A discerning look at Ted Weiland’s “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective”

English: Detail of Preamble to Constitution of...

By Angela Wittman

I believe I have found within the Scriptures the key to what made America great, and this key can restore her to her former greatness. – Ted Weiland, (Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution; The Christian Perspective, http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-preface.html)

A couple of years ago Ted Weiland contacted me and asked if he might send me his primer on Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective. After receiving and reviewing the primer, I decided to toss it in the trash due to the concern that Mr. Weiland was missing a foundational point – Biblical covenanting.  And after recently reviewing his work in greater detail, I believe the reformed and theonomic community should be cautious about Mr. Weiland’s book and his beliefs.

Due to some glaring “red flags” I encountered while researching Mr. Weiland, I’ve decided to write this warning and state my concerns.

First of all, it appears that Mr. Weiland has a different view of what God’s covenant with His people is than what has been traditionally taught and believed for hundreds of years.  According to his book Israel’s Identity – It Matters! posted online, he is of the belief that “the Celtic, Scandinavian, Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, and kindred peoples (hereafter identified as Celto-Saxons) [are] today’s genetic Israelites”:

If you are not convinced the Celto-Saxons are the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, please consider this one scriptural proof:

In Jeremiah 31, Yahweh promised to make the New Covenant with the Israelites:

“Behold, the days come, saith YHWH, 3 that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt…. But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith YHWH, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jeremiah 31:31-33)”

Just as Yahweh promised, He has made the New Covenant with Israelites. Take a globe and draw circles around the land masses in which true Christianity has flourished for the last two millennia, and your circles will encompass those nations composed primarily of Celto-Saxons.

Over the last two thousand years, it has been predominantly Celto-Saxons who have embraced New Covenant Christianity and who have been most responsive to Yeshua’s 5 call to salvation. All other nations would be oblivious to Christianity had it not been for the Celto-Saxons’ proliferation of the gospel message. Yahweh’s promise to the Israelites in Jeremiah 31 alone proves who Israel is and is not today.

(Text quoted and portions excerpted are taken from: Israel’s Identity – It Matters! by Ted Weiland, Preface, http://www.scribd.com/doc/125938789/Israel-s-Identity-It-Matters-by-Ted-R-Weiland)

These statements signal to me that Mr. Weiland has an entirely different view of who the true Israel is than as traditionally taught in the Reformed Church and he has instead made the error of focusing on bloodlines instead of the heart of the matter – one’s faith in Jesus Christ and His atoning work accomplished on the cross for His chosen people.  In fact, the very Scripture Mr. Weiland quotes (Jeremiah 31:31-33) is the same that countless of Christians use for comfort and encouragement once becoming new creatures in Christ.  How disturbing it is to think that if one were not “Celto-Saxon” this promise would not pertain to them!  What a twisted view of Scripture one must have in order to come up with this nonsense.  Is Mr. Weiland missing the point that  under the old covenant, the law of God was engraved on tablets of stone and now under the new covenant God writes His law on the hearts of His people? (See study note for Jer. 31:33 in the Reformation Study Bible, page 1099.)  It is my opinion that Mr. Weiland is off on a tangent with his extensive studies of “Celto-Saxon” bloodlines.

In all fairness, Mr. Weiland claims he does not use the term “Christian Identity” when describing himself,  preferring instead the term “Christian Israel;”  but his preoccupation with “Celto-Saxons” is at the very least confusing and reason enough for Reformed and Theonomic Christians to be cautious when promoting his work.*

I’m also alarmed at the title of his book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” It appears that Mr. Weiland is pitting the Constitution against the Bible, refers to it as being a seditious document** and claims his view or perspective is “the” Christian one. This smells of arrogance with an inflated view of one’s self; perhaps Mr. Weiland truly believes he has been endowed with some hidden knowledge the rest of us lack – including the Founding Fathers who had a much more Biblical worldview than today’s national leaders and legislators.

My assessment of Mr. Weiland and his writings regarding the Constitution and Biblical Law is that he goes too far in denouncing the Constitution,  Founding Fathers and their motives which he cannot truly know as he cannot read their hearts – only historical accounts which reveal they were noble men with feet of clay. And he has stated that while respected theonomic theologian Dr. R.J. Rushdoony described the Constitution as “a good procedural manual” it is “contrary to Yahweh’s laws.”*** Sorry, but I have to ask how?  I have long been an advocate for the Constitution to recognize Jesus Christ in a more explicit way with an amendment, but I have not found it to be seditious or immoral.  I agree with Dr. Rushdoony that is a good procedural document for a Christian government. It needs amended – not dismantled or destroyed.

In the May/June 2012 issue of Faith for All of Life, Martin Selbrede wrote a book review for Mr. Weiland’s book called “Faithful in Little Things?” in which he states that his critique is with the methodology and if that isn’t sound, it will “leaven the whole lump.” **** I agree. Mr. Weiland’s methodology isn’t sound, and frankly I don’t think his theology is, either. After spending weeks reading excerpts from books written by Ted Weiland, articles on his blogs and his comments, I’ve concluded that my first response of tossing his primer into the trash was a wise move.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Notes:

*In the comment section of his blog Constitution Myth Busters, Swallowing Camels, Part 3, Ted Weiland recently stated:

That said, I don’t want to mislead anyone here on this blog or anywhere else. Whereas, I do not hold to the term “Christian Identity” for the reasons I stressed to Angela (I prefer the term “Christian Israel,” if a term must be used at all), I do accept Hebrews 8:8-9 at face value–that is, that the New Covenant was made with a remnant of Israelites from the house of Judah and the house of Israel via Christ’s blood atoning sacrifice and resurrection from the grave. In other words, no automatic salvation by race or lineage. I also believe that whereas the covenant is specific to Israelites (Romans 9:3-4, Hebrews 8:8-9, etc.), unlike most Identity folk, I also believe that non-Israelites can be proselytes to the New Covenant just like they could under the Old Covenant.

I also believe it can be proven Biblically, archeologically, and historically that today’s Israelites are found in today’s Celtic, Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, and kindred peoples. In fact, I believe I can also Biblically prove that if this is not the case then Yahweh is an impotent liar who cannot fulfill His New Covenant promises.

**In the comment section of Constitution Myth Busters, Swallowing Camels, Part 1, Mr. Weiland stated:

Even if we employ the Constitution in some immediate situations, ultimately it has to be exposed for the seditious document it is and for the reason America is teetering on the precipice. For the sake of yours and my posterity, I hope you’ll join those of us who have already begun the process.

***Statements found in Ted Weiland’s “An Open Response to Martin Selbrede and Archie Jones’ ‘Book Review’ of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

****I have a pdf file of the May/June 2012 Issue of Faith For All of Life which contains the article “Faithful in Little Things?” by Martin Selbrede.   Please feel free to contact me for a copy or you can go to: http://chalcedon.edu/faith-for-all-of-life/ and register (or log-in) and search the archives for the May/June 2012 issue of Faith For All of Life.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Additional resources for the discerning reader:

Inside the Christian Identity Movement: http://www.rickross.com/reference/christian_identity/christianidentity7.html

A Case of Mistaken Identity: Christian Identity’s False Doctrine of Salvation: http://myshasta.info/tempest/seventhunders/identity/mistaken_identity.htm

Christian Identity Movement (LCMS): http://www.tlcgirard.org/web_documents/christian_identity_movement.pdf

Christian Identity: A “Christian” Religion for White Racists (CRI)http://www.equip.org/articles/christian-identity-a-christian-religion-for-white-racists/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Scriptures for the discerning Christian to consider (1599 Geneva Bible):

[Emphasis in bold text is mine. AW]

1Timothy 1:4

 [a]Neither that they give heed to fables and [b]genealogies which are endless, which breed questions rather than godly edifying which is by faith.

Footnote a: The doctrine is corrupted not only by false opinions, but also by vain and curious speculations: the declaration and utterance whereof can nothing help our faith.

Galatians 3: 14-16

14 [a]That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

15 [b]Brethren, I speak as [c]men do: though it be but a man’s covenant, when it is [d]confirmed, yet no man doth abrogate it, or addeth anything thereto,

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to the seeds, as speaking of many: but, And to thy seed, as of one, [e]which is [f]Christ.

Footnotes a; b; e; f:

a. Galatians 3:14 A conclusion of all that was said before in the handling of the fifth and sixth reasons, to wit, that both the Gentiles are made partakers of the free blessing of Abraham in Christ, and also that the Jews themselves, of whose number the Apostle counteth himself to be, cannot obtain that promised grace of the Gospel, which he calleth the Spirit, but only by faith. And the Apostle doth severally apply the conclusion, both to the one and the other, preparing himself a way, to the next argument, whereby he declareth, that the one only seed of Abraham, which is made of all peoples can no otherwise be joined and grow up together, but by faith in Christ.

b. Galatians 3:15 He putteth forth two general [rules] before the next argument, which is the seventh in order: That one is, that it is not lawful to break covenants and contracts which are justly made and according to Law amongst men, neither may anything be added unto them: The other is, that God did so make a covenant with Abraham, that he would gather together his children which consist both of Jews and Gentiles into one body (as appeareth by that which hath been said before.) For he did not say, that he would be the God of Abraham and of his seeds, (which things notwithstanding should have been said, if he had many and divers seeds, as the Gentiles apart and the Jews apart,) but that he would be the God of Abraham, and of his seed, as of one.

e. Galatians 3:16 He putteth forth the sum of the seventh argument, to wit, that both the Jews and the Gentiles grow together into one body of the seed of Abraham, in Christ only, so that all are one in Christ, as it is afterward declared, verse 21.

f. Galatians 3:16 Paul speaketh not of Christ’s person, but of two peoples, which grew together in one, in Christ.

Galatians 4: 27, 28

27 [a]For it is written, Rejoice thou barren that bearest no children: break forth, and cry, thou that travailest not: for the [b]desolate hath many more children, than she which hath an husband.

28 Therefore, brethren, we are after the [a]manner of Isaac, children of the [b]promise.

Footnote 27 a:

Galatians 4:27 He showeth that in this allegory, he hath followed the steps of Isaiah, who foretold that the Church should be made and consist of the children of barren Sarah, that is to say, of them which only spiritually should be made Ahraham’s children by faith, rather than of fruitful Hagar, even then foreshowing the casting off of the Jews, and calling of the Gentiles.

1599 Geneva Bible Version Information:

All but forgotten in our day, the Geneva Bible was the most widely read and influential English Bible of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. A superb translation, it was the product of the best Protestant scholars of the day and became the Bible of choice for many of the greatest writers and thinkers of that time. Men such as William Shakespeare, John Bunyan, and John Milton used the Geneva Bible in their writings. The Geneva Bible is unique among all other Bibles. It was the first Bible to use chapters and numbered verses and became the most popular version of its time because of its extensive marginal notes. These notes, written by Reformation leaders such as John Calvin, John Knox, Miles Coverdale, William Whittingham, Anthony Gilby, and others, were included to help explain and interpret the Scriptures for the average reader.

About these ads

20 thoughts on “A discerning look at Ted Weiland’s “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective”

    • The Word of God needs to be correctly preached… It is our duty to warn others of false teachers and erroneous doctrine; I give you the Apostle Paul as an example we should follow.

  1. Pingback: A discerning look at Ted Weiland’s “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” | Christian Liberty News

  2. Angela, I tend to agree with your comments on Pastor Weiland’s interpretation of Israel, but I don’t think his Biblical critique of the U.S. Constitution can be so easily dismissed. His is apparently the first attempt ever to make a paragraph by paragraph Biblical analysis of the U.S. Constitution and he has found something like 75-100 specific points at which the Constitution is in direct contradiction to the Bible. When a document has so many doctrinal errors we might as well start over from scratch. Procedure is not morally neutral, Rushdoony notwithstanding.

    One obvious example is where the Constitution requires return of a runaway slave, which the Bible forbids. But even more offensive is the Constitution’s elevation of itself and ALL of the man made laws “made in pursuance thereof to be “the supreme law of the land”: “This Constitution and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made and which shall be made….shall be the supreme law of the land…..”

    There is no room in that statement for the Bible as higher law or any appeal to a higher law of God above the Constitution. I believe this is the fundamental and irredeemable flaw of the U.S. Constitution. Like ancient Israel we have substituted “the statutes of Omri” for the law of God and are now reaping the consequences (Micah 6:16,17)This was a radical departure from most of the earlier colonial charters. They should have added a qualifier, something like, “Subject to the law of God, this constitution and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made and which shall be made…. shall be the supreme law of the land…..”

    If the founding fathers had a Biblical worldview it is definitely not reflected in Article VI where this passage is found. The oft repeated statement that “the founding fathers were using the the Bible as their great political textbook” has absolutely no basis in fact. When I read through The Notes of the Federal Convention of 1787 I could not find any examples where they referenced the Bible in their debate. The only references to the Bible are one offhand comment about Pharoah and second, Franklin’s prayer request. That is ironic because Franklin was the leader of the Rosicruceans in America. Nor are their any references to the Bible in the Federalist Papers.

    Their motives are revealed by what they wrote. For example, when you read through Rushdoony’s “Institutions of Biblical Law” his motive is clearly to exalt the law of God as the supreme law of the land. No such motive can be detected in the Federalist Papers, the Notes From the Federal Convention or in the Constitution itself.

    It’s been awhile since I read that book review by Martin Selbrede, but I do recall being thoroughly unimpressed. He relied almost exclusively on Archie Jones, contrasting Jones’ historical assessment of the founding fathers with that of Gary North. He said that Archie Jones vs Gary North was the “Battle of the Titans.” I’d say it’s more like Bamby vs. Godzilla.

    What does Martin Selbrede mean when he says Ted Weiland’s “methodology isn’t sound.” What is unsound about a methodology of comparing the Constitution with the Bible on a paragraph by paragraph basis and coming to the obvious conclusion that the Constitution is in direct contradiction at almost every point. I think we owe Ted Weiland a debt of gratitude for undertaking such a project..

    • Dear Mr. Woods,

      Out of respect for you and your past friendship with Pastor Ray Joseph who helped disciple me in matters of the Constitution and God’s Law, I am approving your comment. However, I think Mr. Weiland’s views on “Christian Israel” and the fact that he has been documented as being/speaking at the same meetings as Christian Identity proponents (please see link to “Inside the Christian Identity Movement”) makes him a man whose reputation and teaching will discredit the theonomic movement and those associated with him.

      As one who has taken a public interest in the Scottish Covenanters and who has a credible reputation, I feel it is my duty to warn others of Mr. Weiland after researching his work and reputation.

      As far as your question for Mr. Selbrede, you can contact him personally for an answer.

      For Christ’s Crown & Covenant,
      Angela Wittman

      • Sorry for the brief response earlier… I was pressed for time and will now try to respond more thoroughly as I have great respect for Mr. Woods and the work he has done on behalf of King Jesus.

        I think Mr. Woods knows I agree with much he has written regarding the Founding Fathers and the Constitutional Convention of 1787, as well as being in much agreement with Dr. Gary North’s work “Conspiracy in Philadelphia.” I was extremely shocked and dismayed at the lack of reference to our Lord Jesus Christ in the Constitution and agree with Patrick Henry who smelled a rat at the Convention. But I also cannot deny that during the founding of our nation, there was a Christian ethos prevalent among the majority of Founders, and this ethos was bound to influence many of those in power. My work since becoming a Christian in 1993 has consistently been to advance a Christian worldview. I don’t believe I have faltered in this quest for the Crown Rights of King Jesus in any meaningful way, even though my work and methods have never been perfect. May God forgive my many mistakes and ignorance when advancing the Kingdom. But as far as working with someone who clearly has the Biblical teaching of God’s Covenants as wrong as Mr. Weiland does, I simply cannot. For me it would be the same as teaming up with an infidel (Amos 3:3: Can two walk together except they be agreed?). My sincere hope and prayer is for Mr. Weiland to see the error of his interpretation of Scripture and repent of his previous associations and books on “Christian Israel.”
        Now as far as the methodology question… I will review my notes and give my thoughts in a fuller manner soon. I have a puppy and she is quite active. Sorry, but she’s in need of “mommy” right now. :) May God bless you, Mr. Woods.

  3. Unsound methodology (or my understanding of what was meant):
    Mr. Selbrede believes Mr. Weiland unfairly omitted opposing evidence to his thesis, in particular Dr. Archie Jones work that Mr. Selbrede had referred Ted to review while Ted was researching his book.

    What is the definition of the term methodology? See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/methodology
    1a body of methods, rules, and postulates employed by a discipline : a particular procedure or set of procedures
    2the analysis of the principles or procedures of inquiry in a particular field
    An example given is: He blamed the failure of their research on poor methodology.

    In all fairness, I had planned to do an extensive review of Mr. Weiland’s book on Bible Law vs. the Constitution, chapter by chapter; but after only reading the first 3 chapters, I began to investigate as to why he only uses the term Yahweh when referring to the Lord and was led to read some of his other work on “Christian Israel.” Seeing that he has such a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of who is God’s people, I realized that reading the rest of his book would be a waste of time. I agree with Martin Selbrede’s assessment that “it is possible to take a biopsy sample, run it through the pathology lab, and discern if the tissue is healthy or not.” Well, the tissue is full of the disease of false teaching and if the basics are wrong, IMO the entire book is going to be slanted and wrong. If I detected “Christian Identity” influences in the first 3 chapters, then why read the entire 500+ page volume? As a homemaker, I throw out rotten meat – I don’t prepare it and then eat it to see if it makes me sick. I already know rotten meat will make me sick. Ted Weiland’s book smells “fishy” – why consume it?

    Hope this answers your question.

  4. Glad to be introduced to your blog today and see your connection to the Covenanters & respect for Mr. Woods’ work. This Constitution thing takes a very long time to discern and I certainly sympathize with the challenges of trying to decipher where it stands in relation to the Bible and to our country at this time. I have been chipping away at trying to understand it better for 4-6 years, along with Geo. Washington. I listened to Steve Wilkins’ “America: First 250 Years”, and Rushdoony’s American History tapes. I dabbled around in North’s “Political Polytheism” several years ago, and just recently thoroughly read it through (starting at the middle, of all things), and am now going through it all again. It is pretty heavy sledding. He did his doctorate, I think, in Colonial History. He does a pretty good job of tracing the flow of public thought in America and comparing Newton, Locke, Witherspoon, etc.
    I am afraid he is right on his criticisms of Rushdoony, Van Til, and Francis Schaeffer, as far as coming a little short of fully embracing a proper application of Mosaic legislation in the present hour. Ted Weiland has a niche ministry, but my learning style doesn’t mesh with his very much.
    I think my best insights have come from Patrick Henry, although it is a struggle to understand some of his stuff and the context. Mr. Woods’ web site, and trying to read Henry’s arguments against the Constitution (along with his biography) gained my respect. Apparently one of the sharpest and most Biblical thinkers of his time. I have a whole bookshelf on Washington, and over the years I have been less impressed with his Christianity as I have come to understand Freemasonry. It was a shock when someone told me as I looked up to the GW Memorial Masonic temple up the hill from Alexandria, VA, that he had been its Grand Master. North is really good at helping you understand the religious neutrality myth, and when you connect this with the writings of Freemasonry, you see that about the whole world, and sadly, most of our churches, have adopted their “freedom of religion” mantra.
    Surprisingly, some of the clearest perspective on the constitution has come from less-explicitly Christian writers.

    “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

    ― Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution Of No Authority (late 1800′s)

    It really helped to read Alexander Stephens’ “A Compendium of the History of the United States from the Earliest Settlements to 1872″. You can just watch the successive Congresses steadily move away from the old Christian “rule of God’s law” idea, to pretending that some majority of men’s opinion is the ethical authority to define crime and punishment. One key phrase was “internal improvements”. They began approving capital projects that taxed all and benefited only some — in violation of the “general welfare” principle. In my long study of the Civil War, it became apparent that by 1860, the president and congress had lost their understanding of the Constitution — at least the interpretation that our best Christian friends put upon it. The South was struggling to get back to that “ideal” and was aghast that the North had so thoroughly trashed it in the name of righteousness.

    I was involved in a series of Sunday School classes in a Baptist Church where we started from Dave Barton’s material, and tried to study the Constitution and some applications to the present day. I was surprised to watch myself losing my confidence that I had any hope of understanding the worldviews of the Times to really understand the Constitution in context in order to be able to correctly use it as a tool of Christian Reconstruction today. And if I, who had spent so may hours, with the help of so many scholars — could not really grasp it, I know that there was absolutely no chance that the average college-confused American, who garners his understanding of history and politics from movies and TV and approved textbooks — would ever come to make an advantageous use of That Document to bring about Christ-honoring reform.

    I also learned that, by its nature, the Constitution was never designed or expected to serve as the Main Body of Law for the country. Most of the law was, and needed to be, at the State level. It was not designed, and cannot serve the purpose the Constitution Party hopes to use it for today. It does not answer the questions of detail (you know the 10th amendment). Also, because of understanding the religious neutrality issue, I came to understand that the 1st Amendment contradicts its own self. Our lawyer/teacher was even pointing out that the secular courts are puzzled looking back at the way they are noticing that 1st Amendment cases sometimes go one way, sometimes the other, and even they are contradicting themselves. I think it is because lawmakers, by definition, cannot help “establishing a religion”, since all laws are based on a morality that derives from a unified religious concept. They cannot allow “free exercise” of religion, lest it overturn the dominant, air-superiority religion.
    North hammers out at least 3 Big areas of contradiction against the Theonomic/Postmillennial view. 1. Sovereign lawmaking authority is from WeThePeople (But I have never even found out yet, who picked the men who made up the plebicites who voted to ratify the Constitution. I was surprised to learn it wasn’t the State legislatures who ratified it). 2. Oath of office to the Triune God, and Jesus Christ as emperor of nations is prohibited. There can be no reform without this (of course this is inherent in our Baptism, but we should make more of it. It is also essential in winning the war against the Banks). Not even Satan can dominate the world without his secret societies being bound together by strong self-maledictory oaths. 3. 14th Amendment locks in the franchise to the general population (all born in), instead of the covenant members of the Church of Christ in good standing in local churches. Those are the ones Christ rules through, whether those saints do a good or a lousy job.
    All this is besides the overall violation of the impossibility of neutrality principle.
    My final shot is that the Freemasons take credit for it, and having read their philosophy a bit, I think I have to agree. There are two opposite perspectives on Natural Law. The Freemason’s interpretation of natural law excludes the Bible as God’s necessary and sufficient revelation for all of life, including Civil Law. I’ve tried to develop this in:
    http://www.keepandshare.com/discuss/22558/natural-law-the-wolf-in-sheep-s-clothing

    I wish you all God’s wisdom in continuing to study how best to guide truth around others’ mental roadblocks, and hold the Son of God, the Word of God, and the Church of God — at the center of your thinking.

    • Dear Delware,
      Thanks for commenting. It sounds as though you and I have been exposed to similar works and experiences in our quest to advance the Crown Rights of King Jesus! I also read Dr. North’s book Political Polytheism – twice! It is an eye-opener and one I recommend for others to read.
      For Christ’s Crown & Covenant,
      Angela Wittman

  5. Dear Delware, I was just reviewing your comment again and was intrigued by your mentioning the Constitution Party. CP is where I first learned about States Rights and interposition, as well as being 100% pro-life (no exceptions, no compromise). So, while it has been approximately 8 years (?!) since I left, please know that there was much good in CP at one time. I really can’t comment on what their objectives are now, but the original founders certainly weren’t ‘federalists.” :)

  6. Thank you for this post. I have not heard of this author previously and I’m thankful for this prior warning, given that I do enjoy reading literature by theonomists. I am also appreciative that Chalcedon has written a review of his work as well.

    • You’re welcome! I was prompted to review Mr. Weiland’s work because he has a campaign to make his views known on websites and blogs that have Constitutional, patriotic or liberty themes via their comment sections. Also, he aggressively promotes his Bible Law vs. the US Constitution book. Some are willing to look the other way when it comes to unorthodox beliefs, but I just can’t ignore those things that hurt the advancement of the Gospel like the false teaching of “Christian Identity” or “Christian Israel.”

  7. Weiland said, “In fact, I believe I can also Biblically prove that if this is not the case then Yahweh is an impotent liar who cannot fulfill His New Covenant promises.”

    I have, in the past, studied this issue (“Anglo-Celtic Israel”) out to my satisfaction. I devoted quite some time to it, as a friend I respected was absolutely convinced of it. I can say that, even were I convinced that this is true, there is not enough evidence for me to risk calling the true and living God an impotent liar on the basis of something, no, well, anything. On this statement of his alone, I would stay away from this man.

    Regardless, even if he is correct and the Anglo-Celtic people are “Israel,” many of his statements betray a very, very shallow understanding of Romans and of the fact that not all Israel is Israel. I believe that dispensationalists and people like Weiland share the same mistake (and I know this will not earn me cool points with anyone). They are both guilty of replacement theology- maintaining that a given ethnic group is the covenant people of God rather than those who are saved by grace through faith.

    Theology has to be taken as a whole, because every part of one’s view of God and the Word influences every other part. While I will read works by those with whom I disagree, I find that I cannot read much of anything by someone who is so far off on his soteriology and his view of Romans and God’s covenants. Such a well is likely to have poison spread throughout.

    For Christ’s Crown and Covenant,
    Justin

  8. Ted Weiland is a horrible hypocrite. He breaks what is warned about in 2 Peter 1:20; “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation …” and attempts to pull in as many followers as he can by means of “interneting.”.Although he does not claim racism, he comes very close to it. His ideals of a hidden truth in regards to the identity of the Lost Tribes of Israel in smorgasborded together from pseudo canonical resources. I followed Mission to Israel Ministries for several years before finally realizing that there is just no biblical way to justify his “stance” on the Bible.

      • Yeah he ( Ted Weiland )does. Christians, despite our theological issues, need to unite, especially this day and age, and combat evil outside of our brothers and sisters. Ted does not see this. He wants everyone to follow his ridiculous idea of Old Covenant Laws – the Mosaic Covenant – which Christ fulfilled – and basically restore the rope … He throws Bible verses around like he has some special authority …

  9. There are many names who are ‘Identity’ related, who make shipwreck of the faith once delivered. The Westboro clan, Phelps, the late Pete Peters; these are all frauds of the highest order.

    There is more danger than the simple ‘misplacing’ and ‘exchanging’ of the so called lost tribes. The gospel is false, therefore salvation is false; there is ‘another’ Jesus preached which is not the Lord Jesus Christ of the scriptures, but thankfully, we have the Spirit of God to point out the pernicious ways.

    These men and groups are blemishes on the church, and a sound mind can dismiss them in a heartbeat.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s