahweh’s triune moral law?15
CB: The principles of the Christian faith include both Natural and Revealed Law. The Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, especially, clearly illustrate the founder’s understanding and appreciation for these principles.
TW: The standard is always God Almighty’s morality as codified in His revealed law, not some undefined natural law. By this standard, the Constitution is found to be biblically seditious and is the reason America finds herself teetering on the precipice of moral depravity and destruction.
The sins of the late 1700s founders were of both commission and omission. By their sins of omission alone they doomed America to its present deplorable state of affairs:
…3. Every problem America faces today can be traced back to the fact that the framers failed to expressly establish a government upon Yahweh’s immutable morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments. (Would infanticide and sodomy be tolerated, let alone financed by the government, if Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments were the law of the land? Would Islam be a looming threat to our peace and security if the First Amendment had been replaced with the First Commandment? Would Americans be in nearly as much debt if usury had been outlawed as a form of theft? Would crime be as rampant if “cruel and unusual punishment” had not been outlawed and criminals were instead punished with Yahweh’s altogether righteous judgments? Would we be on the fiscal cliff if we were taxed with a flat increase tax rather than a graduated income tax?)….16
CB: The Declaration begins, “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which THE LAWS OF NATURE AND OF NATURE’S GOD [emphasis added] entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the cause which impel them to the separation.
“We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT [emphasis added], that all men are CREATED [emphasis added] equal, that they are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR [emphasis added] with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
TW: The generic “nature’s god” and “creator” of the Masons and Enlightenment boys was not the God of the Bible, and to embrace that god is to reject Yahweh. Thomas Jefferson, who cut the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and ascension of Christ (what he described as a “dunghill” 17) out of his cut-and-paste New Testament, was the chief architect of the Declaration. Be very careful who and what you endorse:
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your [personal, State, White, Senate, or the] house [of Representatives], neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. (2 John 1:7-11)
CB: As Thomas Jefferson quickly penned the Declaration (and he did write it rather quickly), he was borrowing heavily from John Locke and the commonly understood principles of Natural Law. Though the founders were dissimilar in regards to their understanding of Biblical teaching, to a man, they understood and agreed with the “self-evident” principles of Natural Law, or “the Laws of Nature.”
TW: This speaks volumes to the Enlightenment influence upon the founders:
The framers nowhere attributed the inspiration for any specific article or amendment in the Constitution to the Bible or the laws of Yahweh. After reviewing over 2,200 political writings published between 1760 and 1805, David S. Lutz and Charles S. Hyneman came to some very interesting conclusions regarding the Bible’s influence upon the constitutional framers and others of that period. Lutz admitted that while the “book … most frequently cited by Americans during the founding era [was] … the Book of Deuteronomy, … the Bible’s prominence disappears [during the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate over the Constitution],” and “the Federalists’ inclination to Enlightenment rationalism is most evident here in their failure to consider the Bible relevant.”18 Between the 1770s and ‘80s, Biblical quotations decreased among both Federalists and Anti-Federalists, while Enlightenment and Whig citations increased.19
CB: Furthermore, virtually every “right” enumerated in the Bill of Rights can be traced directly to commonly understood principles contained in Natural and Revealed Law. That fact is unassailable.
TW: America was sold down the river when the late 1700s founders replaced God-expected Biblical responsibilities with optional Enlightenment rights, which are easily controlled by whatever government happens to be in power. One need look no further than the Amendment with the wording “shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment is the most infringed, licensed, and limited Amendment of the entire twenty-seven. Furthermore, a future generation of our posterity are likely to see the Second Amendment completely whittled away or repealed altogether. This is the inherent nature and danger of optional rights.
Although the Second Amendment is the closest thing to being Biblical in the Constitution, the framers robbed it of its potency when they made bearing arms in defense of ourselves, our families, and neighbors an optional right rather than a God-expected responsibility:
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house [beginning with spiritual and physical protection], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (1 Timothy 5:8)20
CB: In addition to our common Christian heritage, America was united with a common language, along with a common culture and history. The loss of our Christian heritage, our common language, along with our common culture and history would certainly transform America into something other than America.
TW: This is precisely what has come of the late 18th-century founders’ capricious Enlightenment ideas codified in the Constitution.
CB: Unfortunately, however, there are those who share our common faith and history who are also contributing mightily to the destruction of America. I am talking about those who would identify themselves as Christians and/or conservatives. Of course, to hear these people talk, America’s problems are all caused by “liberals,” or Democrats….
There is absolutely no question that a national breakdown of morality is seriously problematic to the survival of a free republic. No doubt about it! My only contention on this point is that the groups mentioned above are not the true problem; they are only symptomatic of the true problem. The real problem is the CHURCH. A soft, uncommitted, carnal, materialistic, lazy, self-righteous church is the root cause of ALL of America’s problems, including the ones mentioned above….
TW: I agree. This includes Christians who ironically and tragically promote the biblically seditious Constitution as any part of the supreme law of the land.21
CB: Phariseeism is a major problem today…. The spirit of Phariseeism is so prevalent among the Church today that is no wonder why so many unbelievers refuse to darken the doors of a church. Many of today’s Christians are as enslaved to the traditions and doctrines of men as any slave anywhere…
TW: This hits the proverbial nail on the head:
…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….21
CB: Some of the most enslaved people on the planet are professing Christians. Many of our churches, Christian schools, colleges, seminaries, etc. are filled with the “servants of men.”….
TW: Many of whom are slaves of the late 1700s Enlightenment and Masonic founders and their secular Constitution, thanks to pastors and ministry leaders who are at the forefront in beguiling their adherents into believing the Constitution is a biblically compatible document.
CB: The assault against the United States is massive. We are fast losing our Christian heritage and culture—and Christians are as much to blame as anyone….
TW: I couldn’t agree more. This is predominantly being accomplished by those who are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear—that is, the biblically seditious Constitution into a Christian document. Instead, it is the principle reason America has lost her Christian heritage on a national scale.
CB: We have lost our understanding of, and appreciation for, Natural Law. Even most pastors cannot articulate the fundamental principles of Natural Law, even though this is the Law upon which America was founded….
TW: Pastor Baldwin is correct. The Constitutional Republic was not founded on the revealed law of God’s Word but on some diversely construed undefined natural law.22
CB: We cheer as our country has turned into a “Warfare State.” We applaud as our nation has turned into an Orwellian surveillance society. We are losing our common language, our common history and heritage, and our common faith. Christianity in 2014-15 is not even comparable to Christianity in 1775-76….
TW: And far less to our true 1600s Christian forbears’ Chistianity.23
CB: Yes, the very people who claim to love America the most and who claim to be interested in her blessing and prosperity are too often the very ones who are helping to destroy her.
TW: Indeed!
Related Posts:
A Christian’s Response to Chuck Baldwin’s “You might be a Constitutionalist if…”
Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective
375 Years Later: Constitution vs. Constitution
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. 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.”
2. 375 Years Later: Constitution vs. Constitution (Blog article)
3. Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
4. Could You be a Disciple of Baal and Not Know It? (Blog article)
5. Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective
6. Chapter 7 “Article 4: Republic vs. Theocracy” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective
7. A Biblical Constitution (See Article 2)
8. Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective
9. For a list of Biblical qualifications for civil leaders, see Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective
10. Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant
11. Chapter 6 “Article 6: Judicial Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
12. For more regarding these two antipodal governments, see blog article 375 Years Later: Constitution vs. Constitution
13. Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective
14. For more regarding Constitutional elections versus Biblical elections, see blog article Salvation by Election.
15. Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective
16. 5 Reasons the Constitution is Our Cutting-Edge Issue (Blog article)
17. 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.
18. Donald S. Lutz, “The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought,” The American Political Science Review (March 1984) pp. 189-97.
19. Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective
20. The Second Amendment: A Knife in a Gunfight (Audio)
The Second Amendment is Doomed (Blog Article)
21. Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective
22. For an enlightening examination of natural law from a Biblical paradigm, see Chapter 5 “Theonomy and Natural Law” of Pastor William O. Einwechter’s book Walking in the Law of the Lord: An Introduction to the Biblical Ethics of Theonomy.
23. Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective
375 Years Later: Constitution vs. Constitution (Blog article)
Ted I can see you are pretty busy this weekend putting this together great article!
Jim Rizoli
JJRIZO on YouTube
CCFIILE.COM
Law of the Land , indeed , BUT ,, check out what the Constitution writers knew that ” Land” meant . Land means “”Commerce”” , Your Ford, Your Chevy, comes from the dirt “Land”. Tell us what does NOT come from the dirt , Land? . The Bible , even says , “dust You are and to dust You shall return ” ,, dust is dirt . Point is , The Constitution IS A COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT ,, NEVER ! no way in hell will The Constitution EVER replace or downgrade The Holy Bible …
It wasn’t meant to. But you’re right, we were founded as a commercial nation right from the beginning, especially in Virginia. And the Federalist Papers also make that abundantly clear.
May Yahweh be pleased to put this response before Chuck Baldwin and give him eyes to see and ears to hear the truth. May such lead to his repentance and engagement in the battle for the Kingdom here on earth.
daniel you hit the nail on the head
my sentiments exactly although I
believe chuck is a true
believer and loves the lord jesus
lets keep praying the lord to
open his eyes on the idolotry of
the u.s. constitution.as he has done
for many as well as my self
who once was a u.s.
constitutionalist.amen
Edward, thank you for your encouraging words and support.
your welcome God bless
Amen!
Wouldn’t that be wonderful! We should all pray for Chuck and his son Timothy in this regard.
I would agree with you Ted, and this is a good response to Baldwin’s article. But it only scratches the surface of Masonic/Illuminati/Communist/Judeo-Bolshevik/New World Order control both today and at the Constitutional founding of this country. Baldwin is correct in that Christians of a Dispensational persuasion, associated with the Neo-Cons (Cohens) are indeed leading us down a road to destruction. The Edomites hiding behind the “Jews” since 125 B.C. have been through dialectic deception seeking to take back everything they believe Jacob stole from them….including rulership of the world. But that was never promised to the nation as a whole, but only to the Messiah who is Israel.
Bob, thanks for joining the discussion.
If you’re not already familiar with Chris Pinto’s work mentioned by Mr. Budny, I think you’ll find it well done, as far as it goes.
If you’re not familiar with our Mission to Israel site that also exposes the Revelation 2:9 & 3:9 Edomite influence, you can find it at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/. See especially “God’s Covenant People: Yesterday, Today and Forever” at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/gods-covenant-people/tableofcontents.php and “The Mystery of the Gentiles: Who Are They and Where Are They Now?” at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/mystery-of-gentiles/index.php.
You might also find our blog article “Swallowing Camels… Pt. 8: Article 6’s Christian Test Ban and Its Polytheistic Implications” (http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/swallowing-camels-pt-8/) especially interesting. It provides not very well known primary source documentation demonstrating the Jewish influence in eliminating the Christian test oath in Article 6.
Just be cautious of deut 23.7
Without an explanation, I’m not sure what to make of the verse you reference. The OT is full of the animosity of the Edomites for Jacobs descendants. Isaac foretold this in Genesis 27:39, 40, indicating that Esau’s posterity would turn the tables on Jacob’s. This was fulfilled in NT times as the Herods ruled the Jews….and the Herods were Edomites.
That is true that Rothschild means red shield and he was a communists ,and the word edom in the text means red, we must be careful not to say that that’s what God had in mind in the text,we must compare scripture with scripture, I do admit that it is very interesting. the word edom (similar to adam) refers to the flesh, red earth adamic nature adam =man- kind and communism is of the flesh of man not of the holy spirit of God(yahwey or Jehovah).
The Biblical and historical record indicate that this is more than just analogy. It appears that for centuries Esau’s descendants have wanted to destroy Jacob’s descendants, and take back everything they believe Jacob stole. That’s what the story of Esther is all about, and in Habakkuk 2 “the righteous one” is juxtaposed with an arrogant one (and verse nine reveals that the arrogant one is an Edomite – compare with Jeremiah 49:16 and Obadiah 4). So yes we do need to carefully examine the Scriptures about these things.
yes I was specifically referring too Rothschild(red shield}not being in the scriptures, that the word red in the bible is not speaking of him.although
Red is no doubt speaking of the Edomites, as they controlled Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and they also do today.
ive benn studying about the kazars it is said that only about 5% of jews(in modern Israel) are actual decendents of Abraham, issac, Jacob.however in the book of rev.christ twice calles the jews a synogoue of satan this I believe refers to a sect called the judaizers who were (desendents of Abraham issac, Jacob) but were not spiritual(true jews) one who is one inwardly saved by Gods grace not by circumscision or any works of the law.
Edward, be sure to check out “The Mystery of the Gentiles: Who Are They and Where Are They Now?” You can find it online at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/mystery-of-gentiles/index.php.
It should prove extremely helpful in correctly identifying today’s Israelites, Judahites, Jews, and gentiles. It also has a appendix addressing the alleged spiritual Israelites made up of converts from Israelites and non-Israelites alike.
Hope it proves helpful.
thanks ted will do
The synagogue of satan refers to Jews who opposed the Messiah, not Judaizers.
In the context of Revelation the Synagogue of Satan is made up of those who claim to be Jews but are not.
Romans 2:25-29 discusses what a true Jew is…..
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Galatians 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
Not true at all.
Trace the animosity between the Edomites and Israel down through the Scriptures, i.e. the Book of Esther is a prime example. Check out Habakkuk 2 where the Righteous One is juxtaposed to the Arrogant One, and verse 9 in conjunction with Jeremiah 49:16 and Obadiah 4 make it clear he’s an Edomite. Or Moshe Dayan claiming that the “Jews” have always lived by the sword….that is only spoke of Esau in the Scriptures, never Israel. Not to mention that the Herods were Edomites and ruled Judah at the time of Christ and the Apostles. This is a cosmic conflict.
By changing his name from Bauer to Rothschild, Meyer Amschel was revealing himself as an Edomite. This is also true of Moshe Dayan as he said that Jews have always lived by the sword – this was spoken to Esau by Isaac.
bob I will search out the matter further concerning edom in scripture (as far as your description ) I wanted to bring out these other aspects of the word edom i.e edom in the bible is a type of the flesh vs Jacob(deceiver)name changed to Israel(prince with God)is the spirit ,edom vs Jacob(Israel)the two covenants(salvation by the law vs salvation by Gods grace) ect.also Adam (edom if you will) and eve became saved(became Israel ie prince with God if u will)in genesis God clothed them with animal skins a type of Christ sacrifice
No, he was a Jew who loved money just like those in Scripture.
Rothschilds were communists?
Yes the Rothschilds are behind Communism….the Bolshevik Revolution was financed by the “capitalists” of the U.S. and Europe. Jacob Schiff sent Leon Trotsky (Davidovitch Bornstein) from New York with about 270 other “Jews” through Canada to Russia with $20 million worth of gold, while at the same time Max Warburg sent Vladimir Lenin from Germany with $5 million in gold for the revolution. Antony Sutton wrote some books about this back in the 1970’s, i.e. How Wall Street Financed the Bolshevik Revolution, How Wall Street Financed Hitler and the Nazis, and one about the Soviet Union entitled, The Best Enemy Money Can Buy. The Rothschilds are in control of the Illuminati and Masonry – just examine the Masonic Memorial Stones with the Masonic insignia on the Supreme Court Building in Israel that they built.
Your link of red Edomites to red communists is not true.
A simplistic dogmatic statement with nothing but your opinion means nothing….tell me what you know about the Edomites and the origins of Communism.
King Jesus Christ , pointed out , the Edomite Jews at , John 8 : 35–59… Today , the Lineage of Jacob Israel are the good white guys , and , the Lineage of Esau Edom are the bad white guys … Of course , both sides maybe “Bastardized” some .
They may have had an Edomite for a king but they weren’t ethnic Edomites. They were Jews and weren’t white. Are you a white supremacist?
I agree with most if not all( the issue of edom still studying it)although I am not a dispensationalists or millenialist here are some web sites on conspiracy alex jones(of whom im trying to get ted on his show) http://www.infowars.com alex jones is definatly not a millenalist,and not a rapture guy, but he is a free will Baptist instead of reformed Baptist. he also is a constitutionalist(unfortunately),other than that he has a great show,pray for him and these issues,another great site is http://www.bibleprophecyfulfilled.com God bless
There is no denying a “rapture”, as it is seen in I Corinthians 15 and I Thessalonians 4, but that doesn’t mean it follows Dispensationalism. I believe Dispensationalism is a planned deception. It seems very reasonable that a partial preterist view of Revelation is most accurate. Jerusalem is Babylon the Great Harlot (chapters 11,12,17,18), and she rides on a “red” dragon, i.e. Edom. From like 47 B.C. until either 70 or 95 A.D. the Herods ruled the Jews, and the Herods were Edomites (Idumeans).
bob im not denying the idea of rapture just the word(its not in scripture)the doctrine is transformation the idea is in the word we shall be changed in 1 cor,15 and it shall be done in a twinkling of an eye at the last trump(judgement day)we will have a Christ like resurrected body .I also believe (like you) in the partial preterist not full preterist view.i am against dispensationalism, millinealism(pre ,mid.,a- ) and against free will gospels
So what do you mean you are against “free will” gospels?
we are not saved by our so called free will or accepting christ we are dead in trespasses and sins until Christ jesus saves us (gives us the resurrection of our souls)
If Yahweh Elohim appealed to our wills to make a decisions and they can’t, that would be cruel. Calvinism and Armenianism are meant to cause division….both are in error as they link justification to works and the Apostle Paul would have none of that.
calvanism does not link justification by works of the law .armenianism yes but not calvivism (john calvin was a faithful believer).
John Calvin didn’t teach what is attributed to him, i.e. the P in tulip, rather Theodore Beza did. Beza taught that if a person didn’t maintain some ambiguous level of works, then it meant that he never was justified. Supposedly, Jacob Arminius taught the if a person didn’t maintain some ambiguous level of works, then he would lose his justification. Paul taught, unequivocally that justification has absolutely nothing to do with works. Both of these axioms are in error, because they are tying works to justification.
calvin taught like the apostle paul justification by faith alone you said calvin links justification to works that is incorrect and a serious charge
You did not read my post accurately….try again. I said it is taught as Calvinism, but it was really Beza. But I’m not of Calvin….why would I camp out on his teachings when I have the Scriptures.
but you did say in your post that calvin linked to justification by works you linked him with arminism you need to watch what you say.calvins writings are only commentary
on scriptures and not the scriptures.okay.so dont read any commentaries
why pick on just calvin just read scriptures aint you the pious one
My point was that BOTH Arminianism and Calvinism are tying works to justification – and this is an unscriptural error. I also pointed out that this part of “Calvinism” was not from Calvin, but rather add by Theodore Beza. Then I further asked why I would feel the need to follow Calvin’s teaching, i.e. be considered a “Calvinist”. Early in Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians he chastised them for developing divisions around certain men. So if that’s being some sort of “pious”, and I suppose you are insinuating a self-righteous individual….well I’m not sure what to say. I was simply stating what the Scriptures say about justification and division. And indeed I now rarely read commentaries, rather I try to let the Scriptures interpret the Scriptures. I try to get historical context and language clarity instead of interpretative ideas.
Romans 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Not sure if that’s an agreement or a disagreement….I certainly recognize what Paul said in this passage, but I’m not sure of it’s bearing on my statement.
It is only by faith that we can be saved — not by any kind of works or keeping the law handed down to Moses. From what I read in the Bible it’s also more than just saying that you believe in Jesus. Luke 10:22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him. Jesus was sent to tell us about God, the Father and His plan for man. It seems to me that our modern religion has lost sight of God, the Father by idolizing Jesus Christ. Jesus also said this: John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. Jesus came to glorify God, the Father. It was the Holy Spirit of God IN Jesus that worked the miracles and told Jesus what to say. It doesn’t matter what man thinks he knows — we need the Holy Spirit IN us to direct our life. We are supposed to be baptized with the blood, water and the Holy Spirit if we are called by God. Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen. Somehow I know inside of me that we have to let go of our beliefs that we have been taught by man and open our hearts and minds to what the Bible really says. We need God’s help to understand. Few have enough faith in God’s Word, the Bible, to not look to other men for an interpretation of what is written in plain language. Why else do you think there is these endless debates over what the Bible says and who is right and who is wrong. Its very simple — God is right and man is wrong. Turn to God for answers — NOT other men!
To an extent you are right because the Bible says we are not drawn to the truth unless we have been called. Just because you are called does not mean you will answer. That’s where free will comes in. It is your choice whether or not you will submit to God and let Him guide your every step through this life until the resurrection and God’s kingdom comes to earth.
The “last trump” happens at the end of tribulation after the battle of Armageddon. Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. Final judgment doesn’t come until a thousand years later. Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the FIRST resurrection: on such the second death (final judgment) hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
and you are correct Jerusalem(the old) is the great harlot of Babylon,the word red also refers to adam in scripture
There is a “red” thread that runs throughout the Scriptures, not just of Yahushua’s blood, but also of the animosity and blood feud that the Edomites have with the Israelites. Indeed Esau was a man of the flesh, a godless man, and a careless man – despising his birthright, just as Adam had done.
The “last trump” happens at the end of tribulation after the battle of Armageddon. Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
Good job ted,I just watched this film calle
d the hidden faith of the founding
fathers exposing the real faith that
inspired the drafting of u.s. constitution
like u. said enlightenment thinkers and
masons .dont forget the illumanati founded
by adam weishaupt of which I studied alot
about their conspiratorial influence.you gotta see this
film and others like it Go to
http://www.adullamfilms.com. May yahway bless you
Edward, thanks for recommending Chris Pinto’s work. He does an excellent job of exposing the Masonic and Illuminati connections, among other thins.
I send a message to chris pinto via messenger last night suggesting you on his radio program praying and waiting for response.
Thank you for the recommending me to Mr. Pinto. If I hear from him, I’ll let you know.
cool
Thanks for the link.
Unfortunately,
The foregoing discourse is well over the head of most people, Christian and non
Christian alike in America today. We have we been incredibly dumbed down,
indoctrinated, and utterly misguided by the premeditated, financed educational
agenda of the Zionist International Bankers, through our public FOOL systems at
all levels, from preschool through graduate school.
Correspondingly, these anti Christs who have bought controlling interest in the
corporations that print our school books, have also infiltrated our Bible
seminaries, (cemeteries) and they continue to turn out lobotomized clergymen,
who establish countless 501 c 3 lobotomy centers we unfortunately call churches.
These corporate monstrosities, where most of Americas Christians frequent, who
are charged by Yahweh to be the “pillar and ground of the truth”, are in reality and function, the front line social enforcement arm for the whole communist regime that we affectionately call America. Strong words???? READ the ten plank communist manifesto and you will quickly learn that “a private central bank” and a “progressive income tax system” is the backbone of communism. They are squarely in bed with the “whore” and will reinforce obedience to her for fear of persecution and losing out on “her delicacies.”
Practically every church out there is blindly reinforcing putting the laws of
man above the laws of Yahweh. They perpetually twist the words of Romans 13 to
mean blindly following “government” vs AUTHORITY. (See the 1750
exegetical message by Jonathan Mayhew) At the same time they have followed the
example of the DISTRICT OF CRIMINALS (WASH DC) and have blindly led their blind
into the ditch of unscriptural personal and corporate debt!
Jer_23:14 I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they
commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers,
that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as
Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.
The very second that WE THE PEOPLE and the US CONSTITUTION, were enthroned as the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, we became a nation of SPIRITUAL ADULTERERS whose collective god was ourselves, our own appetites, and ultimately greed. “the love of money is the root of all evil”
Constitutionalists like CB continually quote the isolated WORDS of many of the founders that reflect Christianity, but blindly and willingly refuse to accept and embrace the irrefutable fact that their collective DEEDS in penning the US CONSTITUTION, CLEARLY SET ASIDE THE AUTHORITY OF YAHWEH IN FAVOR OF MAN! This was a 180 degree deviation from a clearly theocratic pattern to a secular one, and it amazes me how few have awakened to this fact.
This action speaks much louder that ALL their idol words.
In Spirit and in Truth,
Rev.Vernon York
WELL SAID, Vernon!
The reason why things are so bad is because we have pretty much one religious group running the show and that one influences all the others.
They are called Biblically the Synagogue of Satan which were the forerunners of the Apostate Jews.
They run the media, the banks, the movies, the Govts, most religions, and all things that break down the morals of good people.
When you know who the real enemy is then you will see how to stand far away from them.
Great comments by the way….
Jim Rizoli
jjrizo on youtube
CCFIILE.COM
Israel failed badly at keeping the law and Moses told them that they would, hence the curses part of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. What makes you think that the U.S. would have succeeded?
All men, not just Israel, “have sinned and come short of the Glory of God” Romans 3:23. This is why sinful man desperately needs direction in the form of Yahweh’s immutable moral law. You are implying that because people/Israel have failed to abide by the Law, that we might as well not have it???
The TRUTH IS that “righteousness exalts a nation”…Proverbs 14:34 and America’s success and exaltation for her obedience in our early history, resulted in us being the wealthiest Nation on the planet, whose people have enjoyed more Freedom and Liberty that any in History!
Our downfall/failure was set in motion when we were not just disobedient to Yahweh, but removed Him as our SUPREME AUTHORITY, and replaced HIM with the wicked desires and appetites of WE THE PEOPLE.
Again, Sir, you hit the nail on the head. The US, precisely because it is Protestant, succeeded in establishing a Representative Republic. The US, precisely because it was Protestant, can not maintain a Lawful, christian nation, precisely because its main purpose was to overthrow divinely instituted rulers- whether Kings or Bishops.
Orthodoxy, too, seeks to be a ‘theocratic’ state, but has a far longer history, and the renaissance of Russia is testament to that older Patristic power to maintain such a godly republic.
Here are two sites that elucidate this idea.
One, from a Westerner who understands the Russian soul/mind. This is his oldest post- start there, and work forward.
http://souloftheeast.org/2009/05/25/back-into-the-cold/
The second is less ‘pure’ in that the author still believes in the jewish lies of ‘egalitarianism’ and the specious sin of ‘racism’ but his insights have merit, nevertheless.
http://www.events.orthodoxengland.org.uk/from-further-correspondence-and-conversations/
However, you are right. Baldwin, as a sectarian Baptist, must divinize the USA, because he has no other ‘supreme authority’ to look up to, denying both a Theocratic Orthodox King, nor a Patriarch of a National Church as the “Spiritual Father” of his people.
John, thank you for your response. However, your veiled promotion of Catholicism is a violation of our Comment Policy at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/comment-policy/. Consequently, it will be deleted once I’ve posted this response.
A most surprising and disappointing knowledge deprived response especially after reading the Comment Policy cited in your response to Fr. John. Why would you censor comments on or from authentic Roman Catholics? Is that what the bible teaches?
The authentic Roman Catholic church is not an institution; it’s not a bureaucracy; it’s not the Vatican; and it’s not founded by flawed men. The authentic Roman Catholic church is a divine person – Jesus Christ and the Triune God of which Christ is a charter member.
The authentic Roman Catholic church is the foundation stone of Western civilization. If you want to ruin Western civilization, ruin the authentic Roman Catholic church. Ruination doesn’t easily occur from the outside in. But from the inside out [heresy; apostasy; blasphemy; Vatican II confusions; dirty bishops and popes; false teachings; perverted role models; renegade religious orders; anti-Catholic faux Roman Catholic Universities; pampering can’t we all just get along prelates] are malignancies of higher orders. Wreckage and ruination work best from the inside out especially when the premeditated ruinations happen gradually paying homage to the perilous principle of incremental-ism [inch by inch demonic destruction is a cinch] grounded in Lenin’s most important dictum: “The Lie is Sacred.”
Termites don’t eat away homes made of wood overnight. Cancer cells don’t metastasize and kill overnight. Both kill overtime while trying to hide from view. Satan loves confusion; contradiction and confrontation. He worships divide and conquer. If we were to compare the Catechism of todays blur infested inauthentic Catholic Church and the Constitution of the USA to sheep dogs, both sheep dogs are now deaf; dumb; and blind with weathered limbs; arthritic paws; a voiceless bark; and a toothless bite. The authentic Roman Catholic church is supposed to be the Church militant. Today, at best, it has been transformed into the Church marshmallow – a mere social uplift union at best and a political party at worst.
Authentic Roman Catholics see the wreckage. This is why Authentic Roman Catholics have refused to support a church where the smoke of Satan has caused choke filled smoke inhalations . Yet the authentic one true Roman Catholic church no matter it’s prostitutions: has been; is now; and will always be the bride of Jesus Christ. If the authentic Roman Catholic church is a cult, then you must proclaim that Jesus Christ is a cult founder!
You have admirable talents. Your insights are based on profound knowledge save for calling the authentic Roman Catholic church a cult.
You have neither the right or the responsibility to originate such slurs.
You have undermined your credibility at a time when all Christians should be mobilizing to move as one against the incessant divide and conquer stratagems that distract and dissipate resolve.
As our policy states, you’re welcome here but not any proselyting or promotion of Catholicism (any form thereof or any of its near “relatives.”) Consequently, your post will also be deleted once I’ve sent this reply.
My response to your post silencing Fr. John was hardly promoting inauthentic Christianity. You premeditated bigotry is inimical to being a Christian. What you know about authentic Roman Catholicism could fit into the head of a pin. You are untrustworthy and incompetent. Now you will have me rightfully working to expose you to those who have been beguiled by your creepy cowardice.
If the authentic Roman Catholic church is a cult, then JESUS CHRIST – the authentic founder of the Roman Catholic church – must be a cult leader. Right?
“You[r] premeditated bigotry is inimical to being a Christian.”
If by bigotry, you mean a passionate love for the gospel of Christ, and a passionate disdain for the enemies of Christ, then
Pastor Weiland is guilty as charged. If such passion is “inimical to being a Christian,” then I’m quite sure you have no idea what a Christian truly is. Fortunately there is help. Pastor Weiland would be more than happy to assist you.
“What you know about authenticRoman Catholicism could fit into the head of a pin.”
What you think you know about the depth, breadth, and substance of Pastor Weiland’s vast knowledge would be laughable, were it not unfortunate.
“You are untrustworthy and incompetent.”
And this is a LIE which discredits ANY valid point you might have otherwise made. By EVERY available metric, Pastor Weiland is as trustworthy a man as one is ever likely to encounter. The witnesses to this are legion. And as for incompetent, in the words of Inigo Montoya:” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
“Now you will have me rightfully working to expose you to those who have been beguiled by your creepy cowardice”.
Be informed that you will find me rightfully defending Pastor Weiland against your calumny at every turn. I am humbled to expose the one truly guilty of creepy cowardice. You see, a true coward hides behind a pseudonym while attacking one who operates entirely in the open for the world to see. Pastor Weiland has faced the forces seeking to keep the truth at bay for years. I suspect he has no intention of backing down.
“If the authentic Roman Catholic church is a cult, then JESUS CHRIST – the authentic founder of the Roman Catholic church – must be a cult leader. Right?
The Jesus of whom you speak is not the Jesus Christ of Scripture. For Him to be the founder of the antichristian entity of Rome, would require Him to be a liar, and therefore not the risen God in the flesh. Cult is relative, for by the popular definition, Christianity is indeed a cult. Man’s definitions are meaningless. By the Biblical standard, the Whore of Rome is not even close to being the church founded upon Christ.
Now to the point of this article, Pastor Weiland is absolutely correct that Chuck Baldwin, no matter how sincere and well intentioned, is blind to the true nature of the Constitution. The ONLY hope of ever seeing the liberty once enjoyed by our Christian forebears, is to abandon the U.S. CONstitution and return to the perfect law of Yahweh.
Eddie, thank you and may Yahweh bless you and yours!
When you wrote about the “risen God” are you talking about a triune God? I think most Christians think of Jesus in that context but that is not the understanding I get from reading the Bible. I always remember these verses:
Psalm 45:7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, THY God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Hebrews 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even THY God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
I believe what the Bible says:
Revelation 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the BEGINNING of the creation of God; (Father)
Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the BEGINNING, the FIRSTBORN from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Ephesians 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things BY Jesus Christ:
Proverbs 8:23 I was SET UP from everlasting, from the BEGINNING, or ever the earth was.
Colossians 1:12 Giving thanks unto the FATHER, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear SON:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the FIRSTBORN of every creature:
Why would the Bible have any of these verses if God the Father and Jesus Christ were one and the same? That is not to say that Jesus is not “God” to this world because the Father made him so. How can we become brothers and sisters to Christ if he is the Father God incarnated here on earth? Just asking.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”</b?
YOU confuse Orthodoxy, which is the ‘faith once delivered unto the saints,’ with the schismatic and heretical Papal faith. This is a great error and one not expected of a man who should know better.
In my opinion, it’s all one and the same “family.”
Opinions aren’t facts!
That’s like saying Confessional Lutherans and Free-Will Baptists are in the same ‘family.’ I don’t think you’d make that mistake, but clearly, in the other, you have, sir. More’s the pity.
See my response below.
The household of faith includes all who have trusted Jesus’ sacrifice for their sin….man-made divisions are just that. As Yahweh told Joshua – He’s not on anyone’s side.
I believe in “ONE holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” Since at least AD 325, this is the ONLY definition for the ‘household of faith.’ ONE Church. not 250,000 protestant schisms, and cults, and all the other ‘man-made’ divisions you mentioned.
If the authentic Roman Catholic church is a cult, then Weiland is stating that the founder of the authentic Roman Catholic church –
JESUS CHRIST – is a cult leader!
Weiland is more like a hateful bigoted coward than a Christian.
Weiland is a protestant. He’s deluded with ‘romeaphobia’ and is clearly confused when he conflates post Vatican Eww Rome with either its predecessor, or with Orthodoxy. While his comments have merit most of the time, here, he is clearly confused.
Perhaps, but until I’ve been delivered from my confusion, the policy applies to any proliferation of whatever you want to identify your beliefs as.
It’s your site Ted. I merely hoped you were more intelligent and less bigoted a Prot, for your views in earlier books would have given you credit for. I see I was wrong. May God enlighten you out of your errors.
John….if you are saying that the Roman Catholic Church is now, and always has been free from error and heresy – that is simply absurd. Satan has infiltrated the RCC just as he has used the Protestant movement to spread error. Yes the Protestant called out congregation is filled with error, but so is the RCC….it is very frightening on all fronts.
Mr. Akers. I never said that the RCC is free from heresy and error. I am saying that the RCC has BEEN heretical and full of error for the last 1000 years. A huge difference, and one that the Orthodox Church has consistently noted, since at least 1200.
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by the Orthodox “Church”….many claim orthodoxy. I’ve attended a Greek Orthodox “Church” over a year ago and observed much error. And the Episcopal “Church” is filled with error. I see in the liturgy of these “churches” the religiosity errors of the liturgy of the Jews from their synagogue services of the past. I don’t know of a group that I could honestly say there is true orthodoxy present.
Orthodoxy has been around since AD 33. I mean (specifically) Eastern Orthodoxy, that has various national expressions. As to ‘error’ you cannot claim to know either truth or error, since (being Protestant- and here I am assuming your creed) you don’t have the laying on of hands, the historical continuity, nor the pnevma to understand/grasp truth… or error. But the way of pointing to Truth, anyone can be told. Thus, my comments about Holy Orthodoxy.
Orthodoxy existed with Yahweh Elohim in eternity past. I’m no more disqualified from knowing truth, though not exhaustively, than you are. Yahushua who is the living Word of Elohim is the Truth. I am in Him, because I’ve put my trust and dependence in His substitutionary sacrifice for my sin. If the infallible RCC has it’s errors, then infallibility doesn’t mean infallibility. Orwellian double-speak has no real bearing on absolute truth.
Umm, no one in Jesus’ day called the Savior, Yahushua. The LXX is written in Greek, as is the NT. The early church spoke Greek, and, if you had any learning at all, you would know that. For the lingua franca of Rome during AD 30, was not Latin, but Greek. But then, the CI paradigm isn’t known for independent research, now, is it?
If you spoke from any understanding you would know that Jesus is a Greek transliteration of a Hebrew word/name. The modern version is Joshua, but that’s utilizing Germanic language. The real name is Yehoshea or Yahushua. If Yahweh is an accurate translation then the proper translation would be Yahushua. Maybe if we weren’t Judaized and avoided the accurate names, instead of utilizing generic names, we’d see more of His power displayed. But thanks for the linguistic history lesson….wink, wink!
If you spoke from any understanding, you would know that Hebrew was not spoken as the ‘lingua franca’ in Galilee during Jesus’ day, and that the LXX (Septuagint) was the common version of Scripture used by Christ, and confirmed by the OT quotes in the Greek NT. Your narrow-mindedness, in trying to seek some validity for a Zionist state as somehow coterminous with the Biblical Israel, is the great error of the modern uneducated American hoi polloi.
I have no idea what your reading into my comments. I’m not a Zionist by any stretch of the imagination, and said nothing that could be construed as such. The average person in the time of Christ in Judea spoke Aramaic, which is similar to Hebrew. But Jesus name was not Jesus, and I doubt very seriously that He was called by a Greek transliteration of His Hebrew name. So that makes me a Zionist and narrow-minded…? I think you’ve gotten off of your med’s…..
Aramaic? Please, Lamsa’s thesis was disproved decades ago. Ever hear of “the Scripture of St. Paul” or “The Orthodox Septuagint” by Protestant scholar, Dale E. Heath? He clearly points out what I was alluding to, and he, as a conservative Evangelical. If you haven’t read the books, done the research, don’t make such silly comments.
So what is the CI…? Calvin’s Institutes…?
The sectarian protestant ideology called Christian Identity.
And….your point is? I’m a Christian, one who is “in Christ”….is there a problem with that?
I was merely answering your earlier question. As to your reply, I don’t know to what you are currently referring.
From your candor I’m assuming that your position doesn’t require grace or humility….
No, there you are wrong. But the Scriptures do say, ‘answer a fool according to his folly.’ So, I was merely being scriptural.
If you can convince yourself of that then I guess that speaks for itself.
And your folly speaks as well. We’re done. You’re merely a graceless, Christless heretic, Bob. Just like all the rest. Repent, and be baptized by a true priest of God. I’m done with your endless squabbles. Titus 3;10
So clueless, and apparently proud of it! A true priest of God….a somewhat casual reading of the NT will show that all believers in Yahweh (the Father) through Yahushua (the Son) are priests with direct access to the Throne of Grace. So I guess you’re entitled to your delusions of being something above us commoners…..seems like I remember something about THE VEIL IN THE TEMPLE BEING TORN FROM TOP TO BOTTOM and access to the Holy of Holies is open to all who come to Yahweh on His terms.
Fellas, this discussion is digressing into ad hominen attacks that are not allowed. See our Comment Policy. Time to give this one up.
Sorry…..I’m trying to pursue truth, and not “religious” partisanship. But I can never seem to nicely or challengingly get the discussion to head in that direction. The RCC seems to be his idol. I don’t look at myself as a “protestant”….I’m a believer in the Savior, a Christian, a follower of The Way, however that can be stated. I don’t claim partisanship with any denomination or specific group….I have, but I find there are things I don’t necessarily agree with totally with any one group. And I’m not saying I’m right on everything I believe….I’m trying to be, but I’m not omniscient so I certainly can’t claim that. Seems as though Father or Friar John is just angry with anyone that doesn’t tow the RCC line. I simply can’t stomach religiosity – it’s ugly and the very thing Yahweh was angry with Israel about in the Isaiah.
Bob, I understand and I agree with your position on this. I just want us all to be careful not only as it concerns our Comment Policies but also the Bible’s admonition regarding civility, etc.
Blessings!
Fellas, this discussion is digressing into ad hominen attacks that are not allowed here. See our Comment Policy. Time to give this one up.
“OUR’ comment policy? If you are running the blog, Ted, then say so. I am merely responding to continual Disqus comments, not knowing where they are coming from. Your blog is your own, and you can do with it as you wish. As I said, while I disagree with you personally, much of what you have written has merit.
“Our” includes me, John. Let’s try to make better use of our time. It was waste of your time to make such a comment and waste of mine to have to respond to it.
Is that so! Acts 26:14-15.
See also Revelation 19:1-6 for God’s abbreviated name (Yah) used in the New Testament.
Is that so? Acts 26:14-15
See also Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6 for God’s abbreviated Hebrew name (Yah) in use in the New Testament.
Ted, the CI’s are considered heretics even by the Protestants. I have no qualms with much of your research, so don’t enter into this folly-laden e-squabble. But this name heresy of the CI’s is just that- a heresy, denounced by the Church centuries ago. You don’t need to stand up to some fool who only argues because he is graceless, and in error.
John, in light of Acts 26:14-15, your unwillingness to admit your obvious error in your post I responded to, doesn’t speak well of you. It also reveals much about your own cult mentality regarding “the Church” and it’s prerogative over inspired Scripture.
Mr. Weiland, I will say this as kindly as I can. As a non-Orthodox, you have neither the pnevma, nor the illumination. You may have insight, but not the indwelling. As to ‘cult’ every other denomination has accused that of the CI folk, for well over a hundred years. I see historical merit in at least investigating what historical authors in your bailiwick have written, but only as it is interpreted by the one, true Church. Since the Church birthed the Scriptures (for II Tim. 3;16 applies only to the OT, since the NT wasn’t even finished, let alone canonical at the time St. Paul wrote that verse) it seems duplicitous for you to quote a Scripture your own fellowship didn’t create, whereas the Orthodox Church, did!
Your continued unwillingness to admit your error continues to speak poorly of you.
As for the remainder of your response: Be careful, you’re very close to breaking our comment policy again.
Great “Open Letter to Chuck Baldwin”. Glad you addressed it. Hope Mr. Baldwin finds a blessing here, too.
Excellent Post by Pastor Weiland and Excellent Comments !
It seems that when a preacher hits a certain vein with a populous, like Baldwin has, that they get stuck there due to concerns about maintaining that status. I’ve outgrown Pastor Chuck because of this.
BTW: I am impressed of your positive mention of Christian J Pinto’s work, as I’ve watched both of his documentaries (A Lamp In The Dark, The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers) and found both to be answers to prayer and questions I’ve had for years that other “historians” simply refused to bring it.
amen
It was said by Mr. Baldwin above: “The only theocracy in the history of the world was Old Testament Israel under Moses.”
This is not true as one can look back at the history of the nation of Scotland, to name one, back in the late 1500’s, after coming out of the horrible tyranny of the Pope and his supporting nations that make up the beast in Daniel and Revelation that is impeding our Lord Jesus Christ’s kingdom; I say, this nation fully acknowledged in Church and State that the Triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit as the Sovereign ruler of the nation Who manifests His will through the Holy Scriptures, the only rule of man’s life and faith. They swore a covenant and faithfully executed it for a short period of time, even as Israel was unfaithful themselves for the most part to their covenant with God.
We are all dead in sin, and it is no wonder there has been no abundance of faithful Theocracies, NOT BECAUSE it is God’s will that we be not a Theocracy; for, it surely is written all over Scripture for nations to serve Him; but rather, nations are not a Theocracy because God has not graciously freed us from sin and Satan that continue to keep us in rebellion against Him. God has made known that He will remove these impediments in the latter times and many nations of the earth will serve Him in total subjection as Supreme Ruler through His word by Jesus Christ. This is an act of Sovereign grace and the Almighty power of God, not of men’s wits; which all must beware because even those who zealously support a theocracy can be doing it hypocritically in pride.
In a word, it is a sign of the height of madness, depravity and the most extreme stupidity for any man to suggest that God does not want a nation to be a Theocracy, that is, a nation that owns Him to be the Supreme Ruler, King of kings and Lord of lords, in subordination to Him, being governed by the Holy Scriptures as the rule of all morality and justice for their nation. It really is that simple.
Proverbs 14
6 A scorner seeketh wisdom, and findeth it not: but knowledge is easy unto him that understandeth.
Proverbs 8
8 All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.
9 They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.
Proverbs 28
4 They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them.
5 Evil men understand not judgment: but they that seek the Lord understand all things.
Friends, there is nothing easier to understand than this:
Daniel 4
24 This is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree of the most High, which is come upon my lord the king:
25 That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.
Some have not literally behaved as a beast as Nebuchadnezzar had by eating grass; but rather, they have become much more brutish in their minds than he ever was about this issue of whether God is the Supreme ruler of men; and unlike Nebuchadnezzar, who learned some sort of humility before God to at least acknowledge His Sovereignty, many men, most sadly many professing christians, have not come to know “that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men” and still think that men can govern without full, humble, spiritual, and intelligent, submission to the Everlasting, Sovereign, and Almighty God.
Again, this is not hard, except to those that have been given up to destruction; they are evil men who understand not the justice that God should rule, being infinitely Just Himself, and, the final Judge at the day of Judgement of all men and nations that have ever been; therefore, since it is so, those that love God, His truth, and men’s souls, will begin this very day, laboring that Christ’s gospel will prosper by praying earnestly for themselves to live holy through the grace of God, that they will be an orderly example to others to draw them to Christ, and that they will wisely and boldly, when called thereunto, profess there is only king, Jesus Christ.
Acts 17
6 And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;
7 Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.
8 And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things.
Sadly, this truth did not only trouble pagans of old when they heard there is one King “Jesus”, but it troubles, most amazingly, many professing christians today. We must not be ashamed or afraid to acknowledge that there is one king even as Paul exhorted Timothy to courageously confess this truth among the truths of the holy Gospel:
1 Timothy 6
13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
And if some object that say that our Lord Jesus Christ is only head of the Church, listen again:
Psalm 2
10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
11 Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
Obviously these kings have to be ruling in the New Testament time period, or at least include them, because how can they “kiss the Son” and “serve the Lord with fear” unless they know Him to be God and man, the Savior of the world, the Supreme King and Judge that all men including themselves must give an account unto?
Oh, my friends, these things are most clear, though as Pharaoh many have hardened their hearts who have their Jannes and Jambres to corrupt holy Scripture to teach otherwise as though they say themselves as Pharaoh are saying “who is the Lord that I have to obey His voice”, but their devilish lies shall be made manifest unto all:
2 Timothy 3
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their’s also was.
Indeed wicked men, who resist the truth of God’s Sovereignty to rule over nations, your folly will be known, if not in this life, certainly in the life to come; therefore, flee these wicked men and acknowledge the most simple and clear truth, which is that God is the ruler of all nations either by a rod of iron, or by their humble submission, let us choose this latter.
Very ;good! Thanks for joining the discussion.
Excellent post. I read both articles also and understand how so many Christians today are so mislead. I think one of the biggest misconceptions of most Christians today is the belief that people will go to heaven or hell when they die. They do not understand that we will sleep in our graves until the first resurrection when Christ returns to rule over the earth. We will either be part of God’s kingdom here on earth or destroyed in the lake of fire at final judgment. They do not realize that Christ will rule over ALL the nations including the US. Man does not like to think that anyone rules over him — including God. The meek shall inherit the earth because of their humble submission. We know that the majority of mankind will not surrender willingly and therefore we will go through tribulation because of it. It’s sad that so few Christians understand the message that Christ brought. If you love God, keep His commandments.
Sunshine49, thanks for joining us here.
You’ve posted several times in short order with, what appears to be the sole intent to teach and correct anything you understand to be out of order. Well enough. However, in light of your handle, I can’t help but wonder at your gender. If a women, I would ask you to carefully consider your actions in light of 1 Timothy 2:10-12.
Considering your post I was wondering if I am “allowed” to respond to any comments made to me in return. Sorry, but I answered one before I saw your comment. If pointing out what the Bible says is trying to “teach” than I must be guilty even though I don’t feel that was my intent. Considering your reference to 1 Timothy 2:10-12 you should maybe put a warning up on your blog that says women aren’t allowed to express anything that is contrary to what men think. I would like to point out that very few men fit the description given through most of 1 Timothy either. If women fail to “know their place” then it is only because most men fail to set a good example. The plain truth is that most of the world doesn’t follow what the Bible says anymore. I came to this blog because you posted a link on another blog and I enjoyed what you wrote in the above article. You have made it obvious that my comments are not wanted so I will depart. I will take my own advice and stick to God’s Word for understanding and quit looking to “man’s” wisdom.
1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
Note the second to the last paragraph in our comment policy at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/comment-policy/.
So if a woman has no “man” that she answers to because they have all died, is she supposed to just sit in a corner until she dies? I took care of my mother for ten years after my father died until she passed away at 90. My brother died years before my father. Would it have been better if I had stuck my mother in some assisted living so a “man” could tell her what to say and think? NO! And it has nothing to do with a woman being independent. It would have made my mother miserable to be taken from her home and probably would have killed her. The majority of “men” we depended on to do any work for us turned out to be liars and crooks and looked on women alone as people to be taken advantage of. I fought more than one court battle because of these crooks and won them without a (man) lawyer to fight the battle for us. Why? I believe God was with us and protecting us because no “man” was around to be head of the family. I have prayed for years for God to show me the truth that is written in the Bible and I believe He has. What I find is that most “men” are too arrogant to even consider that “their” beliefs may not be right — especially to a woman! Which brings up another question. What do these verses mean?
Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
2 Chronicles 19:7 Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.
Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:
Colossians 3:25 But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.
None of these verses say just men or women. They include EVERYBODY no matter what gender or anything else. Are you trying to say that God looks down on women as incapable of taking care of themselves or not as smart as a man? No! He judges ALL equally for what’s in their hearts. Does God deny women the Holy Spirit? I’ve never read that in the Bible either. If God has allowed the veil to be lifted from my mind who are you to say He’s wrong? The only one I need to answer to now is God through Jesus Christ — the mediator between God and man.
No one suggested you sit around and do nothing. But something shouldn’t be being disobedient to the clear teaching of Scripture.
The passages you provided have to do with salvation and justice under the law–both of which Yahweh is no respecter of persons.
These verses cannot be pitted against other passages as if they trump what is commanded elsewhere in the Bible (such as 1 Timothy 2).
So you are looking at your blog as the same thing as being in a church where women are not allowed to speak? Instead of being deceptive by saying women have to get “permission” first, you should be more truthful and say that a woman’s comments are not wanted on your blog (in YOUR church). That would be closer to what 1 Timothy 2 is teaching.
The verses weren’t meant to “trump” other verses. I was just pointing out the obvious — that God does not judge us by gender like you are doing. Somehow I don’t see God teaching us that women are nothing more than obedient slaves to men as you seem to be implying. Not from these verse anyway.
Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
To me these verses speak of love — not the obedience of a woman slave who just bows to her master. Out of consideration for “your church” I will leave and never come back to express my thoughts since women aren’t allowed to speak in “your church”. I have sympathy for your wife IF you are married.
Sunshine49,
Scripture, God’s truth, does not agree with your teaching on the state of believers and unbelievers upon their death.
Luke 23
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.
The body remains in the grave until the resurrection; but the souls of believers do enter into heaven, and the souls of unbelievers are in chains of darkness reserved unto the day of judgment.
2 Peter 2
4 … and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
Though this be spoken directly of fallen angels, which are now devils, it is the same for men that have died and are awaiting their final condemnation to take place at the last day before the tribunal of the Judge, the Lord Jesus Christ. They are in “chains of darkness”, that is, they have nothing but gloom and doom in their conscience, knowing their sins will be punished even more terrible at the final day of Judgment in the lake of fire and brimstone. No souls are in a “sleep” mode and unaware of their current or future condition of misery. Believers are in paradise with God, unbelievers in chains of darkness, living in current torments, expecting worse.
Also, Christ’s millennial kingdom will not consists of His bodily presence on earth, but a mighty powerful ruling of the nations from His throne in heaven by His Spirit, even as He did in the beginning of the enlargement of His kingdom on the day of Pentecost. He has foretold this current apostasy that consists in the coming of Antichrist (The Pope of Rome, all of them), and He has foretold His great victory over the same Antichrist, sin, Satan, and the evil nations and individuals of this world.
Who in the fuck do you think you people are that gives you the authority to force your religion on others? You are in no way that important. Sorry.