Christianity — The Soul Of America


Some years ago, I was interviewed by a TV station about the issue of abortion. I had been matched up with a representative of Planned Parenthood; and after the interview, I happened to ride down the elevator with the woman who was my opponent.

I mentioned that Christianity was part of our Constitution, and she shot back: “Christianity is notin the Constitution!”

Well, she got me there; and I had to do some catch-up reading. It’s true that Christianity is not in the Constitution (unless of course you include the date at the very end, which says “in the Year of our Lord….”) It’s true that Article VI states that “no religious Test shall ever be required” as a qualification to any office or public trust.

They Brought the Persecution With Them

But there’s more to it. As every schoolboy knows, one of the main reasons why the Pilgrims (and many other immigrants in later years) came to the New World was to escape religious persecution. But the early settlers brought with them the same persecution from their homeland. For example, the Puritan fathers of Massachusetts Bay Colony ran a theocracy and did not tolerate those of other religions. And in various places, Baptists, Catholics, and Congregationalists were either prohibited from holding public office, driven from the area, or just plain executed.

We’ve got to fix this, thought the Founders of our country. Madison and Jefferson were among those who shaped the idea that the government should not officially support any “sect” of Christianity. This thinking went into the writing of the Constitution, and thus Christianity was not promoted in that document. But the Founders certainly did not have in mind some kind of atheist utopia, where our civic leaders abandon all moral direction or support of Christianity.

Chocolate Cake Argument

A closer look at our governing ethos certainly shows Christianity as an essential part. The Declaration of Independence, for example, has several references to God. The document appeals to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and that all men are “endowed by their Creator” with unalienable rights (attention, Mr. Obama: this phrase is really here). At the end, it asks for “a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence….”

The Smithsonian Institute, in a recent article, describes America as a “secular republic.” This phrase, however, doesn’t do justice to our form of government any more than a list of ingredients in a cookbook make up a chocolate cake. In baking a cake, there is also action and good will, with the purpose of making something that is both good and pleasing. There is a person behind the baking of a cake. And there are people and a purpose behind the acting out of our government.

Yank Christianity Out of Government

You can’t yank Christianity out of our government any more than you can yank the soul out of a man and still call him a man. Has our government recognized Christianity? You bet. Just look at the credit in granite given to Christianity and the moral laws in our monuments and public buildings in Washington, D.C. Take a look at the newly-released Sons of Liberty Radio YouTube video that shows impressive footage of Bible quotes and presidential mentions of God and Christianity in our nation’s capital. (Disclosure: Sons of Liberty Radio partners with our firm, TreeFrogClick). Bet you didn’t know that there were tiny Bible verses engraved into the walls of the Washington monument. Or that carved into the cornerstone of the wings of the Capitol building is the speech of Daniel Webster, which culminates in the words:

And all here assembled … with hearts devotedly thankful to Almighty God for the preservation of the liberty and happiness of this country, unite in sincere and fervent prayers that this deposit, and the walls and arches, the domes and the towers, the columns and the entablatures now to be erected over it may endure forever.

So where is the true America? Its guiding principles are in its soul — in Christianity.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.


Print Friendly





Comments

comments

About Kevin J. Banet
Kevin J. Banet is a journalist and founder of TreeFrogClick, Inc. a public relations and marketing firm in the Chicago area. He began his career as a newspaper reporter. He has been active in the pro-life movement, and has recently taken a renewed interest in the Christian foundation of American democracy. He writes on Christianity and culture.
  • T. Edward Price

    "You can’t yank Christianity out of our government..." You are absolutely correct. That is because Christianity was NEVER in our government. The "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" has nothing to do with the Creator of the Bible. This an esoteric reference direct from the Age of Enlightenment. The Constitutional framers were heavily influenced by Enlightenment and Masonic philosophies, and it is quite apparent that the framers were as the tares sowed among the wheat, seeking to deceive and destroy Christianity. We should all be as Bereans, being diligent in not falling for the lies.

    "[A]nd that all men are “endowed by their Creator” with unalienable rights" is a concept to be found NOWHERE in the Bible. Scripture does not teach the concept of "rights", but instead, of RESPONSIBILITIES. The entire concept of "natural rights" emanates from the philosophy of Humanism, not the Christianity of Scripture.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Polly-Kingsley/1366123057 Polly Kingsley

      No one stated that "endowed by their creator" and "with unalienable rights" was a Biblical quote however both are true. These were written by our founders. We are endowed by our creator as believers. A truer interpretation of "unalienable rights" would be free will which both are Biblical. The true history of the Pilgrims was not without sacrifice to be able to spred the Word, however their faith in knowing God would lead them to their own freedom allowed them to succeed. The message has always been that to believe in our creator, have faith, morality, which builds character and a law built on Godly principles brings forth blessings as a nation of people.

    • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

      Polly, your contention that the "unalienable rights" found in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights are Biblical is ironic on two counts: Neither is the Bible mentioned in the Constitution, nor are rights mentioned in the Constitution. (Except perhaps as the document's timekeeper in Article 7, God wasn't even acknowledged in the Constitution.) Please consider the following:

      "The United States Constitutional Republic was built on the concept of
      immutable rights. Nearly all Americans have bought into this idea, believing individual rights are the path to freedom and prosperity. However, 'immutable rights' is but another bill of goods that has further enslaved us, both physically and spiritually....

      "The Bill of Rights was a compromise between the constitutional framers and the anti-federalists who opposed the Constitution as originally framed. In theory, the Bill of Rights protects the 'unalienable rights' of 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,' among other things. But have life, liberty, and happiness been advanced or protected since the first Ten Amendments were ratified? Since the Bill of Rights was adopted, have we had less government intrusion or has the Constitutional Republic merely licensed and limited those rights?

      "The Scriptures provide no evidence of God-given (or unalienable) rights. Even life and liberty are not rights, but rather responsibilities delegated by Yahweh. Of course, rights are much more popular than responsibilities.
      Everyone, including homosexuals and infant murderers, demand their rights. Few are interested in fulfilling their responsibilities...."

      For more, see "Rights, Rights, Everyone Wants Their Rights." Click on my name, then our website. Go to our blog and then scroll down to the title for the remainder of this article. I hope it proves helpful.

    • http://www.facebook.com/davy.crockett.123276 Davy Crockett

      The argument of inalienable rights vs. duties and responsibilities is both false and hollow. It is solely based on the straw man that rights are optional while these God given duties and responsibilities are not optional. One; this concept would nullify the well excepted Christian doctrine of Freewill. God is not going to tie us up and drag us screaming into heaven. Each day we must make a choice whether to obey God or not. Over and over in the Bible God has said “choose this day whom you will serve” (Josh. 24:14-15). Second; those who espouse this idea put forth no scripture showing the concept of inalienable rights as being unbiblical. Third; the very scripture they put forth refutes their own argument. Rightly they say they show us our God given duties and responsibilities, but it is in these very scriptures that we are granted our inalienable rights,

      Additionally if we come together to pool our resources in order to fulfill our obligations such as to provide safety and protection through our local police, militia, and neighborhood watch. If these were to became so proficient as to lower the crime rate to Mayberry standards. And then gun fatalities are primarily accidental shootings the question will be asked why are we allowing such deaths, it is irresponsible to have private gun ownership. At this point what argument do you have, since your duties and responsibilities have and are being fulfilled? None. But thankfully God did not set things up this way, for all institutions whether government, public or private, are made with men's imperfect minds and hands. Thus they will succumb to corruption and the use of tyranny, no matter how much scriptures they codify into their laws. The only safe guard for society, for our liberty, prosperity, and welfare, is that citizen practice their inalienable rights in fulfillment of their God given duties and responsibilities in accordance with their convictions of faith in Jesus Christ and nothing else save for God above.

      “Rights” as in such as those recognized and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are real and Biblical in our horizontal relationship with men. These are God given, inalienable rights granted by the duties and responsibilities God has given us in Scripture. Some examples are Gen. 1:26 were we are given dominion over the earth and all that is in it and “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1st Tim. 5:8). Providing means such things as security, food, shelter, etc, so from these passages we see our right to self defense and to bear arms, property rights and security of property etc. Everyone of our true rights can be found in Scripture like this.

      Before God, in our vertical relationship what we call “rights” are necessary parts of duties and responsibilities He has given us. Yet before Him, we do have rights, but a different type of rights. As sons of the living God and “co-heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17) we have the right to pension Him in prayer (John 14:14, Mat. 7:7-8). We have all the covenants, birthrights, and promises we can claim as ours with the rights and privileges they include. Yes, God reserves His right as Sovereign over all, but He still grants us these rights as Christians and as applicable, as immortal beings “created in His image”. So it is incorrect to say we do not have rights.

      The argument of inalienable rights vs. duties and responsibilities is both false and hollow. It is solely based on the straw man that rights are optional while these God given duties and responsibilities are not optional. One; this concept would nullify the well excepted Christian doctrine of Freewill. God is not going to tie us up and drag us screaming into heaven. Each day we must make a choice whether to obey God or not. Over and over in the Bible God has said “choose this day whom you will serve” (Josh. 24:14-15). Second; those who espouse this idea put forth no scripture showing the concept of inalienable rights as being unbiblical. Third; the very scripture they put forth refutes their own argument. Rightly they say they show us our God given duties and responsibilities, but it is in these very scriptures that we are granted our inalienable rights,

      Additionally if we come together to pool our resources in order to fulfill our obligations such as to provide safety and protection through our local police, militia, and neighborhood watch. If these were to became so proficient as to lower the crime rate to Mayberry standards. And then gun fatalities are primarily accidental shootings the question will be asked why are we allowing such deaths, it is irresponsible to have private gun ownership. At this point what argument do you have, since your duties and responsibilities have and are being fulfilled? None. But thankfully God did not set things up this way, for all institutions whether government, public or private, are made with men's imperfect minds and hands. Thus they will succumb to corruption and the use of tyranny, no matter how much scriptures they codify into their laws. The only safe guard for society, for our liberty, prosperity, and welfare, is that citizen practice their inalienable rights in fulfillment of their God given duties and responsibilities in accordance with their convictions of faith in Jesus Christ and nothing else save for God above.

      “Rights” as in such as those recognized and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are real and Biblical in our horizontal relationship with men. These are God given, inalienable rights granted by the duties and responsibilities God has given us in Scripture. Some examples are Gen. 1:26 were we are given dominion over the earth and all that is in it and “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1st Tim. 5:8). Providing means such things as security, food, shelter, etc, so from these passages we see our right to self defense and to bear arms, property rights and security of property etc. Everyone of our true rights can be found in Scripture like this.

      Before God, in our vertical relationship what we call “rights” are necessary parts of duties and responsibilities He has given us. Yet before Him, we do have rights, but a different type of rights. As sons of the living God and “co-heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17) we have the right to pension Him in prayer (John 14:14, Mat. 7:7-8). We have all the covenants, birthrights, and promises we can claim as ours with the rights and privileges they include. Yes, God reserves His right as Sovereign over all, but He still grants us these rights as Christians and as applicable, as immortal beings “created in His image”. So it is incorrect to say we do not have rights.

    • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

      Any rights as sons of God (I prefer to look at them at gifts, which puts the emphasis on God instead of ourselves) has nothing to do with the Bill of
      Rights, which, for the most part, are both antithetical and hostile to Yahweh's sovereignty and morality, as I demonstrate by comparing the two in "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective." Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Book Page and click on the top entry.

  • http://www.premiercleanandrestore.com/ Ethan David Ellingson

    A disciple of Christ by definition seeks theonomy and/or theocratic monarchy. The colonial Minute Men sought the same with their cry, "No king but King Jesus."

    "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you." Mt 6:33

  • http://www.facebook.com/RobertAlexander.Salvage Robert Alexander

    Moral LAWS?

    Where?

    Any amalgamation of the truth is still a deception.

    We would have Godly laws if we stated that ALL laws must conform to Biblical tests.

    But then again if we had moral laws, there would not be any LONG TERM JAILS either.

    There is no tolerance for anything less than what God has established as righteous and still be a Godly LAW.

    Proverbs 15.8 The sacrifices of the ungodly are an abomination to Yahweh, but the prayers of them that walk honestly are acceptable to Him.

    Proverbs 21.2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but יהוה (YAH) pondereth the hearts.

    Exodus 23.1 Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.

    Proverbs 4.14 Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men.

    Proverbs 11.21 Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished: but the seed of the righteous shall be delivered.

  • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

    As usual, nothing is said of all of the other tributes found throughout Washington D.C. to other gods, religions, and law systems. This articles' bias and irony is found in that it begins with a depiction of Thomas Jefferson who cut the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and ascension of Christ – what he described as a “dunghill” – out of his cut-and-paste New Testament. (Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 24 January 1814, Lester J. Cappon, ed., The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams (Williamsburg, VA: Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1988) p. 384.)

    It is true that America's 1600 foundations are predominately Christian, but this was severely compromised by the time the framers (predominantly made up of lawyers and Masons) met for the Constitutional Convention.

    The test of the Constitutional Republics Biblical and Christian heritage is not to be determined by Christian-sounding quotations or what's found on engraved on monuments (see Matthew 7:21-23). There is only one standard by which everything (including the framers and the Constitution) must be tested--that is, Yahweh's morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments. And, by this standard, the Constitution falls flat on its face.

    Find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our Constitution Survey and receive a free copy the 85-page "Primer" of the 565-page "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective." Click on my name, then our website. The survey will be found in the right-hand sidebar.

    • Davy Crockett

      So lets evaluate your plan some. You offer up this idea as better than what our Christian Founders began for us, but your proof is lacking. Please provide answers for these questions. Where in Scripture does it mandated we set up a theocracy in this New Covenant age?

      Why a theocracy form of government over the other types of government God ordained in the Bible?

      One of your main premises is that it will work better than the government set up by the Christian Founding Fathers. How is this true when this theocracy, when enacted by ancient Israel fell, was invaded, enslaved, and or conquered over and over. Not staying free for more than 40 years at a time, while the government founded and intended by our Christian Founding Fathers has remained free for over 200 years. How will you do better than such great men as Joshua, Caleb, Ehud, etc.? If you can’t, I don’t see the point in

      Contrary to the post above folks, the Christian Founding Father used Biblical principles on at least 49 points in the Constitution:

      http://www.increasinglearning.com/one-nation-under-god.html

    • T. Edward Price

      The "plan" Mr. Weiland "offers up" is the perfect plan of Yahweh. For you to say proof is lacking is a public admission of your rejection of Yahweh's Sovereignty. One of your main premises is that the government established by the unchristian Constitutional framers is superior to the perfect law order established by Yahweh before the beginning of time. This, by definition, makes the framers sovereign and Yahweh a liar. Choose your god carefully. Your worship of man will expose your heart for the prideful, vindictive, vengeful machinations which proceed forth from its depths.

    • Davy Crockett

      I don’t question God’s plan, I am questioning Ted’s application of an obsolete plan (He. 8:13)to this New Covenant age.

      “One of your main premises is that the government established by the unchristian Constitutional framers is superior to the perfect law order established by Yahweh before the beginning of time.”

      This is a wholly false statement as I have never said or implied this whatsoever. I have maintained I believe the Constitution is derived from Biblical principles by Christian men

      Please provide answers for these questions. Where in Scripture does it mandated we set up a theocracy in this New Covenant age?

      Why a theocracy form of government over the other types of government God ordained in the Bible?

      One of your main premises is that it will work better than the government set up by the Christian Founding Fathers. How is this true when this theocracy, when enacted by ancient Israel fell, was invaded, enslaved, and or conquered over and over. Not staying free for more than 40 years at a time, while the government founded and intended by our Christian Founding Fathers has remained free for over 200 years. How will you do better than such great men as Joshua, Caleb, Ehud, etc.? If you can’t, I don’t see the point in

    • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

      David, thank you for but another opportunity to share with others these vital truths from Scripture. Theocracy is inherent in the First Commandment (Thou shalt have no other gods before me). Consequently, unless you don't believe the First Commandment is still relevant under the New Covenant, theocracy is not only mandated but unavoidable.

      When one understands that the principal means by which we keep the First
      Commandment is by observing Yahweh's other moral laws (of course, under the New Covenant, through Christ as Lord and Savior, motivated by love) and that idolatry is not so much about statues as it is statutes, it becomes evident that all governments are theocratic in practice, serving either the true God or some false god, demonstrated by what laws they keep and consider the supreme law of the land (e.g., Article 6).

      Furthermore, all non-existent false gods (1 Corinthians 8:4-6) always have been and always will represent we the people in one form or another. All other theocracies are, in practice, autocracies in defiance of Yahweh, His morality as found in His perfect law and altogether righteous judgments.

      Provided these Biblical principles are not rejected, it then becomes apparent that theocracy is also inherent in Romans 13:1-4, 1 Corinthians 6:1-4, 2 Corinthians 10:4-6, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, etc.

    • Davy Crockett

      Ex. 20:2 states “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” No disagreement there, but that is not speaking to form of government, rather to who one worships. Seeing as you are not the writer of our dictionary, you can’t play word games to change their meanings just to suit your doctrines. We are discussing FORM of government. There are many forms. We are not ignorant peasants, we know all laws are someone’s morality, that is not the debate here.

      Rom 13 is addressing Christian conduct and relationship under any government we happen to be under. There is not a word about what form of government we should establish. 1st Co. 6:1-4 is addressing Church government for Christian communities under whatever government they happen to be, especially for ungodly governments. If the government was godly that they were under, they would not need these provisions from Paul. So still no mandate for theocratic form of government. 1st Co. 10:4-6 is primarily addressing self control of your mind. It is also about apologetics and preaching the gospel. It is does not in anyway mandate a theocratic form of government. 1st Tim. 1:8-11 has nothing to do with form of government either, but the good New Covenant application of God’s Law in our lives. So having gone through your response, I find no satisfactory answers to my questions and not answer to the last question.

      Where in Scripture does it mandated we set up a theocracy in this New Covenant age? Why a theocracy form of government over the other types of government God ordained in the Bible? One of your main premises is that it will work better than the government set up by the Christian Founding Fathers. How is this true when this theocracy, when enacted by ancient Israel fell, was invaded, enslaved, and or conquered over and over. Not staying free for more than 40 years at a time, while the government founded and intended by our Christian Founding Fathers has remained free for over 200 years. How will you do better than such great men as Joshua, Caleb, Ehud, etc.?

    • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

      David: "Ex. 20:2 states 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.' No disagreement there...."

      Oh, but there is disagreement. Your promotion of the framers' government and laws (which are antithetical to Yahweh's) IS a promotion of another god.

      Furthermore, being that you refuse to accept the irrefutable evidence from the key framers' own writings (which has been provided to you on numerous times) that they were not Christians in the Biblical sense of the word (some of whom, such as Thomas Jefferson, were antichrists), you also become a participant in their sins (2 John 1:7-11).

    • http://www.facebook.com/davy.crockett.123276 Davy Crockett

      Ok folks I have presented a detailed, scriptuaral backed argument and his response? No you wrong and and an anti-christ! Really?
      Well folks, you judge which is the argument of truth.

    • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

      David, thank you for the link to Mr. Fortenberry's website and in particular his book "Hidden Facts of the Founding Era." Everyone who takes the time to look at his work should apply the principles of both 2 Timothy 2:15 and 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 to it before coming to any conclusions. (The same applies to my books as well.)

      First, let me state that I agree that there are "points in which the principles of the Constitution agree with doctrines of the Bible." But, the same can be said of nearly all governments. For example, any government that forbids murder is in agreement with a doctrine (the Sixth Commandment) of the Bible. However, this or any other place where the two are in agreement does NOT prove it is a Biblical or Christian government.

      "Hidden Facts of the Founding Era" is a great case study of eisegesis, reading into the Constitution what you want to be there, rather than exegeting the Constitution and the framers' other writings, while at the same time COMPLETELY avoiding the numerous instances where the two are antithetical and sometimes hostile to each other.

      As for Mr. Fortenberry's reading into the Constitution something that simply is not there, take his first of forty nine points. He wrote, "1. Article 1, Section 2 -- 'No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years.' The age limits which the constitution places upon those wishing to obtain government positions founded upon the wisdom expressed in Ecclesiastes 10:16 and Isaiah 3:4 ... against a nation that is ruled by children."

      First, nowhere did the framers attribute their age-limitations as inspired by Ecclesiastes 10:16 and Isaiah 3:4. Consequently, this is just wishful thinking of someone who desperately wants the Constitution to be a Christian document. Mr. Fortenberry does the same throughout his forty nine points.

      Furthermore, not only is the entire idea of representatives of the people (instead of Yahweh) opposed to what the Bible teaches, the age of twenty five can also not be found anywhere in the Bible. Neither can the voting ages of twenty one and eighteen. When it came to as something as simple as the age of manhood (twenty), stated time and again in the Scriptures, the framers had two shots at it and couldn't even get Biblical.

    • http://www.facebook.com/davy.crockett.123276 Davy Crockett

      Ted presented 1st Thes. 5:20-21 but he should have read vs. 22 “abstain from every form of evil.” before responding because he continually use the “form of evil” in his arguments lifting them seemingly directly from the text book pages of Humanism, Communism, Marxist and Socialism as he assaults the Christian Founding Fathers and heritage and our constitution.

      Ted also presented 2nd Tim. 2:15 but again he should have read on before posting and parroting the “empty chatter” of the likes of Stalin, Lenin and Obama in attacking our nation.

      “16 But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, 17 and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some.”

      Additionally he should have continued reading instead believing in heritical theology warned against in vs. 18 that is Preterism.

      http://www.historicist.com/preterism/the-development-of-preterism

      http://www.historicist.com/preterism/the-papal-origins-of-preterism

      Eisegesis from Webster:

      the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas.

      Well as I have shown above, we can see this man’s ideas are quite off, so it is no wonder he has come up with such doctrines of men to attack our nation and it‘s Christian foundation. Furthermore since he has been unable to prove his doctrine correct and thus disprove the Christian Founding Fathers incorrect his nitpicking here is irrelevant. His legalistic straining for every gnat (Mat.23:23-24) will never be satisfied unless they only quoted scripture, but since he has yet to show this is mandatory, it is meaningless

      I put forth these key questions which should be easy to answer if his doctrine were correct, yet I have gotten no solid answer for them.

      Please provide answers for these questions. Where in Scripture does it mandated we set up a theocracy in this New Covenant age?

      Why a theocracy form of government over the other types of government God ordained in the Bible?

      One of your main premises is that it will work better than the government set up by the Christian Founding Fathers. How is this true when this theocracy, when enacted by ancient Israel fell, was invaded, enslaved, and or conquered over and over. Not staying free for more than 40 years at a time, while the government founded and intended by our Christian Founding Fathers has remained free for over 200 years. How will you do better than such great men as Joshua, Caleb, Ehud, etc.? If you can’t, I don’t see the point in changing what we can still fix.

      If he cannot answer these questions, he position in his post above is wholly groundless.

      Another question unanswered: does he have scriptural backing to his claim that the people can’t have representatives? Because the Bible is full of them. Moses, David, Joshua, Caleb, etc, all represented their people in government, battle, to other nations, and before God.

      Eisegesis from Webster:

      the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas.

      Well as I have shown above, we can see this man’s ideas are quite off, so it is no wonder he has come up with such doctrines of men to attack our nation and it‘s Christian foundation. Furthermore since he has been unable to prove his doctrine correct and thus disprove the Christian Founding Fathers incorrect his nitpicking here is irrelevant. His legalistic straining for every gnat (Mat.23:23-24) will never be satisfied unless they only quoted scripture, but since he has yet to show this is mandatory, it is meaningless

      I put forth these key questions which should be easy to answer if his doctrine were correct, yet I have gotten no solid answer for them.

      Please provide answers for these questions. Where in Scripture does it mandated we set up a theocracy in this New Covenant age?

      Why a theocracy form of government over the other types of government God ordained in the Bible?

      One of your main premises is that it will work better than the government set up by the Christian Founding Fathers. How is this true when this theocracy, when enacted by ancient Israel fell, was invaded, enslaved, and or conquered over and over. Not staying free for more than 40 years at a time, while the government founded and intended by our Christian Founding Fathers has remained free for over 200 years. How will you do better than such great men as Joshua, Caleb, Ehud, etc.? If you can’t, I don’t see the point in changing what we can still fix.

      If he cannot answer these questions, he position in his post above is wholly groundless.

      Another question unanswered: does he have scriptural backing to his claim that the people can’t have representatives? Because the Bible is full of them. Moses, David, Joshua, Caleb, etc, all represented their people in government, battle, to other nations, and before God.

    • T. Edward Price

      David, again you condemn Ted for preaching what YOU claim to be the "heretical" doctrine of preterism. First, you have been asked before, and are unable to show, from the Bible, a definition of heresy that could possibly fit your accusation. Second, you have also been unable to offer any proof that Ted considers himself a preterist. Claiming that you heard him in person (at a conference in Illinois), only indicates you might have misunderstood what you thought you heard. Third, you have not given a definition of preterism, let alone, various degrees of said school of thought. Fourth, by your inference, you make the claim that MOST Presbyterians, and other adherents to Reformed Theology, are heretics. Since I know that you are not a Roman Catholic, and consider yourself an practitioner of Unconventional Christianity, where is your proof that, by extension, all those I mentioned are heretics, for subscribing to varying degrees of preterist thought? Fifth, if you expect ANYONE to believe your motivation is pure, why haven't you, in a like manner, publicly condemned Gary DeMar, R.C. Sproul, Don K. Preston, Arthur Ogden, Ken Gentry, Glen L. Hill, Ed Stevens, Greg Bahnsen, Hank Hanegraaf, Steven Wilkins, or ANYONE else who teaches, lectures, promotes, or subscribes to any form of preterist thought? If you are telling the truth, and you are condemning Mr. Weiland solely for his views of eschatology and the unchristian origins of the Constitution, then why haven't you publicly called out Dr. Gary North, very well known Christian author, teacher, and economist? Dr. North has been outspoken for many years about the framers failure to enshrine Biblical law in the Constitution. Among his many books, these give insight into his views on the unchristian origins of the Constitution, as well as true liberty to be found under Theonomic rule: "Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism", "Conspiracy in Philadelphia: The Origins of the U.S. Constitution", and "Theonomy: An Informed Response". Mr. Weiland and Dr. North, while not in full agreement, share many similar views. If you are honest about your claims, you will set forth on a campaign to likewise condemn Dr. North. I will check his sites, and those places which he frequents, to verify your honest intentions in this matter.

      As a matter of fact, you have followed Mr. Weiland everywhere he posts a comment. Some of those comments have been on websites or blogs of well known preterists, yet you will not show yourself man enough to condemn the author of the particular article, calling him a heretic for espousing pretereism. You save that condemnation for Mr. Weiland alone. In a legal setting, we could easily show that to go directly to motive. I can not claim to know your heart, but Christ clearly tells us what we CAN know: "So then, you will know them by their fruits." Matt 7:20

      So far, your fruits have been evident. You have engaged in a personal vendetta against a man who has only told you the truth. You falsely claim that his arguments are somehow "seemingly directly from the text book pages of Humanism, Communism, Marxist and Socialism", while knowing that hundreds, if not thousands, of witness, you included, can testify that his arguments are the ANTITHESIS of such ungodly philosophies. Do you believe that, out of some sense of "misguided chivalry", you, and you alone, are the sole arbiter of what is heretical? This is not the proper venue in which to air your "dirty laundry", by trying to appeal to an anonymous base completely UNAWARE of the genesis of your vendetta against an honorable preacher. Even the atheists that condemn him don't do so with your zeal. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to be honest with yourself, before you can be honest with others. There are MANY people who disagree with Mr. Weiland, and I'm sure he not only accepts, but EXPECTS that. However, until you can indicate that you are man enough to show complete consistency, by condemning the others mentioned above, in the same fashion, then "by your fruits" will the entire web know you!

    • http://www.facebook.com/davy.crockett.123276 Davy Crockett

      1 From Webster:

      Heresy

      1 a: adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma

      b: an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma

      2 a: dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice

      b: an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards.

      So yes his doctrine fits this.

      2 Why are you so worried about Ted being called a Preterist when you youself have said he leans toward Preterism anyway? If you think the doctrine is correct what are you afraid of?

      3 Is a bold face lie. I have done so by saying any actual Pretersist is in error and I have posted Historisist links about Preterism,

      4 You have wondered way out in the weeds here, do you even know where you are?

      5 Well besides you and Ted, all my feed back has been positive, so I am not worried about it. Additionally you want me to be “fair” in my refuting of false doctrine? Sorry God isn’t about being fair, He is all about right and wrong and justice. My duty under 1st Tim. 5:8 is to take care of my own first. My own friends and people I know are directly effected by the false doctrines and heresy of Ted, hence my focus is often, but not exclusively on him. Your view of my life is through a very small window, yet you speak as an expert, when you know very little.

      Next paragraph. You are a hypocrite, plan and simple. Ted, goes from Christian, Patriotic, conservative website to website trashing our Christian Founding Fathers, Christian heritage and founding documents, and if I do the same for my beliefs I some how have a “personal vendetta”? This is hypocrisy.

      Last paragraph. “However, until you can indicate that you are man enough to show complete consistency, by condemning the others mentioned above, in the same fashion…”

      So let me get this straight. If someone sees their brother in error in order refute or rebuke him, one has to search out and find every other person in the world who is committing that error and do so to them to? This is a joke of an argument and wholly unbiblical.

    • T. Edward Price

      David, my previous comment to you ended with the following statement: "[y]our worship of man will expose your heart for the prideful, vindictive, vengeful machinations which proceed forth from its depths."

      While I would like to stand by the rest of my comment, I should have stopped prior to my last sentence. It has been pointed out to me, and I am compelled to agree, that in making such a statement, I am guilty of judging your heart. We can disagree vehemently on a multitude of issues, but whenever I make a statement in judgment of one's heart, (in this particular case, your heart), I am guilty of usurping Yahweh's authority, and as a result, setting myself up as God. Since Yahweh, and Yahweh alone, is capable of judging the contents of a man's heart, I am apparently guilty of trying to take His place. In so doing, I discredit myself, and whatever argument I might have otherwise been able to make. I humbly apologize for making an uncalled for judgment of your heart.

    • Davy Crockett

      Thank you.

  • Gary Johnson

    Kevin J. Banet YOU just PROVED that YOU ARE IGNORANT, STUPID, ILLITERATE, ILLOGICAL, IRRATIONAL and SERIOUSLY MENTALLY SICK, DELUSIONAL, PSYCHOTIC!!!

    • Roger

      And just exactly what have you proven, Gary Johnson? By their fruits you shall know them.

    • mitchaki

      Gary Johnson - How about something less frantic? Maybe a logical rebuttal or something other than a bunch of caps lock name calling? I may have similar feelings as yours, but you have to use some kind of tact. Your response shows that YOU are illogical, irrational, stupid, and delusional, also.

      Bring some intelligence to the table or at least some thing that will make others think. FFS.

  • 9400budlang8406

    I hate to say it but I think we have moved past the point of no return. Every denomination is loosing members on a steady basis. Secular thinking dominates every part of our society and any mention of moral decency is scorned openly. We kill the unborn in the name of women's rights and hail homosexuality as just another form of "love" and our national leaders are often morally corrupt. They explain it away by saying their private lives don't effect their policy making. I say you can't seperate a man's decisions from his character. He will ultimately make decisions because of who he is morally. Perhaps we are in the era of "the great falling away" as mentioned in the scripture. But there is always hope for a return to faith and moral sanity.

  • A. Levy

    It is the clear goal of the Left to make American into a God-less, non-White nation. And, thanks to the weak, gullible, and mindless voters, they are well on their way to doing just that. Now, what the rest of us have to decided is, whether our nation, our society, our beliefs and traditions, and our very way of life, are worth fighting for, because that's what it's going to come to.

    • mitchaki

      And it is a clear goal of the Right is to turn America back into a bunch of racist, war-mongering, hypocritical Christians with no sense of morality or equality. Good job.

      When are you going to wake up and realize neither of them have the people's best interest in mind?