Straining at Gnats . . . Pt. 1

Posted: 15th March 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,
16

When Christ accused the scribes and Pharisees of straining out gnats and swallowing camels, He was reprimanding them for putting greater emphasis upon the minor issues of Yahweh’s1 law to the exclusion of the weightier matters. This inversion was born from their emphasis upon outward obedience over inward motivation:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at [literally out] a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. (Matthew 23:23-26)

Our relationship with Yahweh and His law must begin with our hearts, by way of Christ’s blood-atoning sacrifice and resurrection from the grave. Without a heart change (what Paul described to the Colossian Christians as circumcision of the heart—Colossians 2:11-13) our obedience becomes nothing more than a rote exercise, not that much different from the scribes and Pharisees of Christ’s day.

Constitutional Gnat Strainers

With this understood, allow me to borrow this phrase and apply it to what amounts to an exercise of futility employed by many Constitutionalists in their attempt to Christianize the Constitution. Christians so desperately want the framers to be “our” guys that they cherry pick the framers’ writings in order to present them as Christians. The secularists do the same in order to present them as Deists.

The framers were neither Deists in the purest sense of the word, nor were they Christians in the Biblical sense of the word. Instead, they were theistic rationalists. Dr. Gregg Frazer demonstrates this in his balanced assessment of their writings. See his book The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders: Reason, Revelation, and Revolution.2 For an abbreviated presentation of the key framers’ and founders’ religious beliefs, see Dr. Albert Mohler’s interview with Dr. Gregg Frazer.3

Because Christians want the Constitution to be “our” document, they “strain at gnats” and “swallow camels” to avoid having to condemn the entire document as seditious against Yahweh. What I mean by straining at gnats is the attempt to force Christianity into certain aspects of the Constitution—particularly the phrases “Sundays excepted” in Article 1 and “in the year of our Lord” in Article 7.

Sundays Excepted

That Sundays are an exception in the Constitution’s legislative ratification process does not prove the Constitution is a Christian document. It merely recognizes that presidents were not likely to do business as usual on Sundays because the nation predominately refrained from business on Sundays. Sundays were exempted in the ten-day count to provide presidents (regardless their religious persuasion) a full ten days to consider any bill put before them:

Some have found the “Sundays excepted” phrase … to be evidence that the framers intended to have a Christian constitution. That may, indeed, be the case. If that were the purpose, however, it seems strange that they did not include a more overt and clear statement to that effect. The burden of proof would seem to rest on those ascribing such significant meaning and purpose to such a mundane phrase. It would have been much simpler and certainly much clearer to simply acknowledge Jesus Christ and their intent to design a government on the basis of his principles…. There was no discussion of the phrase at the Constitutional Convention and no discussion of it in the state ratifying conventions. Therefore, there is nothing to suggest that it was intended to make a statement in support of the creation of a Christian constitution or nation.4

Year of Our Lord

As for the phrase “in the year of our Lord” (which dated the signatures of the thirty-nine state delegates and the Convention secretary), consider how much Archie Jones read into this phrase:

…the plain implications of the reference [“in the year of our Lord”] are …: The Bible is true. Christ is the Savior. Christ, risen from the grave, ascended into heaven, and seated at the right hand of God the Father, is also the Lord, the sovereign Ruler of heaven and earth. The people of these United States are under the authority of Christ, whom they collectively acknowledge to be Lord. They have a special, covenantal relationship with Him, and that relationship, premised on His providential intervention in and rule of history, involves His blessings on the nation which has faith in Him and keep His commandments, and curses on the nation which collectively turns from faith in Him and so violates His holy laws. Hence, the nation must look to Him, and it and its civil governments must obey His laws.5

Moreover, since Christ’s lordship is recognized in the Constitution, the American nation has a covenantal relationship to him. This covenantal relationship recognizes his lordship, his providential rule over history, his providential relationship to the American civil government and people.6

If what Jones claims is true, certainly somewhere in the Constitutional Convention minutes, the copious Federalists Papers, or the constitutional framers’ personal correspondence, one of them would have remarked that this was their intent.

Nothing Christian can be proven by the use of the term “in the year of our Lord” anymore than the declaration “God bless America” proves a politician’s Christianity. The only thing we know unequivocally about the use of “in the year of our Lord” is that it was a means of dating.

Such Flimsy “Evidence”

During the ratification debates, Christians who were opposed to the Constitution because it failed to mention God and Christianity were not reassured by the phrase “in the year of our Lord.” In fact, the opposition knew better than to attempt to persuade them with such flimsy evidence.

Even if each and every one of the signatories had agreed with Jones, their rejection and replacement of Yahweh’s laws with their own traditions eradicated any Christian implications. The phrase “in the year of our Lord” does not make the Constitution a Christian document, nor does it exonerate the framers of the sedition and treason against Yahweh found throughout the document. What proves the Constitution is not a Christian but a secular, humanistic contract are its “laws,” not its terminology.

The test of lordship is not found in mere words, but instead in doing the will (the law – Psalm 40:8) of the Heavenly Father and fulfilling the words of His Son:

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)

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like: He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock. But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great. (Luke 6:46-49)

Would Jones accept “in the year of our Lord” as a genuine profession of Christian faith from someone wanting to place membership in the church he attends? The previous passages demonstrate that such simple declarations, by themselves, mean nothing to Yahweh. Even if the framers intended this statement as an acknowledgment of the God of the Bible, Jesus declared that if their works proved otherwise, He would still reject them.

Christians are straining at gnats and grasping at straws when they claim the statements “Sundays excepted” and “in the year of our Lord” make this otherwise unchristian document Christian. That this is the best Christian Constitutionalists can come up with only further proves that the Constitution is, in fact, not Christian.

Lord willing, I will address “swallowing camels” in the next article.

 

Related posts:

Straining at Gnats… Pt. 2

Today’s Mt. Carmel Christians

5 Reasons the Constitution is Our Cutting-Edge Issue

An Open Response to Martin Selbrede and Archie Jones’ “Book Review” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: A Christian Perspective

 

 

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. I take exception to Dr. Frazer’s interpretation of Romans 13:1-4. For an alternative analysis see my commentary Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government: A Revolutionary Commentary on Romans 13:1-7.

3. Dr. Albert Mohler is President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Dr. Gregg Frazer is Professor of History at the Master’s College in California.

4. Gregg L. Frazer, The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders: Reason, Revelation, and Revolution (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2012) pp. 225-26.

5. Archie P. Jones, The Influence of Historic Christianity on Early America (Vallecito, CA: 1998) p. 66.

6. Archie P. Jones, “The Myth of Political Polytheism: A Review by Archie P. Jones,” The Journal of Christian Reconstruction (Vallecito, CA: Chalcedon, 1996) p. 280.

 

Right, Left, and Center: Who Gets to Decide?

Posted: 8th March 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
18

In politics, everything revolves around the positioning of right, left, and center. You’re either rightwing, leftwing, or a centrist. Politicians and non-politicians alike employ all three terms as if there’s a consensus on the parameters for those designations. Even if this were true, who gets to determine what’s right, left, and center, and how are those determinations made? Over time, the parameters shift (always further to the left), so how is someone on the right to know he’s now a centrist or a centrist to know he’s now on the left?

No Standard=No Answers

There are no answers to these questions because there is no standard for these terms. The terms are completely arbitrary, defined at any given time by finite man and his fickle ethics rather than by Yahweh1 and His immutable morals. Although the following example doesn’t specifically address right and left, it illustrates the disparity between man’s ever-changing standard and Yahweh’s never-changing standard:

Two people could have walked down any U.S. street in 1930 – one with a bottle of whiskey under his arm and one with a bar of gold in his pocket, and the one with the whiskey would have been a criminal whereas the one with the bar of gold would have been considered a good law abiding citizen. If the same thing happened in any U.S. city in 1970, the one with the whiskey would be the law abiding citizen and the one with the gold bar would be the criminal.2

In a mere forty-year period, man’s standard had completely reversed itself. The same transposition of ethics has occurred innumerable times under all governments based upon the traditions of man.

Isaiah 33:22 and James 4:12 declare that Yahweh is the exclusive legislator. There are no others, period! Anyone who claims the title of legislator (particularly when his “laws”—whether commandments, statutes, or judgments—are inconsonant with Yahweh’s) is a usurper and is perpetuating the sin begun by Adam and Eve. The same is true for any one of us who would modify Yahweh’s triune law.

Making Lawful Illegal . . .

Any legislation antithetical to Yahweh’s turns evil to good and good to evil (Isaiah 5:20). When man rejects Yahweh’s standard of morality, it is inevitable he will make legal what Yahweh has made unlawful (e.g., infanticide and sodomy) and make illegal what Yahweh has made lawful (e.g., monotheistic Christianity outside the four walls of church buildings).

Yahweh is the only lawgiver because as Creator He’s the only one with the authority to determine what is good and evil. His morals as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments determine what is right and left. Anything left of His right(eousness) is left, liberal, and ungodly.

A wise man’s heart is at his right hand; but a fool’s heart at his left. (Ecclesiastes 10:2)

While foolishness has its inherent liabilities, our right/left positioning has even more serious consequences:

And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world…. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels….” (Matthew 25:32-34, 41)

Wicked “Righteousness”

Unless your right is God’s right, your right is left. More to the point, unless your righteousness is God’s righteousness, your righteousness is wickedness. This is reminiscent of the days of the Judges, a time when most people rejected Yahweh as their king, and “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).

There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. (Proverbs 16:25)

Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but Yahweh pondereth the hearts. (Proverbs 21:2)

It should be clear that we the people, individually and collectively, have no answers for what’s right and what’s left—that is, what’s righteous and what’s unrighteous. We the people are the problem, and left to ourselves, we only make matters worse. We certainly do not have the wherewithal to “establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility” and “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

We might try to blame the politicians. But the politicians are a part of we the people, and the people are responsible for voting the politicians into office. We cannot escape our culpability. Our only solution is Christ’s righteousness, secured individually by His blood and exercised communally through His law.

When today’s politicians (Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, etc.), churches, preachers, and most people claiming to be Christians are measured against Yahweh’s standard, they are found to be merely left- or right-leaning liberals. We must abandon these counterfeit qualifiers, provided by who knows whom, and endeavor to point people back to Yahweh and His immutable standard for right and left.

For more regarding this standard and how it applies today, see Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant.

 

Related posts:

The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH

Article 1: Legislative Usurpation

Today’s Mt. Carmel Christians

 

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. W.W. Turner, The Amazing Story of the British Sovereign (Nashville, TN: 1970) p. 4.

 

Rights and Metamorphosis (Guest Article by Roger Mitchell)

Posted: 23rd February 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,
6

I am 54 years old. I grew up in a conservative, Republican family which shaped my values and thoughts during my early years. When I became old enough to think for myself, I started to shed many of those and adopt my own. I don’t think like I used to and, even today, find myself questioning some things which I used to hold dear.

I have always been a fervent supporter of the right of free speech, the right to own a gun, the right to assemble, the right to not associate with others I don’t want to, the right to live wherever I do want to, etc. Probably the vast, vast majority of people, especially conservative Republicans, would agree with that stance.  In fact, I became actively involved with the Libertarian Party during the 1980 presidential election and actually ran for State Representative two years later. This was directly related to my view that no one, including God, should be able to tell me what I could or could not do and I was more than willing to put my money (and time) where my mouth was.  I was my own man, my own master, and I lived that way for years….

…I have come to a realization that I have no rights at all. I only have what God gives me and when He takes it away, it does no good to fight about it. What has developed in its place, in my philosophical worldview, is the understanding that, while I don’t have any rights, I do have responsibilities which I am supposed to perform.

Rights, as we know them today in America, are really only limited freedoms which someone has decided to grant us. Freedom of press, freedom to own guns, freedom to marry, et al., are simply concepts which we may enjoy, but which can be taken away just as easily as they were granted. Don’t believe me? Think about anything, anything at all, which you hold close to your heart. Is it truly yours? Can it be taken out of your grasp? If it can, it is not yours at all, but belongs to someone else more powerful than you. Even your life is not your own, you will give it up in the end. Instead, everything that we view as “ours” is entrusted to us to use in a spirit of stewardship. This is not to be confused with ownership. We have no rights, we do have responsibilities. Ultimately, everything we have been given, every responsibility we have belongs to God and we have to answer to Him for the way we use them…..  (For the remainder of the article, go here.)

Be sure to check out Roger Mitchell’s new blog site The Gideon Project.

Related Posts:

Rights, Rights, Everyone Wants Their Rights

Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism

Amendment 9: Rights vs. Righteousness

 

 

Pick One – Bible Law OR The U.S. Constitution (Guest Article by Dennis Woods)

Posted: 15th February 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
1

A recent article in GodFather Politics bemoans President Obama’s Islamic sympathies and recent actions in an article entitled, “State Dept. Recruits Jihadists to Join Foreign Service.”

In what can only be described as a mind-boggling policy move, the State Department recruited Muslim participants at a conference sponsored by groups with ties to radical Islamists to become members of its foreign service.

This Administration’s blind trust of radical Islamists has led to the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere … Much has been written, outside the mainstream media, about the infiltration of the Obama Administration by the Muslim Brotherhood, particularly at the State Department, where Clinton’s top aide had undisputed family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.  With the White House delivering F-16s to the radicals in charge of Egypt even as it tries to disarm Americans, it’s clear the wolves are in charge of the hen house.

BLOG comments call on Congress to “do something,” evidence of a prevailing Christian conservative MYTH:  that government is able to police and somehow purge Islamic influences because America “was founded as a Christian nation.”

MythBusters conclusion:  Congress can do nothing.  This report is very disturbing, but it should be no surprise and is the inevitable outcome of the Constitution’s pluralistic First Amendment.  Congress hands are tied because the First Amendment forbids it from interfering with the “free exercise” of religion.” Islam, Taoism, witchcraft and virtually any other religion are all perfectly acceptable under our godless Constitution.

The First Amendment is a direct violation of the First Commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”  The United States Constitution directly contradicts Biblical law on this and at least 75 other points and is thus in direct competition with the God of the Bible.

If we were functioning as a Christian nation the right to hold public office would be contingent on an oath-bound covenant to govern by the law of God.  God’s perfect “law of liberty”  (James 1:25; 2:12) is the only source of true justice.  All competing law codes, including Sharia, Talmudic and atheistic humanism, are tyrannical and would be banned.

But again Article VI (par. 3) of the U.S. Constitution forbids any such religious test oath in direct contradiction to the Bible:  “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

The Bible is full of such religious test oaths.  One good example is Ex. 24:3 where “Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said, ‘All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do!’”

Many of the anti-Federalists understood this from the beginning, but most American Christians still don’t have a clue.   “An anti-Federalist in North Carolina wrote:  ‘The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic….Pagans, Deists and Mahometans might obtain office among us.’ For another North Carolinian, David Caldwell, the prohibition of religious tests ‘constituted an invitation for Jews and Pagans of every kind to come among us’” (Isaac Kramnick, The New York Times, 1994).

All proposed laws would be tied directly to the Bible in a Christian nation.  The Massachusetts Body of Liberties did exactly that.  Numerous death penalty provisions of its penal code quote chapter and verse from the Pentateuch for their authority.

**********

Study Bible Law And

The U.S. Constitution In-Depth

At Kings Way Classical Academy

Online Jr. High & High School

Only $500 Annual Tuition

**********

But God’s law is considered too harsh for the ears of modern Christians, let alone modern humanists.  So they invent theologies to dismiss its abiding validity.  In the New Testament we are supposedly no longer under the law.  True for justification, but absolutely false for sanctification, both individual and political.

God’s law is and always has been the standard for righteousness and that fact should delight the heart of every Christian (see Ps 19 & Ps 119).  If God’s law encoded in Exodus 20-23 does not delight your heart, then its time for a theology-check.

At least some of the anti-Federalists understood this. They were the true American patriots for resisting the godless U.S. Constitution.  The Federalists were false patriots.  Our founding Federalists sowed the wind of Biblical antinomianism and now we their posterity are reaping the whirlwind.

The Constitution and Declaration of Independence are like Jeroboam’s two golden calves, set up to replace the worship of Jehovah and substitute a man-made law.  Why didn’t God’s people recognize and repudiate those golden idols?  For the same reason Christians today don’t recognize and repudiate the Constitution and Declaration for the idols they are.

We must recognize them for what they are and repent to God by formally renouncing the godless U.S Constitution as individuals and churches.  It is our only hope.  Calling for a return to these documents is like a dog returning to its vomit.

Case Closed:  If we refuse to judge these idols, God will continue to judge us by means of them.  God will inexorably break the back of any nation that formally rejects His law in a document such as the U.S. Constitution.

Obama and Islam are the modern day Babylonians, God has sent this foreign invader to judge His lawless people.  Like Israel of old Christian conservatives insist on railing against and resisting God’s rod of discipline without first returning to His law.  They demand their supposed inalienable rights at the same time rejecting His law and their responsibility thereto.

The only relief will come with formal repentance from our covenant-breaking founding documents.  America was founded as an allegedly neutral, and thus anti-Christian nation in 1787.  Jesus said he who is not for me is against me.  Christians need to repent of that rebellious act immediately in formal ceremonies of repudiation, repentance and return to the law of God.

A good first step would be to sign the “Confession of Guilt and Petition for Forgiveness in the Matter of Our Forefathers’ Ratification of the United States Constitution”.  Study the material on that site and our HistoryMythBusters main site.   

Related Posts:

Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land

Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism

Which God?

Today’s Mt. Carmel Christians

 

Will the Boy Scouts Fawn at the Feet of the Wicked?

Posted: 8th February 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,
19

The Boy Scouts of America are being pressured by today’s perverse society to renounce their long-standing policy and allow sodomites to join. This would not even be a consideration if this organization were still truly righteous. If they change their policy to accommodate homosexuals, they will find themselves fulfilling King Solomon’s proverb:

 Like a trampled spring and a polluted well is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked. (Proverbs 25:26)

Just keep your mouth shut!

I can’t begin to count the number of times I’ve witnessed this proverb in action. Whenever an allegedly Christian politician makes a Biblical stand, the media monsters jump on him, challenging his right to do so or accusing him of bigotry, or gay bashing, or whatever happens to be his politically incorrect position at the time. And instead of holding to his convictions, he falls all over himself, capitulating, and thereby fawning at the feet of the wicked. I’ve witnessed pastors and ministry leaders do the same.

How many times I have said to myself: “Thanks a lot! Why didn’t you just keep your big mouth shut?” If we’re not prepared to act upon our convictions regardless the persecution, we’re better off not taking a righteous stand at all. Otherwise, we end up fulfilling Christ’s description in Revelation 3:15-16 of being nauseatingly lukewarm. Such groveling is indicative of salt that’s lost its savor and puts you under the foot of wicked (Matthew 5:13). Not only does the waffler get trampled in the process, so does the reputation of all Christians.

The Fear of Yahweh

At the root of such equivocation is the fear of man. We are commanded numerous times in Old and New Testaments alike to fear only Yahweh1:

 Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which Yahweh your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them … all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged.… And Yahweh commanded us … to fear Yahweh our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive…. (Deuteronomy 6:1-2, 24)

The command to fear Yahweh is a statute under the First Commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” To fear man or anything else is to make whoever or whatever we fear a god above Yahweh.

Not only is the fear of Yahweh the beginning of knowledge and wisdom (Proverbs 1:7, 9:10), it is fundamental to our acceptance of Him as our god. Fear is a potent catalyst. Whom a person fears is almost always whom he obeys, and obedience is the principle criterion for identifying a person’s god. Thus Yahweh demands we fear only Him:

 …Yahweh commanded the children of Jacob, whom he named Israel … saying, Ye shall not fear other gods, nor bow yourselves to them, nor serve them, nor sacrifice to them: But Yahweh … him shall ye fear, and him shall ye worship, and to him shall ye do sacrifice. (2 Kings 17:34-36)

We are repeatedly commanded not to fear men, men’s words, men’s governments, men’s courts, or any other man-made entity:

 The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in Yahweh shall be safe. (Proverbs 29:25)

…Yahweh spoke to me with mighty power and instructed me not to walk in the way of this people, saying, “You are not to say, ‘It is a conspiracy!’ In regard to all that this people call a conspiracy, and you are not to fear what they fear or be in dread of it. It is Yahweh of hosts whom you should regard as holy. And He shall be your fear, and He shall be your dread.” (Isaiah 8:11-13)

Hearken unto me [Yahweh], ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings. (Isaiah 51:7)

…be not afraid of them, neither be afraid of their words … nor be dismayed at their looks…. (Ezekiel 2:6)

…fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him [Yahweh] which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell [geena]. (Matthew 10:28)

Composure allays great offenses

King Solomon provided an important reason why Christians should not fear even despots:

 If the ruler’s temper rises against you, do not abandon your position, because composure allays great offenses. (Ecclesiastes 10:4)

Paul described the absence of fear as a “sign of destruction” to Christendom’s enemies:

 Only conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ … standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel; in no way alarmed by your opponents – which is a sign of destruction for them, but of salvation for you, and that too, from God. (Philippians 1:27-28)

When we kneel in faith before Yahweh, we can stand in faith before kings. Refusing to fear anyone or anything other than Almighty God is a demonstration of faith, and our faith overcomes the world (1 John 5:4).

 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? (Romans 8:31)

The question is: Will the Boy Scouts overcome or will they pollute their well?

 

Related posts:

The First Commandment

Which God?

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.”

American Exceptionalism

Posted: 1st February 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,
13

American exceptionalism is the proposition that the United States is different from other countries in that it has a specific world mission to spread liberty and democracy. It is not a notion that the United States is quantitatively better than other countries or that it has a superior culture, but rather that it is “qualitatively different”…. Although the term does not necessarily imply superiority, many neoconservative and American conservative writers have promoted its use in that sense.1

There is nothing wrong with being exceptional and excelling at whatever you do. I feel sorry for the person who wants anything less for themselves and who accepts mediocrity or worse. Let’s not forget Christ’s reprimand to the church at Laodicea in Revelation 3:16, that it is better to be hot, even cold, than to be lukewarm. King Solomon concurred:

 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might…. (Ecclesiastes 9:10)

In 1 Corinthians 9:24, the Apostle Paul charged the Corinthians to “run in such a way that you may win,” and then, in Verses 26-27, he declared, “I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; but I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest possibly, after I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified.” Put briefly: Paul excelled at all he put his heart and hand to.

A “better than thou” attitude

Modern American exceptionalism is something else altogether and has led many Americans to a “better than thou” attitude. This has provoked the rest of the world to think Americans look down our noses at them. “Pride goeth before the fall” is a truism for both individuals and nations alike.

America has prospered like no other nation in modern times. However, she, like Israel of old, has forgotten where her success came from:

 Beware that thou forget not Yahweh2 thy God, in not keeping his commandments, and his judgments, and his statutes, which I command thee this day: Lest when thou hast eaten and art full, and hast built goodly houses, and dwelt therein; and when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, and thy silver and thy gold is multiplied, and all that thou hast is multiplied; then thine heart be lifted up, and thou forget Yahweh thy God…. And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth. (Deuteronomy 8:11-17)

Thine, O Yahweh, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O Yahweh, and thou art exalted as head above all. Both riches and honour come of thee, and thou reignest over all; and in thine hand is power and might; and in thine hand it is to make great, and to give strength unto all. (1 Chronicles 29:11-12)

Modern America’s concept of American exceptionalism was an inevitable consequence of the first three words of the U.S. Constitution’s Preamble—WE THE PEOPLE—and its audacious claim of establishing justice and securing liberty without Yahweh’s intervention.

Let’s not take anything for granted:

Is America exceptional? Is America superior to the rest of the world? Is America even qualitatively different from other nations? The answers to those questions all depend upon what standard we use to answer them.

If we were to put the same questions to Yahweh, how might He answer them and by what standard would He assess America? I think we can all agree His standard would not be the same as used by most of today’s Americans. His standard would be His own immutable righteousness as found in His perfect law and altogether righteous judgments:

 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)

By this standard

It was this standard that made both ancient Israel and 17th-century Colonial America an exceptional light to the rest of the world. In Democracy in America, French statesman and historian, Alexis de Tocqueville testified to this exceptionalism found in early America:

 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.3

Proverbs 14:34 declares that “righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” 17th-century America was exalted in the eyes of the world because of her applied righteousness, embodied in Yahweh’s perfect law. Since 1789, when the United States of America began following the laws of WE THE PEOPLE, our legislation has ceased providing righteous instruction to others. As a consequence, the rest of the world now holds America in disdain. Indeed, her sins (violations of Yahweh’s law, 1 John 3:4) have become her reproach and have unmasked her alleged exceptionalism as nothing more than arrogance. If America hopes to ever regain her favored status in the eyes of the world, she must repent of her false pride, return to her God and her exalted mission of spreading Christianity and thereby true liberty to the world.

 Thus saith Yahweh, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am Yahweh which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith Yahweh. (Jeremiah 9:23-24)

But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. (Galatians 6:14)

 

Related posts:

Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant

5 Reasons the Constitution is Today’s Cutting-Edge Issue

The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH

1. “American Exceptionalism,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism>.

2. 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.”

3. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2 vols. (New York: NY: The Colonial Press, 1899) vol. 1, pp. 36-37.

 

You Can’t Win Bringing a Knife to a Gunfight

Posted: 25th January 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,
41

The infamous gunfight at the O.K. Corral took place in Tombstone, Arizona, between the Clanton gang and the Earps (and Doc Holliday). It was won by the Earps because they came adequately armed for the battle. Conversely, our present gun battle isn’t shaping up to be much of a fight and will ultimately be lost. This present “shootout” will almost assuredly end with additional restrictions placed upon our ownership and use of firearms. This is because the good guys are brandishing a “knife” in a “gunfight.” Worse, those with the knife believe it’s a six-shooter.

This knife nearly everyone is wielding at today’s O.K. Corral is the Second Amendment right to bear arms. As with all rights, this knife is easily licensed and limited. It can even be completely eliminated if the government ever decides to repeal the Second Amendment:

 Because this is a “right” codified by the United States Constitutional Republic and thereby brought under its jurisdiction, the Constitutional Republic can divest its citizens of this right—something it has been doing incrementally for some time. On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S., the Supreme Court decided, five to four, that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own and bear firearms. Although gun owners hailed Heller a victory, this battle (which is far from over) concerning the constitutional right to bear arms has diverted our attention from the larger and more consequential battle.

Disconcerting as many Americans may find the erosion of the Second Amendment guarantee, what is even more disturbing is that five people have the power to decide whether United States citizens have the right to protect themselves and their families, to what degree, and with what weapons. The Supreme Court has ruled that Americans have the right to bear arms, but only until they say otherwise. Many Americans who celebrated Heller overlooked the fact that it can—and likely will—be overturned by a future court, just as its decision overturned United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, rendered in 1939. If you look to the Second Amendment for your authority to bear arms, that authority is contingent upon the fickle nature of nine fallible human beings.

The constitutional right to bear arms is in jeopardy since the Second Amendment could be overturned at any time by future amendment. This was attempted as recently as March 11, 1992, by Democratic Congressman Major Owens of New York….1

When the framers rejected Yahweh’s2 morality as the standard for government and society, they also disregarded the most effective means of protection against tyrants, politicians, lawyers, and other criminals. Rights are easily controlled by whatever government happens to be in power. But God-expected responsibilities (such as found in 1 Timothy 5:8) remain the same regardless what the government says or does.

The knife provided and controlled by the government is not going to save you in the gunfight at today’s O.K. Corral.

 It is better to trust in Yahweh than to put confidence in man [We the People]. It is better to trust in Yahweh than to put confidence in princes [and their edicts such as the Second Amendment]. (Psalm 118:8-9)

 

Related posts:

The Second Amendment: A Knife in a Gunfight

Radio Interview with Larry Pratt

Newtown’s Massacre, Today’s Cultural Abyss, and Gun-Free Zones

Amendment 2: Constitutional vs. Biblical Self-Defense

Firearms: Scripturally Defended

 

1. Chapter 12 “Amendment 2: Constitutional vs. Biblical Self-Defense,” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

2. 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.”

Time for Pronomians to Come out of the Closet

Posted: 18th January 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,
30

Let me begin this article by defining two terms that may not be familiar to everyone reading this article: “antinomian” and “pronomian.”

The word “nomian” is derived from the Greek word nomos, which means law. An “antinomian [is] a person who maintains that Christians are freed from the moral law by virtue of grace and faith.”1 Conversely, pronomians (predominately found in the Reformed movement) are people, who do not believe a person is saved, justified, or forgiven by observing the moral laws of Yahweh,2 but who also believe those laws have not been abolished under the New Covenant:

 Do we then make void the law through faith [or grace]? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. (Romans 3:31)3

Tragically, the vast majority of people calling themselves Christians today espouse antinomian Christianity. Most of what I write in these articles is intended for antinomians. However, as can be seen from the title, this article is aimed at pronomians who claim to believe Psalm 119:7-11—that Yahweh’s law is perfect, His statutes right, His commandments pure, and His judgments righteous altogether. These pronomians should be assessing everything by that law and applying it to all facets of life.

Nothing more frustrating

Nothing is more frustrating than witnessing someone who possesses the solution to a problem and refuses to use it.

Actually, there’s something even more frustrating: witnessing someone who possesses the solution and knows it’s the solution but refuses to use it. This is what I observe all the time with pronomian Christians.

Recently, I had a discussion with a Reformed leader about why the movement has failed to make the expected impact with the perfect law of liberty at their disposal. He said it was because the leaders, in particular, have failed to exhibit grace to each other over nonessential areas of doctrine. In other words, they have failed to heed Paul’s instructions in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 and his warning in Galatians 5:15, “But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.”

There is a lot of truth to this. However, there is an equally potent cause contributing to the Reformed movement’s failure to take dominion. They possess the tools of dominion, but, at every turn, they fail to use them. They declare Yahweh’s moral law is the one and only ethical standard for everything, but they fail to act accordingly. In other words, theirs is an intellectual knowledge only, not all that different from the Old Testament Israelites who recognized Yahweh’s law as superior but refused to honor it in everything they did.

Sodomites should be in the closet, not pronomians

Consider what’s occurring on many Reformed blogs. The lion’s share of these articles propose answers to societies’ problem. But Yahweh’s law as the basis for those solutions is seldom mentioned. Many of these “solutions” are aimed at saving the Constitutional Republic. But let’s face it, brethren, in trying to save the Republic, Christians have all but lost the kingdom to the non-Christians and antichrists. Why? Because pronomian Christians refuse to consistently and uncompromisingly use what they know holds the answers to society’s woes.

This is inexcusable and very well may be the height of hypocrisy. This is to be expected from antinomians, but pronomians have the answers. Are you ashamed of your God and His law? Not only the nation, but the entire creation is waiting for you to use His law on its behalf:

For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. (Romans 8:19-21)

It isn’t enough for us to know Yahweh’s law is the standard that holds the answer to societies’ problems. If we truly believe Psalm 19:7-9, His law will become integral in everything we say and do:

And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates. (Deuteronomy 6:6-9)

Knowledge without action amounts to closet Christianity. In Matthew 5:13, Christ described this as salt that’s lost its savor, good for nothing but to be trampled under the foot of man.

Related posts:

Today’s Mount Carmel Christians

Which God?

Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant

1. Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, s.v. “antinomian” (New York, NY: Random House, 2000) p. 59.

2. 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.”

3. For more regarding how Yahweh’s moral law applies today, see Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant.

10 “Radical” Recommendations

Posted: 11th January 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
4

Today’s blog was inspired by Allan Erickson’s post “Some Radical New Year Suggestions for Our Esteemed Leaders…” In it, he offered some excellent suggestions, but I propose that the following ten “radical” recommendations are far superior.

#1: I propose the humanistic government of, by, and for the people be replaced with a government of, by, and for Yahweh1 (the God of the Bible).2

#2: I propose Articles 1-3 be replaced with Isaiah 33:22: “For Yahweh is our judge, Yahweh is our lawgiver, Yahweh is our king; he will save us.”3

#3: I propose the Constitution as supreme law (as per Article 6) be replaced with Yahweh’s perfect law (as per Psalm 19:7-11, etc.).4

#4: I propose Article 6’s ban of Christian tests be replaced with a mandate that all government officials (federal and state alike) be Biblically qualified.4

#5: I propose Amendment 1’s provision for polytheism be replaced with the First Commandment and its requirement for Christian monotheism.5

#6: I propose Amendment 2’s easily licensed and limited right to bear arms be replaced with the Biblical responsibility to bear arms in defense of ourselves, our families, and our neighbors (1 Timothy 5:8, etc.).6

#7: I propose Amendment 8’s ban of cruel and unusual punishments be replaced with Yahweh’s altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:9).7

#8: I propose Amendment 9’s unenumerated “rights” be replaced with Biblical righteousness.8

#9: I propose Article 2’s and Amendment 21’s unbiblical elections be replaced with Biblical appointments of only Biblically qualified men.9

#10: I propose Christians repent of their double-minded “Christian Constitutionalism” (an oxymoron if ever there was one) and seek and advance Yahweh’s kingdom and righteousness with all their hearts, souls, minds, and strength.10

I’ve placed the word “radical” in quotations because my recommendations are not radical at all except to those who do not have a Biblical worldview and who, therefore, do not believe Yahweh is their Creator and God, that His morality is unrivaled, and His law perfect and immutable.

 

Related posts:

Today’s Mount Carmel Christians

5 Reasons Why the Constitution is Our Cutting-Edge Issue

Which God?

Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant

 

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. The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH

3. Article 1: Legislative Usurpation, Article 2: Executive Usurpation, and Article 3: Judicial Usurpation

4. Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land

5. Amendment 1: Government Sanctioned Polytheism

6. Amendment 2: Constitutional vs. Biblical Self-Defense?

7. Amendment 8: Bail, Fines, and Cruel and Unusual Punishments

8. Amendment 9: Rights vs. Righteousness

9. Article 2: Executive Usurpation and Amendment 12: Stipulations for Unscriptural Elections

10. Petition for Forgiveness Signature Pledge

Which God?

Posted: 4th January 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
16

For most of you reading this blog, the question of which god you serve is already settled:

 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that Yahweh1 he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else. (Deuteronomy 4:39)

…there is none other God but one … though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth…. (1 Corinthians 8:4-5)

However, this is not true for the majority of people (Matthew 7:13-14), even for most alleged Christians. The gods in today’s world are as many and varied as ever. Although many Americans profess Yahweh as their God and Christ as Lord, most who do so, do not trust in the God of the Bible—at least, not as He dictates:

 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)

As a rule, our choice of another god is not articulated. Most people reveal their rejection of Yahweh by the way they live their lives. The law by which a person chooses to live determines his god. Any time we choose another’s or our own will over Yahweh’s, we enthrone another god in our hearts. On the other hand, when Almighty God is lord of our lives, our innermost desire becomes one of pleasing and serving Him. We do this by obeying His commandments, which are His principle means of revealing His will to us:

 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. (1 John 2:4)

What Embarrasses You?

Yahweh’s law, to one degree or another, embarrasses many Christians. Their rejection of His statutes and judgments tacitly proclaims their belief in their own morality and divinity. Their consciences are pricked, not by God’s law, but by their own perception of good and evil:

 Conscience must be under authority, or it ceases to be conscience and becomes a god…. Under the facade of conscience, an assault is launched against conscience and authority…. Conscience [in such instances] … is simply a term for our own desires, enthroned as law….

True conscience is under authority, godly authority. True conscience is governed by Scripture; it does not set itself up as an arbiter over God and His word…. True conscience subjects itself to God’s authority: it is at all times under God, never itself a god and lord.2

When men reject Yahweh’s righteousness as codified in His moral law, they implicitly reject the Author of that law:

 Beloved, … it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 1:3-4)

Antinomianism

“Lasciviousness” is translated from asélgeian. The New American Standard translates this Greek word as “licentiousness.” Licentiousness is the “excessive indulgence of liberty; contempt of the just restraints of law….”3 Turning God’s grace into licentiousness is known as antinomianism. An “antinomian [is] a person who maintains that Christians are freed from the moral law by virtue of grace and faith,”4 in contradiction to numerous New Testament passages:

 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 5:19)

Do we then make void the law through faith [or grace]? 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…. (Romans 7:12-14)

Antinomianism can be traced all the way back to Adam and Eve. Tragically, it is espoused by most modern Christians. By rejecting the bulk of Yahweh’s morality as provided in His commandments, statutes, and judgments, antinomians reject Him as God and Jesus as Lord. By accepting only some of His morality, they derive the remainder of their ethics from the law systems of other gods. In practice, antinomians are polytheists.

 It does not matter how many times a person assures us that he is in favor of Christian civilization and opposed to the humanistic myth of neutrality. If he does not affirm the continuing validity of the biblical case laws [the Ten Commandments’ statutes and judgments], his affirmation in favor of Christian civilization is in vain, intellectually speaking. At some point, his denial of the continuing moral and judicial authority of God’s revealed law will logically force him to affirm some form of natural law theory or common ground reasoning, i.e., the myth of neutrality.5

Antinomianism is much more serious than most people (even most pronomians) realize. Jude depicted antinomians as not only rejecting God’s law, but also denying God Himself.

 Since there is only one true God, and His law is the expression of His unchanging nature and righteousness, then to abandon the Biblical law for another law-system is to change gods.6

To whatever degree antinomians reject Yahweh’s moral law, they are to that degree humanists. Without God’s moral compass, every man is either a law unto himself or a slave to some surrogate god. Antinomianism is an implicit rejection of the First Commandment.

In God We Trust

Most American Christians take it for granted that the inscription “In God We Trust,” on our coinage, points to the God of the Bible. Quite the contrary. Instead, it begs the question, “Which god?”

Since the inception of the First Amendment and its provision for freedom of religion (by which polytheism has flourished in our nation) the answer to that question is no longer a given, as it was in the 1600s and early 1700s. Since the ratification of the First Amendment, we have quickly gone from being one united nation under God to a divided nation under many gods. With the possible exception of ancient Rome, America has become the most polytheistic nation ever.

Most Christians hang their religious hats on Amendment 1 as if some profound Christian principle is found etched therein. This is but further evidence that most Christians do not believe, trust, and worship Yahweh as He dictates, even as required in the First Commandment.

Which god do you serve?

Related posts:

First Commandment Violators: Framers and Bloggers Alike

The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH

Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism

Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant

 

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. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) pp. 122-23.

3. Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language, s.v. “licentiousness” (1828; reprint ed. San Francisco, CA: The Foundation for American Christian Education, 1967).

4. Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, s.v. “antinomian” (New York, NY: Random House, 2000) p. 59.

5. Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989) p. 179.

6. Rushdoony, p. 20.

Older Entries
Newer Entries