[Esaias]

Isa 8:19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

When we are advised to seek unto the 'experts' in arcane 'knowledge' and 'wisdom', we ought to seek unto God. We ought to get our wisdom and knowledge and direction from God, not unto those who dredge up the dead philosophers of the past (Plato, Aristotle, Bacon?); we should go to the law and the testimony. Indeed, whatever does not agree with the law and the testimony, is darkness.

Does the Constitution agree with the law and the testimony? Remember, if it does not agree with the law and the testimony, it is because it is full of darkness, it is because it has no light. Those who promote any political system, or any ethical system, that does not agree with the law and the testimony, have no light in them. They have no wisdom, they are stupid, foolish, and evil, full of darkness.

That's God's opinion of the matter. How do we know that's his opinion? Because he said it! We just read it.

God's people have the same opinion, and are marked by the same characteristic of the law and the testimony, because they are the children of Light:

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

The dragon, the ruling power of the world (kosmos, the world 'system' or 'order') hates and seeks to wage war against the remnant of the seed of the Israel of God, who are characterised as those who 'keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.'

The children of God judge things by the Word of God. They look to the law and the testimony to judge whether any advice, counsel, or concepts are full of light (wisdom) or darkness (evil, foolishness).

So then, let us look at the Constitution, and see if it agrees with the law and the testimony of the Almighty, to see if it is indeed full of light... or full of darkness. Dare we? I say, yes! For, we are to 'prove all things' (including the Constitution). How are we to prove all things? By the Word of God. How else is anything to be tested and proven? And we are to hold fast that which is good. What is good? How would we know? Because it agrees with the Word of God. Good is whatever God says is good, and evil is whatever God says is evil.

So then, if the Constitution agrees with the Word of God, with the law and the testimony, then it is full of light, it is full of God's wisdom and Word. But if it agrees not, then it is full of darkness, it is void of God's wisdom and Word. Unfortunately, many professing Christians would prefer to hold fast that which is not good, and would prefer to reject that which is good. They will even call evil, good! And Good, evil! They will say a Constitution that fails the law and testimony test of God's Word and which is full of darkness and dead men's bones is good, and the Word of God, the Holy Bible, is evil! They won't put it that way, but really, what does it mean to suggest men should live by something full of darkness, and that men should oppose being governed by the Word of God which is the Light and Life of mankind?

But before we do that...

...let's look at the opinions of some AMERICANS prior to the establishment of the Constitution. The following sources are among the foundational political and ideological sources out of which 'America' sprang. The opinions held forth in the following quotes, if repeated and championed today, would be RIDICULED and SCORNED by today's 'patriotic, America-loving Christians'. Christians today in America lament about how bad things have become, and seem to fancy themselves 'conservatives' holding on to our 'great American heritage'. They get all warm and fuzzy inside when they hear politicians and talk radio hosts and preachers speak about 'our Christian roots', or about the 'Christian heritage of America'. Well, let's look at the actual heritage of America. I am 100 percent convinced that most of the so called 'conservative, American Christians' would consider as hateful, stupid, arrogant, misguided, blinded, or downright 'Antichrist' anyone who held to the very same ideals which this nation was originally founded on.

From the Preamble to the 1682 Frame of Government for Pennsylvania, written by William Penn:

When the great and wise God had made the world, of all his creatures it pleased him to choose man his deputy to rule it...

This the Apostle teaches in divers of his epistles: "The law," says he, "was added because of transgressions." In another place, "Knowing that the law was not made for the righteous man; but for the disobedient and ungodly, for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, and for manstealers, for liars, for perjured persons," etc.; but this is not all, he opens and carries the matter of government a little further: "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers; for there is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained of God: whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil: wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same." "He is the minister of God to thee for good." "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but for conscience' sake."

This settles the divine right of government beyond exception, and that for two ends: first, to terrify evildoers; secondly, to cherish those that do well; which gives government a life beyond corruption and makes it as durable in the world, as good men shall be. So that government seems to me a part of religion itself, a thing sacred in its institution and end. For, if it does not directly remove the cause, it crushes the effects of evil and is, as such (though a lower, yet), an emanation of the same Divine Power that is both author and object of pure religion; the difference lying here, that the one is more free and mental, the other more corporal and compulsive in its operations; but that is only to evildoers; government itself being otherwise as capable of kindness, goodness, and charity, as a more private society. Source.

Compact of 1638, Portsmouth, Rhode Island

The 7th Day of the First Month, 1638.
We whose names are underwritten do hereby solemnly in the presence of Jehovah incorporate ourselves into a Bodie Politick and as He shall help, will submit our persons, lives and estates unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and to all those perfect and most absolute laws of His given in His Holy Word of truth, to be guided and judged thereby. (see Wikipedia article on Portsmouth Compact, includes text)

Fundamental Agreement, or Original Constitution of the Colony of New Haven, June 4, 1639

THE 4th day of the 4th month, called June, 1639, all the free planters assembled together in a general meeting, to consult about settling civil government, according to GOD, and the nomination of persons that might be found, by consent of all, fittest in all respects for the foundation work of a church, which was intended to be gathered in Quinipiack. After solemn invocation of the name of GOD, in prayer for the presence and help of his spirit and grace, in those weighty businesses, they were reminded of the business whereabout they met, (viz.) for the establishment of such civil order as might be most pleasing unto GOD, and for the choosing the fittest men for the foundation work of a church to be gathered. For the better enabling them to discern the mind of GOD, and to agree accordingly concerning the establishment of civil order, Mr. John Davenport propounded divers queries to them publicly, praying them to consider seriously in the presence and fear of GOD, the weight of the business they met about, and not to be rash or slight in giving their votes to things they understood not; but to digest fully and thoroughly what should be propounded to them, and without respect to men, as they should be satisfied and persuaded in their own minds, to give their answers in such sort as they would be willing should stand upon record for posterity.

This being earnestly pressed by Mr. Davenport, Mr. Robert Newman was intreated to write, in characters, and to read distinctly and audibly in the hearing of all the people, what was propounded and accorded on, that it might appear, that all consented to matters propounded, according to words written by him.

Query I. WHETHER the scriptures do hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in all duties which they are to perform to GOD and men, as well in families and commonwealth, as in matters of the church ? This was assented unto by all, no man dissenting, as was expressed by holding up of hands. Afterwards it was read over to them, that they might see in what words their vote was expressed. They again expressed their consent by holding up their hands, no man dissenting.

Query II. WHEREAS there was a covenant solemnly made by the whole assembly of free planters of this plantation, the first day of extraordinary humiliation, which we had after we came together, that as in matters that concern the gathering and ordering of a 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 would all of us be ordered by those rules which the scripture holds forth to US; this covenant was called a plantation covenant, to distinguish it from a church covenant. which could not at that time be made a church not being then gathered, but was deferred till a church might be gathered, according to GOD. It was demanded whether all the free planters do hold themselves bound by that covenant, in all businesses of that nature which are expressed in the covenant, to submit themselves to be ordered by the rules held forth in the scripture t

THIS also was assented unto by all, and no man gainsayed it; and they did testify the same by holding up their hands, both when it was first propounded, and confirmed the same by holding up their hands when it was read unto them in public. John Clark being absent, when the covenant was made, doth now manifest his consent to it. Also Richard Beach, Andrew Law, Goodman Banister, Arthur Halbridge, John Potter, Robert Hill, John Brocket, and John Johnson, these persons, being not admitted planters when the covenant was made, do now express their consent to it. Source.

Wow, what a bunch of religious bigots and misguided fools the original 'Founding Fathers' were! I believe someone here on this forum claimed any who held to such views held to the views of ANTICHRIST!!