John Livingston

No Jesus—No Liberty

Over the past four years Mr. Ted Weiland has posted behind several of my articles making the point that there is a difference between the American People and the governance system set up by our Founding Fathers. He made such a post last week behind an article in The Gem State Patriot by Bob Shillingstad. I agree with the premise of the first statement, but last week Mr. Weiland again made an argument claiming that we are not a Christian Nation because our Founders were theistic humanists, and it is because of our Founding on Enlightenment principles and not Christian principles that the problems we face today have come about. Mr. Weiland again succumbs to violating Plato’s fallacy of composition.

The signers of our Declaration and the signers of the Constitution almost universally believed in God (Yahweh)—Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Catholics, and Jews. They almost uniformly were grounded in Greco-Roman and Hebrew-Christian history. They had seen the failings of theocratic rule both in the early American Colonies—the Puritans established theocratic rule at Plymouth even though they were fleeing from a King who supported such rule, and in the stories of the Old Testament where the transactions of government took place between The Kings, The Prophets and The Judges. Just like in the Bible the earthly rule of men needs to be based on “free will” and liberty, not on coercion and enforced obedience to a moral order that is enforced by civil theocratic rule.

The uniqueness of our country’s Founding was that it occurred during the confluence of the ideas of The Enlightenment and those of The Great Awakening. Mr. Weiland invokes Biblical Scholars Dr. Frazier and Dr. Mohler in making the argument that our Founders were Deists and Theists. This argument upon closer inspection doesn’t hold water. God gives man only one way to reach Him and that is through Jesus Christ. God can reach down to man anyway, time and place that He wants. There is no question in my mind that our Founding was Providential and not prudential. The melding of Biblical and Enlightenment principles proves it. In fact, at the time of our Founding nine of our colonies had church sponsored theocratic rule—three Congregationalists, six Church of England (Episcopalian). One of the States Pennsylvania founded by Charter from the King to William Penn a Quaker, purposefully made religion not a condition for participation in civil affairs. Conscience and “free will” were a bases for liberty and participation in the Civil State. Writings between Jefferson and Madison in the years of Jefferson’s absence in France during rule under The Articles of Confederation are the best example of their own beliefs and their allegiance to the concept of “free will” as the bases of liberty.

There is no such thing as a theocratic democratic republic. Those are based on Old Covenant principles. The new Covenant—Jesus Christ was anticipated by the prophets and that is the bases of the New Covenant. The Legitimacy of governance in the New Covenant is given to the people by God, not through His rulers and then to the people.

 It is appropriate that we talk about this issue at Christmas time because many people who argue for theocratic rule do so without understanding the history of THE NEW COVENANT. This new relationship between God and man didn’t begin with Jesus’ teachings, but rather with the Annunciation to Mary of her being pregnant with Jesus. As describe in a supplement to The First Glorious Mystery in the Catholic Catechism:

IN THE ANNUNCIATION, the birth of the Son of God in the flesh is made to hinge on the consent of a woman. God in His power may have assumed His human nature by force. But He willed not to invade His great gift of freedom without a creature’s free response. The Annunciation is the Mystery of the joy of freedom. Our free will is the only thing in the world that is our own. God can take away anything else, our health, wealth, power, but God will never force us to love Him or to obey Him. The charm of Yes lies in the possibility that one might have said No. Mary has taught us to say Fiat to God. “Be it done to me according to Thy word.” But God Himself has taught us that, since He would not invade the freedom of a woman, we should expect no less in the way that we govern ourselves.

This our Founding Fathers understood—The relationship between “free will” and freedom (liberty). Freedom and theocracy cannot coexist. Yes, means nothing if we don’t have the liberty to say “no”

The annunciation and the march of liberty that continued through the New Covenant did not end with Jesus but has continued through today. Maybe Mr. Weiland and the other scholars and I can agree on this one point:


Below is a link to a Wall Street Journal article that has been published at Christmas for over 60 years. It tells how the story was continued, and the sacrifice of those brave souls who had the courage to speak the truth. We are called on to follow in their footsteps

Merry Christmas

12 replies on “No Jesus—No Liberty”

Dr. Livingston, thank you for mentioning me. However, you failed in making your point regarding both the constitutional framers and the biblically seditious Constitution they created.

There’s so much that needs addressed in your article, but the following will have to suffice. Hopefully the readers here will take advantage of the free offer at the end of my post and determine this extremely important issue on their own.

There’s only one moral standard by which everything (including the Constitution) is to be ethically evaluated: By Yahweh’s unchanging morality as reflected in the Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments. Anything else is merely fickle man’s capricious humanism – that is man doing what’s right in his own eyes, per Judge 21:25 – aka We the Peopleism.

When the Constitution is actually examined by the biblical standard instead of dead politicians’ cherry picked quotations, it’s found to be anything but biblically compatible. In fact, there’s hardly an Article or Amendment that’s not antithetical, if not seditious, to Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality.

For evidence, see free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective,” in which every Article and Amendment is *examined* by the Bible, at https://www.bibleversusconstitution.ORG/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html

See also Coach Dave Daubenmire’s recent interview with me (Should We Replace the U.S. Constitution?) at https://www.bibleversusconstitution.ORG/dave_daubenmire.html

See also last year’s debate “Is the Constitution Biblically Compatible?” between Constitutional Attorney Brent Winters and myself at https://www.bibleversusconstitution.ORG/constitutionontrial.html

Find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the sidebar and receive a free copy of the 85-page “Primer” of “BL vs. USC.”

You will not be added to any mailing list unless you request it.

Thanks, Ted, for your kind reply. I always look forward to your point of view. It helps bring out my best.
No Jesus No liberty. The people that wrote our Founding Documents understood this

“He who turns away his ear from listening to the law, Even his prayer is an abomination.” (Proverbs 28:9)

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'” (Matthew 7:21-23)

Except with individual Christians, liberty was officially lost in America when the 1787 cadre of Enlightenment and Masonic theistic rationalists (aka constitutional framers and founding fathers) made liberty a goal (almost a God as in France) instead of corollary of implementing the Bible’s perfect law of liberty (Psalm 19:7-11, 119:44-45, James 2:12, etc.) as the law of the land. And it has invariably been lost incrementally ever since, until today America’s finds herself precipitously teetering on the precipice of moral depravity and destruction

For more on how the Bible’s triune and integral moral law (the Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments) apply and should be implemented as as the law of the land under the New Covenant, see free online book “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant” at https://www.bibleversusconstitution.ORG/law-kingdomFrame.html

Then, at the same location, “A Biblical Constitution: A Scriptural Replacement for Secular Government.”

Mathew 7:1

John 7:24

Tolerance is not acceptance. Discernment and context are always required when looking back at history

Matthew 7:1-5 pertaining to hypocrites, which would certainly apply to me IF you can provide documentation where I’ve preached anyone but Yahweh as America’s Sovereign and thus His moral law as supreme!

What’s hypocritical, John, is for someone to biblically condemn the likes of Biden, Obama, the Clintons, or any other Swamp Crocodile and yet refrain from doing the same with the late 17th-century Enlightenment and Masonic theistic rationalists who created a biblically seditious Constitution that made it possible for those Swamp Crocodiles (rather than biblically qualified men of God) to rule America!

I have never condemned politicians based on Biblical principles. I have condemned their political philosophies based on my political philosophy which is grounded in my understanding of Biblical Principles—Aquinas called them “first instances”. Significant difference. I do not believe in theocracy, and I will respect anyone’s free will. A New Covenant idea. Theocratic systems of government controlled by ungodly people will fail for the same reason as democratic governments elected by an ungodly people. Governments cannot force those they rule to be Godly, but virtuous Godly people can establish virtuous Godly governments. Our Founders understood the difference. Thank God!

Yes, you do believe in theocracy, whether you are cognizant or not. There is no escaping theocracy.

There are no vacuums when it comes to legislated morality or what’s, more often than not, immorality. Consequently, a nation’s foundational ethical standard determines its God.

Thus, there is likewise no vacuums when it comes to religious-influenced governments, be it even Secular Humanism in its multifaceted forms, and it usually is.

When one understands that idolatry is not so much about statues as it is statutes, it becomes clear that all governments are theocratic (god ruled), serving either the true God or some false god, demonstrated by what laws they keep and consider the supreme law of the land.

Question: Were the governments in the Old Testament under the god Baal (or any other false god named in the Old Testament) theocracies?

Answer: Of course, they were.

Question: Was Baal (or any other god named in the Bible) real or were they merely ancient forms of We the People?

Answer: Merely ancient forms of We the People. See 1 Corinthians 8:4-6.

Consequently: “…There is no escaping theocracy [or theonomy]. A government’s laws reflect its morality, and the source of that morality (or, more often than not, immorality) is its god. It is never a question of theocracy or no theocracy, but whose theocracy. The American people, by way of their elected officials, are the source of the Constitutional Republic’s laws. Therefore, the Constitutional Republic’s god is WE THE PEOPLE.

“People recoil at the idea of a theocracy’s morality being forced upon them, but because all governments are theocracies, someone’s morality is always being enforced. This is an inevitability of government. The question is which god, theocracy, laws, and morality will we choose to live under?…”

For more, see online Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at

None of this eliminates individual free will (impossible to legislate for or against) to choose Christ as Lord and Savior. However, when one chooses Christ as Lord (Sovereign) and Savior it then demands he seeks His sovereignty and, in turn, His government, and in turn in His moral law as supreme over all of society, including government.

Anything else is a case of Matthew 7:21-23, aka sedition against the One he claims he believes and serves.

Thanks again Ted for your thoughts. Theocracy is theocracy. Free will is free will. Conscience cannot be coerced, and conscience is the basis of virtue. Without a virtuous people governance will be corrupt.

You’re right: conscience cannot be coerced. That’s why impossible to legislate for or against the conscience. That’s why that’s not what’s under discussion here.

The lack of virtuous people neither justifies the constitutional framers’ non-virtuous (biblically seditious) Constitution, nor does it sanction our promotion of the same.

It demands the precise opposite from those who claim to be subjects and ambassadors of the King of kings!

Constitutions and laws cannot be virtuous—only people can be virtuous. Laws and constitutions can incentivize, inspire, or punish behavior that is virtuous or not. Laws and constitutions are man-made and prescribe how people relate to each other. Virtue and God’s Laws are spiritual and define our relationship to our Creator. A virtuous God-Fearing people can create laws and documents based on biblical principles but if they themselves don’t follow God’s Laws no man-made government can help them. The problem with theocracies has always been that the man claiming to be the judge of virtue, right and wrong, and what is consistent with God’s intent for citizens is making themselves their own God. The Holy Spirit works through man individually and men create government. Any earthly government and any leaders that claim that they have the franchise on what God wants is making themselves their own God. Abraham Lincoln was approached by a little girl stating—-“surely God is on our side Mr. President” The President replied, “the question is not if God is on our side, but if we are on God’s Side”. That is why man prays for God’s guidance. No man can claim that God is on his side. We can only ask for God’s guidance and pray we are on His side. That is because of the New Covenant. That is because free will is the basis of our liberty. No free will, no liberty. God gives us the opportunity to say “No” just like He did Mary. Our Founding Fathers said “yes” to God. They prayed and gave reverence to God. The used the term “Providential” in our Founding documents. They recognized that the State had no claim on an individual’s sovereignty or conscience thus nine out of thirteen states that sponsored religion in the colonial era had to agree they could make “no law establishing religion” We are a constitutional Republic, Founded by Christian people who believed in Christian Principles.

“Constitutions and laws cannot be virtuous—only people can be virtuous.”

Straining at gnats while swallowing camels!

The rest of this is you just trying to make excuses for your promotion of that which is biblically egregious in nearly every one of its Article and Amendments. What in reality is protecting your idol.

Idolatry is not so much about statues as it is statutes, such as what one considers the supreme law of the land.

There can only be one supreme law: 1) The Constitution, per Article 6, or 2) Yahweh’s moral law, per the Bible.

To futilely attempt to meld the two is to be as double-minded as were the Israelites on Mt. Carmel with Elijah: Why halt ye between two opinions? If We the People be God, serve them. If Yahweh be God, serve Him!

For more, see Chapter 3 “The Preamble: We the People vs. Yahweh” of free online book “Bible Law vs, the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at

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

See also the blog article “Could You Be a Disciple of Baal and Not Know It?” at

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Gem State Patriot News