In this article, I address another of the Constitution’s more serious “camels”—which Christians should be choking on instead of swallowing.
Article 2’s Executive Usurpation
Isaiah 33:22 informs us that Yahweh1 is our judge, lawgiver, and king. This means He alone is sovereign:
He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords … to Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen. (1 Timothy 6:15-16)
Consequently, any government that does not recognize His sovereignty is Biblically spurious:
Because the constitutional framers did not acknowledge the United States Constitution’s subordination to Yahweh and His sovereignty, Article 2 can only be understood as a rejection of Yahweh’s executive authority and an attempt to usurp His executive power.2
The constitutional framers’ failure to establish a government under Yahweh’s sovereignty is perhaps best seen when we contrast the Constitutional Republic of, by, and for the people with some of the Colonial governments of, by, and for Yahweh:
The following are but two of the documents attesting that early Americans formed Christian governments designed around Yahweh’s law:
The Portsmouth, Rhode Island, Compact, 1638: “We whose names are underwritten do hereby solemnly in the presence of Jehovah incorporate ourselves into a Bodie Politick and as He shall help, will submit our persons, lives and estates unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and to all those perfect and most absolute laws of His given in His Holy Word of truth, to be guided and judged thereby.”
Fundamental Agreement of the Colony of New Haven, Connecticut, 1639: “Agreement; We all agree that the scriptures hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in duties which they are to perform to God and to man, as well in families and commonwealth as in matters of the church; so likewise in all public officers which concern civil order, as choice of magistrates and officers, making and repealing laws, dividing allotments of inheritance, and all things of like nature, we will, all of us, be ordered by the rules which the scripture holds forth; and we agree that such persons may be entrusted with such matters of government as are described in Exodus 18:21 and Deuteronomy 1:13 with Deuteronomy 17:15 and 1 Corinthians 6:1, 6 & 7….”
Almost as impressive as New Haven’s agreement are the testimonies to it and other similar documents:
John Clark Ridpath, History of the United States, 1874: “In June of 1639 the leading men of New Haven held a convention in a barn, and formally adopted the Bible as the constitution of the State. Everything was strictly conformed to the religious standard. The government was called the House of Wisdom…. None but church members were admitted to the rights of citizenship. [John Clark Ridpath, History of the United States, 4 vols. (New York, NY: The American Book Company, 1874) vol. 1, p. 181.]….”
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835: “They 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.
“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. “Whosoever shall worship any other God than the Lord,” says the preamble of the Code, “shall surely be put to death.” This is followed by ten or twelve enactments of the same kind, copied verbatim from the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Blasphemy, sorcery, adultery, and rape were punished with death…. [Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2 vols. (New York: NY: The Colonial Press, 1899) vol. 1, pp. 36-37.]
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 Holmes McGuffey, McGuffey’s Sixth Eclectic Reader (New York, NY: American Book Company, 1879) p. 225.]
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….” (Jeremy Belknap, John Farmer, The History of New-Hampshire (Dover, NH: George Wadleigh, 1862) pp. 42-43.)3
The disparity between the Colonial governments’ candid allegiance to Yahweh and His law and the framers’ traditions of man is compelling. Among other things, their rejection of Yahweh as their sovereign is testified to by the lack of any formal declarations of subordination to Him:
The framers of the Constitution, although mostly churchgoers, were not the same cut of churchmen as those of the 17th century. The churches of the late 18th century and the churches of the 17th century were radically different. The former were interested in building the kingdom of God based upon the perfect law of Yahweh. The latter were hardly interested in Yahweh’s law at all, which certainly contributed to the absence of quotations from, or even references to, the laws of Yahweh in the Constitution….
The theological differences between the worldviews of the Puritans and the constitutional framers are striking:
“The idea that the state was beyond the reach of the claims of the Bible was … abhorrent to the Puritan…. In the Scriptures they found the origin, the form, the functions and the power of the state and human government. This resort to the Scriptures as the exclusive norm for human political organization and activity clearly differentiated them from both the Roman Catholics and that rising group of secularist writers [particularly in the 1700s] who were finding the origin of the state and the source of its powers in a vaguely defined source known as the social compact or contract. In the Puritan view of life man could no more create the government under which he would live and endow it with its just powers than he could effect his own salvation….
“Basic in Puritan political thought is the doctrine of divine sovereignty. The earthly magistrate … was a minister of God under common grace for the execution of the laws of God among the people at large, for the maintenance of law and order, and for so ruling the state…. In Puritan political theory the magistrate derived his powers from God and not from the people….” [C. Gregg Singer, A Theological Interpretation of American History (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964) pp. 13-14.]
“The whole conception of government that would later be proclaimed by John Locke and others, which placed the sovereignty in the hands of the people and which found the origin of government in a human compact was utterly unknown to the Puritans. They did not believe in a government by the people…. [They sensed] that in the democratic philosophy, with its emphasis upon the sovereignty of the people, lay a fundamental contradiction to the biblical doctrine of the sovereignty of God. They clearly perceived that democracy was the fruit of humanism and not the Reformation concept.” [Ibid., pp. 18-19.]4
If Christians ever intend to re-establish Yahweh’s government (as in the days of the Puritans), the only executive branch must be the one described in Isaiah 33:22, in which Yahweh is King, His judges adjudicate according to His law, and all other officials govern according to His will. Anything else usurps His executive sovereignty.
Stay tuned for Part 5.
Related posts:
Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH”
Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation”
1. YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. In obedience to the Third Commandment and in honor of His memorial name (Exodus 3:15), and the multitudes of Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, I have chosen to use His name throughout this blog. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”
2. Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
3. Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
4. Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. ~ Galatians 19-21
Amen to one of my favorite passages! What do you think about the following ones?
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am
not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from
the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of
these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the
least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them,
the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew
5:17-19)
“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” (Romans 3:31)
“Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good…. For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.”
(Romans 7:12-14)
I could provide you with 34 more New Testament passages that likewise establish that the Yahweh’s triune moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments) has not been done away with under the New Covenant.
Your understanding of the law and how it applies today is obviously incomplete. For more regarding how Yahweh’s moral law applies today, see the free online book “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant” at bibleversusconstitution.org/law-kingdomFrame.html. However, being that you’ve recently rejected Christianity for the cult of Catholicism, I’m not sure it will do any good.
Furthermore, in the not too distant past, you have admitted you were a novice with the Bible. Since you weren’t Scripture savvy enough to keep yourself for falling for your wife’s religion, perhaps you shouldn’t be presenting yourself with an air as some great theologian on this and other sites.
Why do you pick and choose out of the 613 laws, precepts and statues? If you follow one, then you should follow them all Rabbi. Which law, or parts there of shall we follow?
“But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. ” 2 Peter 1:20
A Pharisee asked him a question, to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.” (Matt. 22:34-40)
Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” He said to them, “Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is lord of the Sabbath.” (Matt. 12:1-8)
Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon . . . These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ . . . Why do you submit to regulations, “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things which all perish as they are used), according to human precepts and doctrines? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh. (Col. 2:16-17; 20-23)
Clearly, Jesus indicated that he—not the Old Testament—had authority over the Sabbath, and its regulation was not as rigid as the Pharisees thought. In fact, once Jesus would endow the hierarchy of his Church with his own authority (Matt. 16:19; 18:18), regulation of worship would become the domain of the Church.
It is important to point our here that the obligation to worship is something all people of every place and time can know simply through the use of reason. It is knowledge built into the human conscience as part of what is called the “natural law.” Paul makes note of such law when discussing those of his own time who were never bound by Old Testament law: “When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts . . .” (Rom. 2:14-15a).
The Ten Commandments are often cited as examples of the natural law. Christians are obliged to follow the laws cited in the Ten Commandments not because they are cited in the Ten Commandments—part of Old Testament law—but because they are part of the natural law—for the most part.
Paul himself speaks of the punishment it was to live by and under the law and how dying to the law allowed him to live for Yahweh …
“For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” ~ Galatians 2:19-21
You see, with Christ, the Old Law was fulfilled and a new covenant was born … “For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.” ~ Phill 1:21
Once again, some great Scripture choices, all of which I love and believe. But, you never answered my question about the three passages I provided above: How about Matthew 5:17-19, Romans 3:31, and Romans 7:12-14? How do you reconcile these with the ones you cited? Until, you can reconcile them (or at least accept them at face value even if you can’t reconcile them) you’re merely “smorgasbording” the New Testament.
Your explanation of natural law and reason is tantamount to “every man doing that which is right in his own site.” For example, for the man who’s not convicted against sodomy or bestiality (neither of which is mentioned in the Ten Commandments, and the latter of which is not repeated in the New Testament), is therefore free to engage in these practices that are identified as abominations by Yahweh.
You see, you too have chosen what laws are still applicable today. However, your choices are completely arbitrary, based upon your own capricious choices or reason. And, to whatever point your choices fall short of Yahweh’s choices, to that degree you’re a humanist, merely doing what is right in your own eyes.
The laws that I believe are still for today are based upon Biblical reasons, by which the 27 New Testament Scriptures that appear to say Yahweh’s law has been abolished and the 39 New Testament Scriptures, like the three above, which emphatically declare it’s not been abolished, are harmonized. You’ll find all of this explained in “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant.”
Mr. Weiland, sir, you seem very certain that you have a full understanding of Yahweh’s ideas. I would say Christ understood them better than you. Do you really think Christ did not foresee mass confusion and chaos with authority while we all await His return? Does it not make more sense to have an established authoritative body holding fast His way’s, similar to Isaiah 22:22. I do not choose to combat Christianity here with you, but I do however fail to see how your protesting ideas come straight from the Bible. God never intended for you, or any other man to interpret Scripture, not without His guidance. For example, in several of your books ( I own 90% of them ) you proclaim that Yahweh never wanted inter-racial marriage and forbade it according to such verses from your “authorized” KJV ….
• Genesis 28:1: “And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.”
Anti-miscegenationists and “pronomians” like yourself interpret this verse after assuming that the Hebrews and Canaanites were of different races. Thus inter-marriage was forbidden on racial grounds. However, growing archeological and DNA evidence has revealed that the Hebrews originated as a sub-culture of Canaanites. Most theologians believe that the marriage prohibition in Genesis was grounded on a concern that the Hebrews would adopt the Pagan polytheistic religious beliefs and practices of nearby tribes if they were to marry outside of their culture. Thus the prohibition was based on religious, not racial differences.
• Leviticus 19:19: “Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind …”
“Gender” is translated as “mate” or “breed” in other English translations of the Bible. The term “kind” in the Bible can refer to a species of animal. However, creationists sometimes define “kind” as one created species from which many types of closely related animals (e.g. horse, zebra, donkey, perhaps even deer) developed. In this passage, the term “diverse kind” probably refers to different breeds of cattle. Today, this passage might refer to interbreeding of Holsteins and Guernsey’s. This verse is part of the Holiness Code that was intended to keep behaviors of the Hebrews’ different from that of the surrounding cultures. Most Jewish and Christian theologians believe that the Code does not apply to non-Jews.
• Deuteronomy 7:2-3: “And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
This is one of the passages in the Pentateuch ( Torah ) — the first five books in the Bible — in which God orders the ancient Hebrews to engage ingenocide against other tribes. They were to kill every elder, adult, youth, child, infant and newborn from among the Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites, Hittites, Hivites, Jebusites, and Perizzites without mercy. Anti-miscegenationists typically regard this as racially-based. However, a near consensus of Christian theologians regard this as religiously-based. God’s concern appears to be that the Hebrews would marry Pagan polytheists, adopt the religions of the neighboring tribes, abandon worship of Yahweh, and become polytheistic.
• Deuteronomy 22:9: “Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.”The meaning of this verse is obscure in the King James Version. However, the New Living Translation describes this prohibiting the sowing another species of plant between the rows of grape bushes in a vineyard. If a farmer did this, he was forbidden to make use of either crop. If this verse is to be interpreted in terms of human mating, it would appear to refer to bestiality — sexual behavior between a human and an animal. It appears to be unrelated to interracial marriage.
• Deuteronomy 23:2: “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.”
This verse is sometimes interpreted by anti-miscegenationists as implying that the children of a mixed-race couple, and their grandchildren etc., even onto the tenth generation, could not enter the temple. There is a general consensus among theologians that this passage refers to a child born outside of a marriage relationship, regardless of the race(s) of its parents.
• Jeremiah 13:23: “Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Can a leopard take away its spots? Neither can you start doing good, for you have always done evil.”
At least one white supremacist group interprets this passage as implying that one cannot start with a Black-White interracial couple and produce White offspring. 2 However the clear sense of the verse appears to be that if a person has habitually committed evil deeds, it is almost impossible for them to change completely and start going only good.
Tell me please, what happend in Numbers 12:1-16? Were the Cushite ( Ethiopians ) the same “race” as the Hebrews?
Below is some of your work …
“… but that doesn’t mean that a non-Israelite cannot join himself to Yahweh, and partake – and why wouldn’t we want them to? Why wouldn’t we want the nations around to be serving our God?, and under His Laws? – so we could have commerce with those nations …. not only for my race but for their race as well … I have come to appreciate the other races and their individuality more since understanding this [Identity] message than before I understood it. God created everything to be good … have you ever noticed the media always say we call the other races ‘mud people’? I have never in my life ever heard the term except in the media. Not amongst the people I preach to … so why wouldn’t we want to embrace others into this message? … If anything, we should be absolutely ashamed of ourselves because of our past
reputation and our past history as a people and what we have squandered because of who we are. We should be ashamed of ourselves and our forefathers more than the rest of the races.
They are wallowing in their sin because of our sin. Let’s just face it …”
entitled “You Might Be A Christian if… ” Pt. 9, (CD 656),
You also made additional poisonous, false allegations saying the following:
“… And don’t you dare, and I don’t think anyone would here – I’m sure you wouldn’t, but somebody who might hear this on tape – don’t you dare interpret what I just said as racist and supremacist, because I assure you that one can be a separatist without being a racist … without being racist or supremacist. How do I know that? Because I’m a separatist, and I denounce racists and supremacists. And if you don’t want to believe me on that, then you might want to possibly take the word of hundreds – and who knows how many more – maybe more than that, you might want to take the word of hundreds of black Nigerians and others to whom this ministry has sent hundreds, if not thousands of dollars of free Bibles and tapes since its very inception.
I’m not a separatist because I hate other races. I’m a separatist because I love Yahweh and His laws which require – which require that His people live separate segregated lives …. Now once again there are going to be all kinds of objections. Someone is surely to counter that this passage is addressing religious, not racial separation, to which I respond – not that there are
some exceptions – that people can’t from other races, and have in the past, joined themselves to Yahweh and embraced the Covenant …”
You’ll never admit it and I am sure you’ll remove me from this page after this, but your a set in your own ways believing the white race is the supreme people descended from the Hebrews and we should ” stick to our selves. ” You have spent years re-arranging biblical truth for your won idas and rejecting Christ’s real commands y adding in your own hateful idea of love. Christian Identity is being “catholic” ….. not racist and hateful … Just because Adolf Hitler used his Bible daily, did not make him a Christian …
Romans 3:31
Paul is not confused, but the book of Romans can be very confusing, and people frequently have difficulty understanding it. Paul does give us the answer or at least some clarification by way of Romans 9:31-32 where he says, “…Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on law did not succeed in fulfilling that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it through faith, but as if it were based on works.”
We live by faith and that the fulfillment of God’s commands are to be based on faith. We are to trust in God’s grace through the merits of Jesus Christ crucified. This is further substantiated by:
Rom 3:31 “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.”
Rom 6:14-15 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
1 Cor 7:19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.
Gal 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.
Gal 6:15-16 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God.
The apostle Paul speaks of the “obedience of faith” at the beginning, middle, and at the end of Romans. See Rom 1:4-5, 6:16, and 15:18. We can be obedient by God’s grace. We accomplish nothing on our own and we are never to look at our works as a wage that earns us a way into heaven. Instead, we are adopted sons and daughters and we “live” by faith. We are loving and obedient because it is God at work within us and He “…is able to accomplish abundantly far more than all we can ask or imagine.” (Eph 3:20)
Key word here is works. The works of the law that Paul is talking about in Romans chapter 3 are things like the laws governing circumcision, and following the kosher dietary laws, i.e. the disciplinary laws, not the moral laws. Abraham never had to obey the kosher dietary laws, and Abraham was justified by faith, before he was circumcised. These verses must be read in their context, and it must be understood that Paul is using the word “law” to mean different things at different times. In his epistles, Paul uses “law” to mean the natural law, the irrevocable moral law of the Torah, and revocable disciplinary laws such as circumcision that were added for transgressions, etc.
The scriptures aren’t full of contradictions, but the private interpretations of sciptures are.
Catholic Church a cult? How? Girnt Butler, Taze Russle, Thomas Munzer were cult starters ….
My understanding of the law is obviously incomplete? How so? Falling for my wife’s religion? The same religion that kept you alive on the highway that day you thought you were done? Internet insults are just tacky, are they not? Being a man involves being humble and admitting my wrongs. My errors assisted me in coming into to full Communion with Christs real Church, not the Puritans, not Martin Luthers or Calvin’s. You worship a version of the Bible that dosent exist and never will. You brainwash people daily with your re-written scriptural non-sense about Christian dominion. Tell me , how is your idea of the Gospel different from John Wesley’s? Menno Simms? John Knox? Arius instructed similar to you and revolted the same way you seem too. Were you not raised Catholic? Besides your very few, uninformative “sermons” online, you seem to know nothing of Catholicism. What scares you? John 6? Matt 16 ? Your just another break off from another sect that has a better idea than the next guy. I will pray for a softening of your heart my friend.
That your understanding of the law is incomplete is demonstrated in the very smorgasbord approach you’ve taken regarding it and as explained in my last response to you.
No, Catholicism did not keep me alive on the highway. Yahweh kept me alive and used the accident to save me from the cult of Catholicism.
My comments to you about Catholicism were not meant to be insulting. Instead, they had a two-fold purpose:
1) To hopefully awaken you to your grievous trespass when you renounced your previous commitment to Christ for Catholicism and it’s counterfeit Pope and priesthood, and
2) To alert everyone else here as to where you’re coming from. For example, I doubt, Gregory Gill knew you had abandoned your previous commitment to Christ for Catholicism.
By the way, if you haven’t read our blog policy, you’re not allowed to promote Catholicism on this site. Any further violation will result in you being banned from commenting. Are policy can be found at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/comment-policy/.
And sir, I do not claim to be a theologian and yes, I am novice compared to most. Where did you get your “Bible degree from?” Thank you for six years of instructional intellect down the wrong path. As a brother in Christ, I will only pray that you stop persecuting Catholic’s, your brothers in Christ, with your false online sermons.
Your bible vs constitution is full of your own thoughts and ideas … how can you claim perfection with your ideas?
“…This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” [2 Timothy 3:1-7]
It amazes me that when malicious disputations begin the majority are done by various “GUEST”[s]; those who apparently are so embarrassed by their statement, they cannot put a name, even a screen name to their response. Also, what I notice is the comparisons, proverbial apples to potatoes in this case. People tend to forget that we are instructed to do:
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.” [2 Timothy 2:15-16]
And we are warned,
“…But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” [2 Timothy 3:14-17]
As a baptized Catholic and a BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN I will say this, if you are a believer in DOCTRINE/DOGMA of “MAN” then you are A FOOL. Apples to Apples, Scripture without the Apocrypha; IS THE SAME, so the ONLY misinterpretation is “man’s”. Jesus’s Church IS NOT “man’s dogma. If you are taking the Bible at face value based on modern understandings and perverted word meanings, as opposed to the true GREEK and HEWBREW words, you are a child still suckling on your mother’s teat. Seek knowledge, and get into the MEAT that GOD wants to bless you and nourish you with.
“…But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.
Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.”
[2 Timothy 3:10-12]
emphasis on v. 3:12……..ALL THAT WILL LIVE GODLY IN CHRIST JESUS….not the Pope, not Joel Olsteen, not Martin Luther or John Calvin and other DOGMA; none, saved Jesus Christ, lest we forget Ephesians 4.
That is our RESPONSIBILITY……….
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis