Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ted Weiland's avatar

As for the optional/impotent Second Amendment alleged right to bear arms: America was sold down the river when the 18th-century founding fraudsters replaced Biblical responsibilities (based upon the moral law of God) with Enlightenment rights, and nothing demonstrates it better than the Second Amendment.

Think about it: The Amendment WITH the wording "shall not be infringed" is the MOST infringed, licensed, and limited Amendment of the entire twenty seven. Furthermore, a future generation of our posterity is likely to see the Second Amendment whittled away entirely or repealed altogether. This is inherent nature and danger of optional Enlightenment rights versus non-optional Biblical responsibilities, such as the following:

"Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword [or today's equivalent] in their hand ... this honor have all his saints. Praise ye Yah." (Psalm 149:6-9)

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

Which is more potent: 1) An optional right, or 2) A non-optional responsibility?

Which is more likely to be infringed, licensed, and ultimately abolished altogether?

Which did the pre-Second Amendment Americans look to for their authority to bear arms, with little or nor infringement?

For more, listen to "The Second Amendment: A Knife in a Gunfight," delivered at the Springfield, Missouri Firearms and Freedom Symposium, at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/#FeaturedMessages

At this same location, you will also find a radio interview Larry Pratt (Executive Director of Gun Owners of America) conducted with me on this same subject. I think you'll find Mr. Pratt's remarks especially interesting. You can find this interview at https://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/tapelist.html#T952

See also online Chapter 12 "Amendment 2: Constitutional vs. Biblical Self-Defense" of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt12.html

Expand full comment
Ted Weiland's avatar

All of this confusion, including much of what's found in this article, is cleared up when one is true to the context of Romans 13 and its inherent meaning - far removed from most of what is taught regarding these first seven verses.

There are a plethora of passages (Exodus 1, Judges 6, Acts 4 & 5, 17:6-7, etc.) that dictate Christians reject any government mandate requiring them to disobey their Lord and King. Romans 13 is not one of them. Neither is Romans 13 charging Christians to obey secular government.

Romans 13:1-7 has absolutely nothing to do with secular civil government. Rather everything therein depicts a biblical civil government, making it the commission of the subjects of the King of kings for dominion over government and society.

The one word "continually" or "devoted" (depending upon your Bible version) in Verse 6 (amplifying Verses 3 & 4) alone proves the point. And it's just one of ten contextual reasons proving the same thing.

Unless someone's prepared to claim the Roman Empire (one of the most notorious for murdering Christians) was a government that *continually* blessed Christians and terrorized/punished the wicked, they best rethink their theology regarding this extremely important passage of Scripture.

See free online book "The Romans 13 Template for Biblical Dominion: Ten Reasons Why Romans 13 is Not About Secular Government" at https://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/Romans13/Romans13-contents.html

Expand full comment
18 more comments...

No posts