Common Law vs. Biblical Law

by Ted Weiland
(Nebraska)

Dear Brethren,

"Amendment 7: Common Law vs. Bible Law," Chapter 16 of Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective is now available.

Many Constitutionalists claim Christianity is intrinsic to common law, basing their assumptions upon assertions found in early court decisions. These assertions, however, are not uncontested. In a letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814, Thomas Jefferson renounced the idea that Christianity was intrinsic to common law.

Both sides of this debate have their heroes. Nevertheless, for our purposes, the debate, as framed, diverts our attention from the real issue. Unless Christianity was pronomian (which includes the recognition of Yahweh's law as supreme in the civil arena) at the time the United States Constitution was framed and ratified, it matters not if it was part of the common law. The plain fact of the matter is that the Christianity of that day was already far removed from pursuing Yahweh's law in government, as demonstrated by the complete absence of biblical citations in the copious Constitutional Convention notes and the Federalist Papers. With few exceptions, Yahweh's law was abandoned in 1787. In other words, late 18th-century Christianity was but a shell of 17th-century pronomian Puritanism.

The "rules of common law," as provided for in Amendment 7, include the laws of Yahweh, but only in so far as they are amicable with the Constitution, congressional legislation, and the court's liking. Consequently, it is incumbent upon every true Christian to work toward replacing the common law with Bible law.

If you find this article edifying, please consider passing it on to your list.

Serving the KING of kings,

Ted R. Weiland