The Internet: Today’s Areopagus

Posted: 8th August 2014 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
5

Now while Paul waited … at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry…. Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other[s], He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection. And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean. (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.) (Acts 17:16-21)

 Today’s Internet is comparable to the Areopagus in at least one significant way.

Something New

The vast majority of information presented on sites and blogs (non-Christian and Christian alike) is devoted to telling or commenting on something new—or retelling over and over and over again what was once new. Even sites not devoted to outright evil purposes are often of little or no value, especially as it pertains to saving America from the precipice upon which she teeters.

Wisdom is in the presence of the one who has understanding, but the eyes of a fool are on the ends of the earth. (Proverbs 17:24)

A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind. (Proverbs 18:2)

 One expects this from sites owned, operated, and patronized by non-Christians. However, many Christian sites do not fare much better. I can’t begin to tell you the frustration I’ve experienced in witnessing Christians who know the solution to America’s present dilemma but who use their sites and resources merely to inform people of the latest headline.

The accumulated words and time wasted on nothing more than telling or commenting on something “new” is staggering. Christians are admonished to use their time judiciously:

So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom. (Psalm 90:12)

Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil. (Ephesians 5:14-16)

Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time. (Colossians 4:5)

Something New Without Solutions

Like “conservative”1 TV and radio talk shows, many websites are devoted to exposing harmful influences upon our nation. This is Biblical:

Again the word of Yahweh2came unto me, saying, Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man … and set him for their watchman: If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people; then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. (Ezekiel 33:1-4)

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove [expose, NASB] them. (Ephesians 5:11)

However, to only call attention to America’s problems is to do little or nothing toward solving those problems:

And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of Yahweh thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that Yahweh thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth: And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of Yahwehthy God…. But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of Yahweh thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes … that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee….”(Deuteronomy 28:1-2ff, 15ff)

Among those who do attempt to provide solutions to America’s plight, few focus on the only thing that can liberate America from the quagmire she presently finds herself in—that is, Yahweh’s perfect law of liberty3:

Society is diseased and we have the cure, but the evangelical world will for some reason try every bottle of medicine in the cabinet, one by one, and die trying, before they reach for that one bottle that happens to say “theonomy” [God’s law] on the label.4

Something Worse

To identify America’s national woes without providing Biblical solutions is, at best, fear mongering.5 Worse, most conservative sites (as well as most conservative TV and radio talk shows and blog respondents) incessantly offer the genesis of America’s plight as the solution:

Every problem America faces today can be traced back to the fact that the [constitutional] framers failed to expressly establish a government upon Yahweh’s immutable morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments. (Would infanticide and sodomy be tolerated, let alone financed by the government, if Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments were the law of the land? Would Islam be a looming threat to our peace and security if the First Amendment had been replaced with the First Commandment? Would Americans be in nearly as much debt if usury had been outlawed as a form of theft? Would crime be as rampant if “cruel and unusual punishment” had not been outlawed and criminals were instead punished with Yahweh’s altogether righteous judgments? Would we be on the fiscal cliff if we were taxed with a flat increase tax rather than a graduated income tax?)6

 To promote the Constitution as any part of America’s answer is analogous to defending the traditions of the elders, which Christ so vehemently denounced:

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

Many Christians defend the Constitution’s original intent. But this is tantamount to defending the Sadducees over the Pharisees. When you’re dealing with a Biblically seditious document,7 why would a Christian defend either position?

America cannot be saved except by repentance. We mustrepent not for disobedience to the Constitution, but for disobedience to Yahweh and His moral law. This repentance must include any endorsement of the Constitution itself.8

Making Time Count

My dear Christian brethren, why are we wasting time promoting the very thing that put America on the precipice? Why are we wasting words on the latest newsflash, especially when we’ve been given the tools to save America from her enemies?

[T]he weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We aredestroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we aretaking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, and we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete. (2 Corinthians 10:4-6)

Not only the nation, but the entire creation is waiting for us to manifest ourselves on our King’s 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)

Instead of wasting time on today’s Areopagus, let’s take dominion of the Internet for King and kingdom. You can help to accelerate the kingdom here on earth as it is in heaven (Matthew 6:10, 13) by joining us in our Kingdom Ambassador Project.

But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 15:57-58)

 

Related posts:

Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant

Campaign Against Fear Mongering (Audio message)

5 Reasons the Constitution is Our Cutting-Edge Issue

Time for Pronomians to Come out of the Closet

Hailing Kingdom Ambassadors

 

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

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

3. Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant

4. Joel McDurmon (quoting someone else), “A revelation on the real reason behind two-kingdoms theology,” The American Vision: A Biblical Worldview Ministry, http://americanvision.org/11157/a-revelation-on-the-real-reason-behind-two-kingdoms-theology/.

5. Campaign Against Fear Mongering (Audio message)

6. 5 Reasons the Constitution is Our Cutting-Edge Issue

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

8. Petition For Forgiveness Signature Pledge

WWJD? Are You SURE You Want to Know? Pt. 2

Posted: 28th June 2014 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
8

As demonstrated in Part 1, doing as Jesus would do requires we consult Yahweh’s1 triune moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments2) as the principle means for determining the answer to this extremely important question:

He that saith he abideth in him [Jesus] ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked. (1 John 2:6)

And this is love, that we walk after his commandments….. (2 John 1:6)

How did Jesus “walk”? In every situation He encountered, He addressed it according to His Father’s law. To have done otherwise would have resulted in Jesus being a sinner like the rest of us. He therefore could not have been our sinless sacrifice and savior:

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4)

In Part 1, we considered how Jesus responded to the capital crimes of cursing a parent and adultery. Let’s now consider two more instances:

Usury

The following Eighth Commandment statute3 expresses Yahweh’s law on usury—that is, charging interest:

Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury. (Deuteronomy 23:19)

The usual interpretation of the parable of talents puts Jesus at odds with Deuteronomy 23:19:

He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come…. And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him … that he might know how much every man had gained by trading…. And another [the third servant] came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: For I feared thee, because thou art an austere [severe, ESV] man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow: Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds. (Luke 19:12-24)

Did Jesus change Yahweh’s law regarding usury in order to make it lawful under the New Covenant, as some Christians claim? Put bluntly: God forbid! If we are counting on Jesus’ blood-atoning sacrifice as our propitiation for sin, we had better hope He did not. Had Jesus changed this or any of Yahweh’s moral laws, He would have been promoting disobedience to Yahweh’s ethical nature as codified in His law, which would have made it impossible for Him to be our Savior. He would have been no better than the Pharisees or today’ antinomians:

[Y]e made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition … teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:6-9).

With this in mind, let us reconsider the parable of the talents from the paradigm that Jesus could not and did not alter Yahweh’s law on usury but instead upheld it. Note first that, in addition to accusing the nobleman (who represented Jesus) of being an austere or harsh man, the wicked servant also accused him of taking up what he had not laid down and reaping what he had not sown. In other words, the servant accused his master of being a thief. Immediately following these false accusations, the master responded:

…Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest [or considered] that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow. Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? (Luke 19:22-23)

The master declared the wicked servant would be judged by his own standard. Because this wicked servant considered his master a thief, the very least he could have done was steal for his master in the easiest possible way, by putting his money in a bank that paid usury.

Jesus did not change the law on usury; He validated it. He identified usury for exactly what it is—theft, plain and simple.

What would Jesus do with today’s usurers? He certainly wouldn’t provide them with the chief seats (or any seat for that matter) in His church building. Instead, he would probably do the same with them as He did with the temple money changers:

And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple…. (John 2:15)

Burglary

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary defines “burglary”:

The breaking and entering the house of another in the night–time, with intent to commit a felony therein, whether the felony be actually committed or not.4

Exodus 22 addresses burglary:

If [a] thief is caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. (Exodus 22:2-3, NASB)

A person who defends his family, home, or possessions by killing a thief in the dark of the night is not to be held accountable for murder. However, if an unarmed thief, who has no intent to cause bodily harm, is killed during daylight hours, the killer is to be held responsible for the thief’s blood. Although unstated, the obvious reason for this distinction is the impossibility of determining an intruder’s intentions in the dark of the night. During a night raid, Yahweh gives the benefit of doubt to the homeowner.

What was Jesus’ position on burglary?

…if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. (Matthew 24:43, NASB)

When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own homestead, his possessions are undisturbed. (Luke 11:21, NASB)

Because Yahweh’s law clearly provides for self-defense, our Savior was likewise a proponent of self-defense.5 Although self-defense is not the primary focus of the previous two statements, Jesus would never have used them as examples had He not endorsed self-defense. In doing so, He once again validated Yahweh’s law as the standard by which we are to comport ourselves in all things:

What Would Jesus Do?

These and other examples demonstrate that everything Jesus did was in accord with Yahweh’s moral law. By doing so, He was able to then become our propitiation on the cross. Once justified by the blood shed at Calvary, our aim as Christians is to live sinless (holy) lives, made possible under the New Covenant by Yahweh’s indwelling Spirit (Romans 8:4-9). This can only be accomplished by doing as Jesus did.

The law sends us to the gospel for our justification; the gospel sends us to the law to frame our way of life.6

Rather than fashioning God into our own image (after our own desires), we need to instead submit ourselves to His will for us as reflected in His law:

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)

Consequently, if we’re going to conduct ourselves in the same manner as Jesus, we must look to Yahweh’s moral law as the prime means for answering the question, “What would Jesus do?”

 

Related post:

Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant

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

2. Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant

3. Thou shalt not steal

4. “Burglary,” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary: A Concise Encyclopedia of the Law (Kansas City, MO: Vernon Law Book Company, 1914) Volume 1, p. 404.

5. Firearms: Scripturally Defended

6. Samuel Bolton, The Moral Law: A Rule of Obedience, http://www.the-highway.com/articleFeb00.html

WWJD? Are You SURE You Want to Know? Pt. 1

Posted: 21st June 2014 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,
16

“What would Jesus do?” has become a mantra among contemporary Christians. It’s a great question, but only when answered by the Biblical standard. Far too often, each person is left to determine his own standard by which to answer this question. This amounts to forcing upon Jesus one’s own standard rather than seeking His.

Truth be known, most Christians don’t want to know what Jesus would do. This is because the vast majority of today’s churches are antinomian (opposed to Yahweh’s1 law under the New Covenant2), whereas Jesus was entirely pronomian. If He were living today, today’s antinomian churches would surely excommunicate him.

It was imperative that Jesus keep the law. Otherwise, He would have been a sinner and unable to be our sinless sacrifice. The Apostle John defines sin in the following fashion:

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4)

In Matthew 5:17-19, we’re informed that Jesus did not “come to destroy [or change] the law … [but instead] to fulfill it.” Had He not observed and taught Yahweh’s moral law perfectly, He would not be our Savior today. Thus, Jesus responded to every situation He faced according to Yahweh’s immutable morality as codified in His triune law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments). Let’s consider four examples:

Cursing Father and Mother

What did Jesus teach regarding cursing one’s father or mother? If He was to remain sinless, it was incumbent upon Him to teach His Father’s law as provided in Exodus 21:17: “And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death”:

[Jesus] answered and said unto them [the scribes and Pharisees], Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death…. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:3-9)

Praise Yahweh! We still have a Savior! Unlike so many today, Jesus didn’t advocate something different from His Father’s will as expressed in His moral law. If we’re going to do what Jesus would do in similar circumstances, we too need to be teaching the same today, particularly if we intend to reside in His kingdom:

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. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:19-20)3

Adultery

Following is the judgment Yahweh requires for unrepentant adulterers:

And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)

Some Christians cite John 8:1-11, in which Jesus pardoned the adulterous woman, as alleged evidence this sin should no longer be considered a capital crime:

[T]he scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery…. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? …Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground … and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. …And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one…. When Jesus … saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. (John 8:3-11)

 Instead of requiring this woman to be stoned, Jesus merely admonished her to cease sinning. However, in doing so, He did not repeal Leviticus 20:10, which would have made Him a sinner. Instead, He upheld it, as demonstrated in His initial ruling that this woman was to be stoned by the witnesses to her crime.

Whatever Jesus wrote on the ground caused the woman’s accusers to exit the scene, in effect leaving no witnesses against her. Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 (which provide a statute Jesus referred to in John 8:17) require that capital punishment cannot be administered without the testimony of two or more witnesses—who are required to throw the first stones at the execution:

 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you. (Deuteronomy 17:6-7)

Jesus required this prerequisite to stoning when he told the woman’s accusers, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” Apparently these men were guilty of the same sin and therefore could not witness against the woman without exposing themselves to the same judgment. To have sentenced this woman to be stoned without witnesses would itself have been a violation of the law, making Jesus a sinner.

Furthermore, Leviticus 20:10 requires both the adulteress and the adulterer be produced for trial and sentencing. Since the Pharisees and scribes were witnesses to the crime, why didn’t they also produce the man (or men) involved with the woman? Perhaps they did. Perhaps they themselves were those men. This would also explain why they eliminated themselves as witnesses.

Jesus did not change the judgment for adulterers. He perfectly upheld Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 17:6, and 19:15, as required in order for Him to be our sinless Savior.4

See Part 2.

 

Related post:

Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant

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

2. The word nomos is the Greek word most often translated “law” in the New Testament. Thus, the term “antinomian” is descriptive of anyone opposed to the implementation of Yahweh’s triune moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments) under the New Covenant.

3. Honour thy father and thy mother

4. Thou shalt not commit adultery

The Second Amendment Is Doomed

Posted: 24th May 2014 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
62

[Yahweh’s1] law is slacked, and judgment [justice] doth never go forth: for the wicked doth compass about the righteous; therefore wrong judgment proceedeth…. (Habakkuk 1:4)

This is the inevitable consequence whenever man compromises Yahweh’s standard of ethics with his own fickle, surrogate edicts. This includes the Second-Amendment established by the late 18th-century founders and its provision allowing us to bear arms in defense of ourselves, families, and neighbors.

For Christians who support the Second Amendment, this will very likely come as a shock. However, not only did the framers compromise and weaken Yahweh’s law of self-defense, they condemned the Second Amendment to eventual revocation for at least two reasons.

The optional rights’ repercussion

It’s often heard that the constitutional framers did not create the right to bear arms but only codified what was an already existing God-given natural right. However, there are two inherent problems with this oft-parroted assertions:

1) Except perhaps as the Paper’s timekeeper in Article 7,2 the Constitution knows nothing of God.

2) God and His Word know nothing of optional rights. Instead, the Bible is replete with God-expected responsibilities.

America began her trek toward the precipice she finds herself staring into today when the framers replaced the much more potent God-expected responsibilities (such as Psalm 149:6-9, Luke 22:36, and 1 Timothy 5:8) with Enlightenment-inspired optional rights (such as the Second Amendment).3 Such rights are easily controlled by whatever government happens to be in power. One needs look no further than the wording “shall not be infringed.” Despite this proviso, the Second Amendment is the most infringed, licensed, and limited Amendment of the entire twenty-seven.4

The Constitutional Republic’s ever-infringing restrictions upon the Second Amendment’s optional right are indicative of a foreign government’s control over its subjects:

Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears: But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his mattock. (1 Samuel 13:19-20)

Such is the inherent nature of optional rights, as contrasted with irrevocable Biblical responsibilities, such as the following depicted by the Apostle Paul:

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house [including spiritual and physical protection], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (1 Timothy 5:8)

The next generation’s legislative impact

America’s next generation of civil leaders are being educated in a public school system that is aggressively anti-firearms. Children as young as five years old are routinely being expelled for plastic squirt guns, Pop Tarts bitten into the shape of guns, and pointed fingers.

You don’t have to be a prophet to see the handwriting on the wall. If the Second Amendment’s optional right hasn’t already been completely whittled away within the next twenty to twenty-five years, the next generation of public-schooled legislators will certainly repeal it altogether.5

Rebuilding the foundations

If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? (Psalm 11:3)

What can the righteous do? They can rebuild the foundations.

That the Second Amendment was doomed from its inception is not the tragedy some people initially think it is. Instead, it’s part of the means by which Yahweh is slowly but surely forcing us back to doing things His way. When the Second Amendment is finally repealed, we’ll have nowhere to look for protection but to Yahweh (Psalm 91). We will be compelled to look to His directives as the standard for all we believe and do, including the responsibility to bear arms in defense of ourselves, our families, and our neighbors:

Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged sword [or today’s equivalent] in their hand; to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written: This honour have all his saints. Praise ye Yah. (Psalm 149:6-9)

Then said he [Jesus] unto them, But now, he … that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. (Luke 22:36)6

 Let the rebuilding begin.7

 

Related posts:

The Second Amendment: A Knife in a Gunfight

You Can’t Win Bringing a Knife to A Gunfight

Firearms: Scripturally Defended

Chapter 12 “Amendment 2: Constitutional vs. Biblical Self-Defense” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The 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. It was unlawfully deleted by the English translators. In obedience to the Third Commandment and the many Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, we have chosen to memorialize His name here in this document and in our lives. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”

2. Chapter 10 “Article 7: More of the Same” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

3. America’s Road to Hell: Paved With Rights

4. The Second Amendment: A Knife in a Gunfight

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

6. Firearms: Scripturally Defended

7. A Biblical Constitution

Could YOU Be a Disciple of Baal and Not Know It?

Posted: 8th May 2014 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
21

 

 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? If Yahweh1 be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. (1 Kings 18:21)

Identifying Baal

Historically, Baal is the name of the chief god of the ancient Canaanites and Phoenicians. But, more importantly, what is Baal?

Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands. They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. (Psalm 115:4-7)

[W]e know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. (1 Corinthians 8:4)

In reality, there is no such thing as a living, breathing god known as Baal. Baal, like all false gods, exists only in the minds of its adherents:

Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made. (Isaiah 2:8)

[T]hese men have set up their idols in their heart, and put the stumblingblock of their iniquity before their face…. (Ezekiel 14:3)

And I have seen folly in the prophets of Samaria; they prophesied in Baal, and caused my people Israel to err…. Thus saith Yahweh of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of Yahweh…. How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? Yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart.” (Jeremiah 23:13, 16, 26)

Identifying Baal Today

If idols such as Baal are nothing, why then does Yahweh consider them such a “threat”? The danger in idolatry does not come so much from the idol as it does the idolater:

Whenever man begins by establishing his own approach to God, he ends up by establishing his own will, his own lusts, and finally himself as God.2

The issue is not what idols are, but who they represent. Baal is nothing more than what its adherents have made it—a representation of themselves, resulting in a competing ethical code of their own invention. In other words, Baal is merely an ancient form representing what today we know as humanism.

For so it was, that the children of Israel had sinned against Yahweh their God … and had feared other gods, and walked in the statutes of the heathen…. And they set them up images and groves in every high hill, and under every green tree…. And they left all the commandments of Yahweh their God, and … served Baal. (2 Kings 17:7-16)

Identifying Baal Today in America

George Bernard Shaw reportedly said, “The art of government is the organization of idolatry.” Robert Ingram warned, “The other gods about whom we must be concerned are, as they ever have been, to be found in the seats of temporal, or human, government.”3

…[Yahweh’s] law is slacked, and judgment doth never go forth: for the wicked doth compass about the righteous; therefore wrong judgment proceedeth…. …their judgment [justice, NASB] and their dignity shall proceed of themselves. …imputing this his power unto his god. (Habakkuk 1:4, 7, 11)

The New American Standard Bible renders Verse 7 more accurately: “…their justice and authority originate with themselves.” This should sound all too familiar:

WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Preamble4 of the United States Constitution is arguably the most brazen human claim to sovereignty ever written. If you stop and think about its presumptuous claims, you will see this Constitution is humanism (Baalism) of the rankest sort.

The Preamble declares that “WE THE PEOPLE,” for various reasons, do “ordain and establish this constitution….” In other words, constitutionalism is a collective, agreed-upon form of humanism.

Authority, and thus jurisdiction, is at the heart of idolatry. In one of his many arguments on behalf of the Constitution, James Madison revealed the ultimate authority in the United States Constitutional Republic:

As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power … it is from them that the constitutional charter under which the [authority of the] several branches of government … is derived.5

Alexander Hamilton stated it similarly:

The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.6

This emphasis on the people (by both the federalists and anti-federalists alike) is evidence that they had lost sight of Yahweh and His ultimate authority. George Washington (who presided over the Constitutional Convention) confirmed this self-originating sovereignty in his “Farewell Address”:

This government, the offspring of our own choice uninfluenced and unawed … and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and support.7

James Monroe, the Constitutional Republic’s fifth president, concurred:

The people, the highest authority known in our system, from whom all our institutions spring and on whom they depend, formed it.8

John Adams confessed to the same humanism regarding the States’ Constitutions:

It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service [the establishment of the States’ Constitutions] had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of Heaven … it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses…. Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone….9

Such human sovereignty cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. Instead, the Bible is replete with condemnations of such humanism:

In those days … every man did that which was right in his own eyes. (Judges 21:25)

It is better to trust in Yahweh than to put confidence in man. (Psalm 118:8)

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

According to Habakkuk, not only did the Chaldeans’ authority originate with themselves, but so did their justice. And so does the justice of WE THE PEOPLE: “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice….” What an audacious assertion. Only Yahweh is just, and only He can establish justice:

Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy [Yahweh’s] throne…. (Psalm 89:14)

Establishing justice implies the ability to create laws in order to legislate moral behavior. Yahweh never delegated this duty to man or to any government created by man.10 Any time autonomous man attempts to establish justice outside Yahweh’s moral laws, the result is always injustice. In Isaiah 5:20, this transposition is depicted as calling good evil and evil good. Instead, Yahweh expects man to instate and enforce His justice as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments.

The word “autonomous” comes from two Greek words: auto meaning self and nomos meaning law. The word, which literally means “self-law,” is just another way of describing humanism and, in this instance, constitutionalism. We the People is therefore a contemporary expression of Baal. Constitutionalism is just a modern form of Baalism.

Only a supreme being or god can generate a supreme law. By proclaiming We the People’s Constitution the supreme law of the land (per Article 611), patriots (including many Christians) have made We the People a god:

[The Christian test ban in] Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution closed the door judicially to any transcendent god beyond the political order itself. The Constitution is therefore an apostate covenant; a wholly new god is ordained in it, a god acknowledged by the Framers in order to ordain it and ratify it: The American People….12

The first three words of the Preamble disclose who created the United States Constitution. Because WE THE PEOPLE created the Constitution (the Supreme Law), man must be its Supreme Being.

Idolatry is not so much about statues as it is statutes. To make the Constitution the supreme law of the land is the epitome of idolatry.

Identifying Baal Today in America in Ourselves

Are you a disciple of today’s Baal? You are if you’re a champion of We the People and an advocate of the Constitution.

If We the People be god, then follow them; if Yahweh be God, follow Him:

 [C]hoose you this day whom ye will serve … but as for me and my house, we will serve Yahweh. (Joshua 24:15)

 

Related posts:

Today’s Mt. Carmel Christians

Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

Chapter 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

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

 

1. YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. It was unlawfully deleted by the English translators. In obedience to the Third Commandment and the many Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, we have chosen to memorialize His name here in this document and in our lives. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”

2. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) p. 65.

3. T. Robert Ingram, The World Under God’s Law (Houston, TX: St. Thomas Press, 1981) p. 33.

4. Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

5. James Madison, The Federalist, No. 46 (New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1888) p. 217.

6. Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist, No. 22 (New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1888) p. 135.

7. George Washington, Worthington Chauncey Ford, ed., The Writings of George Washington, 14 vols. (New York; NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1892) vol. 13, p. 297.

8. James Monroe, “Views of the President of the United States on the Subject of Internal Improvements,” 4 May 1822, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/preambles20.html.

9. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, 10 vols. (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company, 1865) vol. 4, pp. 292-93.

10. Chapter 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

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

12. Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989) pp. 528-29.

Lawyers vs. Legalers

Posted: 17th April 2014 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
4

lawyer … One versed in the law, or a practitioner of law….1

lawyering … the practice of law.2

Despised profession

Lawyering, today, is a nearly universally despised profession. For example:

Question: “Do you know the difference between a dead skunk and a dead lawyer on the highway?

Answer: “There are skid marks in front of the skunk.”

 And, so it goes, to the point that a Christian lawyer is considered an oxymoron.

 Well, let me be the first to say these portrayals are completely unjustified and un-Biblical. I will even go so far as to declare it should be the ambition of all Christians to be lawyers.

Delineating terms

Now that I have your attention, let me explain.

“Lawyer” is but another term that has been stolen from Christians3 and redefined to denote something nearly opposite of its true meaning (another instance of calling evil good and good evil, per Isaiah 5:20).

Note the use of the word “law” in the definitions above. Are today’s attorneys versed in and practitioners of the law? Are they practicing law or are they practicing the antithesis of law? In order to answer these questions correctly, it’s imperative we grasp the true definition of law.

For YHWH is our judge, YHWH is our lawgiver, YHWH is our king; he will save us. (Isaiah 33:22)

There is [only, NASB] one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy…. (James 4:12)

As Creator, Yahweh4 is the only one with the authority to determine good and evil—that is, what is lawful and what is unlawful. Anything contrary to His law is not law but lawlessness:

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….

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).5

Today’s attorneys do not represent Yahweh and His law. Instead, they are officers of the Biblically adverse Judicial branch of the Constitutional Republic,6 sworn to uphold We the People’s7 supreme law of the land.8 Today’s attorneys are not lawyers but legalers.

Today’s legalers correspond to the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23:2. They usurped “Moses’ seat” and exchanged Yahweh’s law for their own traditions:

[Y]e made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, … in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:6-9)

Christian lawyers

In the tradition of Ezra, all Christians should be versed in and practitioners of the law of Yahweh and, thus, lawyers:

For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of YHWH, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments. (Ezra 7:10)

Not every Christian will be a teacher of the law. But every Christian’s aim should be to seek and obey the moral law of Yahweh in his own life, per Matthew 6:33, John 14:15, Romans 8:4, 1 Corinthians 7:19, 1 John 2:3, and 1 John 4:39:

The law sends us to the gospel for our justification; the gospel sends us to the law to frame our way of life.10

May Yahweh speed the day when the legalers are replaced with lawyers.

 

Related post:

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

Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant

 

1. Noah Webster, “Lawyer,” American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828 edition reprinted (San Francisco, CA: The Foundation for American Christian Education, 1967).

2. Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, s.v. “lawyering” (New York, NY: Random House, Inc., 2000) p. 752.

3. Other terms that have been stolen from us are: “mother earth” (Adam was “born” from the earth), “the rainbow” (the rainbow was given to Noah as sign of Yahweh’s protection), etc.

4. YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. It was unlawfully deleted by the English translators. In obedience to the Third Commandment and the many Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, we have chosen to memorialize His name here in this document and in our lives. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”

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

6. Chapter 6 “Article 3: Judicial Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

7. Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

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

9. Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant

10. Samuel Bolton, The Moral Law: A Rule of Obedience, <http://www.the-highway.com/articleFeb00.html.>

Lukewarm: Just a Warmer Degree of Cold

Posted: 22nd March 2014 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
6

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. (Revelation 3:14-16)

Why the Harsher Judgment?

Have you ever wondered why those described as lukewarm are more unpalatable to Yahweh1 than those who are frigid? I don’t presume to know the mind of God except where He has revealed it to us in His Word. Because He didn’t choose to do so in this instance, I can only proffer a possible reason.

Most people agree that those described as hot in Revelation 3 represent those on the right and those described as cold represent those on the left. Those described as lukewarm appear, from our finite perspective, to be in the center. But this perception is not necessarily how they stand with God.

From Yahweh’s perspective, there is no center, only right and left. We are either standing with Yahweh on His right, advancing His righteousness, or we are left of Yahweh’s right, advancing our own surrogate concept of righteousness (see Romans 10:1-3) or even impudently pursuing wickedness.

The next verse in Revelation 3 bears out that being in the “center” is an erroneous human perception:

Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. (Revelation 3:17)

Those depicted as lukewarm view themselves as rich, “in need of nothing.” Instead, the lukewarm, like everyone without Christ (and therefore left of Yahweh’s righteousness), are “wretched, miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” In other words, their centrist position is a false perception. No one stands in the center. At best, the lukewarm are just a warmer degree of cold.

 Back to the Question

But this doesn’t yet account for why the lukewarm are more distasteful to God than are the cold. One would think the extreme cold—those overtly left of Yahweh’s right—would be more odious than those who feign to be or have deluded themselves into thinking they are in good standing with God.

Consider one reason why those who try to walk the imaginary center line between left and right are more repugnant to Yahweh: Their attempt to pawn themselves off as being on the right often hoodwinks the unsuspecting into travelling with them on the broad way to destruction (Matthew 7:13-14).

Alleged Conservatives

Consider this in light of today’s Republicans, Tea Partiers, and Constitutionalists. When measured by the standard of Yahweh’s everlasting righteousness and immutable morality, none of these are truly conservative.2 How many people today have been duped into thinking that if only enough of these alleged conservatives are elected into office, they can save America from destruction? In truth, the Republicans, etc., are only the right-leaning branch of the leftists. What they offer is just another version of every man (whether individually, collectively, or by representation) doing that which is right in his own eyes, per Judges 21:25.

As such, the alleged conservatives do as much, if not more, harm to the cause of Christ, His kingdom, and His law than do the far-left liberals. They divert the unsuspecting from the only thing that can save America from her demise: Christ’s redeeming-blood sacrifice for us as individuals and Yahweh’s perfect law of liberty for us as a society.

Related post:

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

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

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

 

Constitutionalists Are Anarchists

Posted: 15th March 2014 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,
22

Now for a long season Israel hath been without the true God … and without law. (2 Chronicles 15:3)

Anarchy is defined, in part, as “a state of society without … law.”1 Therefore, to understand anarchy, we must first understand what constitutes law and who determines what is and what is not law.

For YHWH2 is our judge, YHWH is our lawgiver [legislator], YHWH is our king; he will save us. (Isaiah 33:22)

There is [only, NASB] one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy…. (James 4:12)

These Scriptures specify Yahweh as the exclusive lawmaker. As our Creator, only Yahweh can determine what is good and what is evil. Anything opposed to or not in harmony with Yahweh’s law is not law at all. It is instead a man-made edict by which man declares illegal what Yahweh has determined to be lawful or declares legal what Yahweh has determined to be unlawful.

Thus, America has been in a state of anarchy since 1787 when the framers formally and nationally rejected Yahweh’s immutable morality, as reflected in His perfect law (Psalm 19:7-11), as the standard for government and society.3  Anyone today who promotes the United States Constitution is promoting anarchy.

It’s this anarchy (constitutionalism) that is responsible for all the trouble America is presently experiencing. But, all is not lost; not if we will return to Yahweh as our King, Judge, and Lawgiver, and His law as the supreme law of the land:

But when they in their trouble did turn unto YHWH God of Israel, and sought him, he was found of them…. And they entered into a covenant to seek YHWH God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul. (2 Chronicles 15:4, 12)

 May God speed the day!

 

Related post:

5 Reasons the Constitution is Our Cutting-Edge Issue

Article 1 (Rewrite)

Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant

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

 

1. Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, s.v. “anarchy” (New York, NY: Random House, Inc., 2000) p. 48.

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

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

 

 

375 Years Later: Constitution vs. Constitution

Posted: 16th January 2014 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,
93

If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? (Psalm 11:3)

Have you ever wondered how it is that America finds herself teetering on the precipice of moral depravity and destruction? The answer is found in a comparison of two constitutions, one (the Fundamental Agreement of New Haven, Connecticut) that celebrated its 375th anniversary on January 14, 2014:

The Bible: America’s Original Constitution

Fundamental Agreement of the Colony of New Haven, CT, 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….

John W. Welch commented on the outstanding influence Yahweh’s1 law had in Colonial America:

Indeed, it has rightly been concluded that “the ideal polity of early Puritan New England was thought to comprehend divine intentions as revealed in Mosaic law.” The rule of law began, not with the rules of man but with the rules of God. One Puritan document directly states, “[T]he more any law smells of man, the more unprofitable,” and thus, it asserts, the only proper laws were in fact “divine ordinances, revealed in the pages of Holy Writ and administered according to deductions and rules gathered from the Word of God.”2

Almost as impressive as New Haven’s agreement are the testimonies to it:

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.3

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…. The legislators of Connecticut begin with the penal laws, and … they borrow their provisions from the text of Holy Writ … copied verbatim from the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy.4

Tocqueville testified that it was the “legislation of that period,” in particular, that set America apart from other nations and that provided solutions to the rest of the world. This was in fulfillment of Deuteronomy 4:

Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as YHWH 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 YHWH 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)

America was exalted in the eyes of the world because of her applied righteousness, embodied in Yahweh’s perfect law (Psalm 19:7). This is no longer true. America has, instead, become the most despised nation upon the earth. This is not because other nations are envious of her, as politicians often claim, but because her laws no longer reflect Yahweh’s righteousness. In fact, her laws have not reflected Yahweh’s righteousness since the adoption of the framers’ secular Constitution.5

The Framers’ Secular Traditions: America’s Second Constitution

In the late 1700s, a change of law and government occurred, not only from English rule, but also from the Colonies’ Biblically based governments. From that moment on, the nation that had been predominately Christian became progressively secular and humanistic. In short, America’s Biblical and Christian foundations were destroyed.

The framers nowhere attributed the inspiration for any specific article or amendment in the Constitution to the Bible or the laws of Yahweh. After reviewing over 2,200 political writings published between 1760 and 1805, David S. Lutz and Charles S. Hyneman came to some very interesting conclusions regarding the Bible’s influence upon the constitutional framers and others of that period. Lutz admitted that while the “book … most frequently cited by Americans during the founding era [was] … the Book of Deuteronomy, … the Bible’s prominence disappears [during the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate over the Constitution],” and “the Federalists’ inclination to Enlightenment rationalism is most evident here in their failure to consider the Bible relevant.”6

Culpability

The United States Constitution was inspired, not by Yahweh, but by a small group of men claiming to represent their new god We the People.7 Patrick Henry (who refused to be one of Virginia’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention, saying he smelled a rat) later insisted the conventioneers had no right to claim they represented the people. Nevertheless, by their silence, the people gave their assent, as did those in 2 Samuel 24 when King David pursued an unlawful census. David did not take the brunt of Yahweh’s wrath, but rather the people who allowed David to proceed with the census.

Judgment of the people for the transgressions of their rulers is found time and again in the Bible (2 Kings 24:1-4, 2 Chronicles 28:19, etc.). The people are ultimately responsible. They were responsible when the constitutional conventioneers chose a new god, and we will continue to be responsible until we rise up, repent of our forefathers’ sins, overthrow We the People’s constitution, and return to Yahweh’s constitution.

Since 1789, when the United States of America, as a nation, stopped following Yahweh’s laws and began following the laws of We the People, our legislation has ceased providing righteous instruction to others. It instead reflects America’s haughty imperialistic posture. And the rest of the world now holds America in disdain. If America hopes to regain her favored status in the eyes of the world, she must return to her original Constitution as expressed in the Fundamental Agreement of New Haven, Connecticut.

Until America restores her Biblical foundations, the righteous will continue to flounder and America will continue to teeter on, if not fall into, the precipice of moral degradation.

Related post:

American Exceptionalism

Preamble (Biblical rewrite)

Article 1 (Biblical rewrite)

Article 2 (Biblical rewrite)

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

2. John W. Welch, “Biblical Law in America: Historical Perspectives and Potentials for Reform,” Brigham Young University Law Review, 30 September 2002, <http://www.contra-mundum.org/essays/theonomy/WEL1.pdf.>

3. John Clark Ridpath, History of the United States, 4 vols. (New York, NY: The American Book Company, 1874) vol. 1, p. 181.

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

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

6. Donald S. Lutz, “The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought,” The American Political Science Review (March 1984) pp. 189-97.

7. Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

The Gettysburg Address: Iconic, But is it Biblical? Pt. 4

Posted: 13th December 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
8

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

November 19, 2013, was the 150th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. The speech is iconic, but is it Biblical?

Under God

…—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—….

The term “under God” (along with “God bless this nation!” and similar declarations) is often used to provide an air of sanctity to what is otherwise ungodly. So it was with this address, most Presidents’ speeches, and Christian support of the Biblically incompatible Constitution. For example, consider Article 6’s claim that the “Constitution … shall be the supreme law of the land”:

The framers were fully cognizant of the word “supreme” and its meaning when they declared the supremacy of the Constitution. In so doing, they made the law of Yahweh1 subservient to the law of WE THE PEOPLE.

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

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

Constitutionalists who claim to be Christians will predictably add “under God” or “under the Bible” to the declaration in [Article 6’s] Clause 2. But their authority to do so is not derived from the Bible or the Constitution. This is another futile attempt to make the Constitution a Christian document and a classic case of trying to serve two masters. Either the Constitution must be rejected because it never was subservient to Yahweh’s law, or Yahweh’s law must be rejected because it demands any inferior constitution be subject to and in concert with its supreme law.

If you choose to promote the Constitution on its own merit, that is your prerogative. However, if you choose to promote the Constitution as a Biblically based document [under God], that is deception and subterfuge. Anyone who chooses the former becomes an idolater; anyone who chooses the latter attempts to provide Biblical sanction for his idolatry by making Yahweh his partner.2

The same is true for Lincoln’s nation. It was built on a document that not only fails to recognize Yahweh as God, King, Judge, and Lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22), but in numerous components is hostile to His perfect and righteous law (Psalm 19:7-9). It’s doubtful God views the Constitutional Republic as “under” Him, at least in the sense Lincoln implied.

Of, By, and For the People

…—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

If ever there was a declaration of humanism, this is it:

Humanism is the placing of Man at the center of all things and making him the measure of all things. (Francis Schaeffer3)

Lincoln couldn’t have made a more exact statement about the Constitutional Republic—at least not if the following men, some of whom were involved in drafting the Constitution, are to be believed:

As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power … it is from them that the constitutional charter under which the [power of the] several branches of government … is derived. (James Madison4)

The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority. (Alexander Hamilton5)

This government, the offspring of our own choice … has a just claim to your confidence and support. (President George Washington6)

[T]he people are the sovereign of this country. (John Jay, First Chief Justice7)

The people, the highest authority known in our system, from whom all our institutions spring and on whom they depend, formed it. (President James Monroe8)

[T]he people are the only sovereigns recognized by our Constitution…. (President James K. Polk9)

In our Constitution, We The People … are the masters…. [H]ere in America, We The People are in charge. (President Ronald Reagan10)

The Constitution’s Preamble, which begins “WE THE PEOPLE,” is arguably the most brazen human claim to sovereignty ever written. It is humanism of the rankest sort:

As non-theists, we begin with humans, not God, nature, not deity. (Humanist Manifesto II11)

The framers not only slighted Yahweh and compromised His law, they completely ignored it, and, in many instances, legislated against it (and the wicked have compassed the righteous ever since).

With such a significant Christian beginning in the 1600s, how can we have strayed so far from our Christian roots? The answer is simple: the framers’ hearts were divided (Hosea 10:2). Consequently, Yahweh’s law was slacked (Habakkuk 1:4, KJV). Once that door was unbolted, there was nothing to stop the continuing compromise, especially when Christians heralded the very document that started America down the pernicious road on which she finds herself today.

Lincoln’s statement about “government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people” (incredibly, esteemed by Christians as much as non-Christians) is perhaps the most iconic part of the entire Gettysburg Address. Nothing could be more unbiblical. It is, in fact, Biblically seditious.

Nothing is more oxymoronic than the fact that many contemporary Christians condemn the Puritans for establishing governments of, by, and for Yahweh while lauding the framers (and Lincoln) for their humanistic government of, by, and for the people.

Shall not perish from off the earth

…—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

It would seem Lincoln not only fancied himself a monarch,12 but also a prophet. The day is coming when he’ll be proven a false prophet:

And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. (Matthew 7:26-27)

The house known as the United States Constitutional Republic was not built on the rock of Yahweh’s inspired Word. There is hardly an article or amendment that, in some fashion, is not antithetical, if not seditious, to Yahweh’s Word and Law.13

Lincoln was correct. The Constitutional Republic is a humanistic contract of, by, and for the people—and therefore Biblically seditious. Consequently, he was also wrong. The Constitutional Republic is not under God, and, therefore, one day, it will perish from the earth. When that day arrives, may Christians be prepared to establish government of, by, and for Yahweh in its place. (See our suggested Biblical rewrite of the Secular Constitution’s Preamble and Articles 1-3 as a place to begin.)

 

Related posts:

The Gettysburg Address: Iconic, But is it Biblical? Pt. 1

The Gettysburg Address: Iconic, But is it Biblical? Pt. 2

The Gettysburg Address: Iconic, But is it Biblical? Pt. 3

Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The 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. It was unlawfully deleted by the English translators. In obedience to the Third Commandment and the many Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, we have chosen to memorialize His name here in this document and in our lives. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”

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

3. Francis Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto (1981), in The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer, 5 vols. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1982) vol. 5, p. 426.

4. James Madison, The Federalist, No. 46 (New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1888) p. 217.

5. Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist, No. 22 (New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1888) p. 135.

6. George Washington, “Farewell Address,” Worthington Chauncey Ford, ed., The Writings of George Washington, 14 vols. (New York; NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1892) vol. 13, p. 297.

7. John Jay, First Chief Justice, Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793

8. James Monroe, “Views of the President of the United States on the Subject of Internal Improvements,” 4 May 1822, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/preambles20.html.

9. James K. Polk, Third Annual Message, 7 December 1847, The American Presidency Project, <http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/index.php.>

10. President Ronald Reagan, State of the Union Address, 1987.

11. Humanist Manifesto II, www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_II.

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

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

 

Older Entries
Newer Entries