Christian Opposition, Checks & Balances, Etc.

by Al Benson Jr.

Having read several insightful articles by Al Cronkrite, a freelance Reformed Christian writer who lives in Florida, I usually pay attention when I see his name on an article because I know I will get something that goes beyond the usual “patriotic” chatter that is so prevalent on the Internet. Mind you, I am not against patriotism, but lots of what floats around out there today is not real patriotism but merely a shallow brand of nationalism–sort of like “My country, right or wrong–rah, rah, rah.” In its own way it’s just as bad as liberalism because it leads sincere Americans down the garden path to Nowheresville when they should be on the cultural path removing the thorns.

Having said that, I recall reading an article by Mr. Cronkrite in The Covenant News back in July of 2009 where he observed that most folks today view our founders as mostly Christian men “…who produced documents that, if they were not expressly Christian, contained Christian principles. Others find it strange that Christian men would fail to encode the name of the Savior or refer to His dominion.” Regarding the Constitution that brings a different dimension to the topic, one that Gary North has referred to more than once in his writings.

Mr. Cronkrite, along with others, also observed that: “The Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in the Summer of 1787, was a secret gathering convened for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. It was an elite group that Jefferson described as ‘demigods’. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and probably President George Washington had no intentions of abiding by the instructions from congress to revise the Articles. Their intention was to form a new federal government which they believed the states would accept in order to solve the problems they were having in conducting their inter-state affairs. They were conspiratorial and dishonest in their actions but right in their political assessment…Patrick Henry of Virginia claimed he ‘smelled a rat’ and refused to attend.” Time has shown how foul the rat Henry smelled really was, and is.

It has been duly noted by Mr. Cronkrite that almost nothing has been written about Christian opposition to the final results of the Constitutional Convention. And I have to admit that none of the history I have come across has mentioned any of this, even the home school material. He observed that: “The shift from a reformation to a substitution was successful and in the exuberant pride that characterized the birth of a new nation the still small voice of the Creator was drowned out and a grave error was made. Several prominent clergymen expressed their dissatisfaction. Rev. John Mason of New York wrote, ‘Should the citizens of America be as irreligious as her Constitution, we will have reason to tremble, lest the Governor of the universe, who will not be treated with indignity, by a people anymore than by individuals, overturn from its foundations the fabric we have been rearing, and crush us to atoms in the wreck’.”

Also, “Rev. Samuel Austin said, the Constitution ‘is entirely disconnected from Christianity. It is not founded on the Christian religion.’ Rev. Samuel Taggart lamented the lack of Christian reference to be a national evil of great magnitude.’ ‘It is a great sin to have forgotten God in such an important national instrument and not have acknowledged Him in that which forms the very nerves and sinews of the political body,’ lamented Rev. George Duffield. Rev. Jedediah Morse thought that the secular Constitution meant that America, like ancient Israel was doomed. Rev. James Wilson considered its creation ‘a degree of ingratitude, perhaps without parallel’.”

Now, folks, stop and reflect for a minute. How much about this Christian opposition to the Constitution have you ever read about in “history” books? I’ll wager that about all you ever read what just about what I read–that almost no one was opposed to it but Patrick Henry and a mere handful of his friends, who must all surely have had charter memberships in the Flat Earth Society. Those folks were supposedly anachronisms that just couldn’t see the pressing need for consolidation–Henry and his dwindling number of friends were a bit shortsighted, so it’s a good thing no one listened to them (or Leviathan wouldn’t be where it is today) and that’s about all you get, if that. The anti-Federalist arguments against ratification are seldom, if ever, mentioned–and as anachronistic as I guess I must be, the ones I’ve read about I’ve agreed with.

Mr. Cronkrite informed his readers that one of the big selling points for the new Constitution was that old, mythical “separation of church and state” story–the so-called government “neutrality” in regard to religion. All you have to do is look at where we are today in this regard and ask yourself–how’s that “government neutrality” in regard to religion working out for you nowadays? Anything even remotely Christian is now constantly under attack, while all the other pagan faiths seem to be getting a poss. Folks, this is not by accident. I put that in bold letters because we need to grasp that. Muslims will get to do in many educational institutions what Christians couldn’t even dream about. Any perversion today is accepted, no matter how gross, as long as it flies in the face of Christian culture. It’s all “protected” except Christianity and it’s open season on us and that’s not by accident.

I read an article on for October 30th written by Martin Armstrong of Armstrong Economics, in which he noted a raid in Texas by a SWAT team on a community in which there was no probable cause. The inhabitants had done nothing wrong, did not use drugs; no weapons or anything illegal was found, but the SWAT team handcuffed people, destroyed their crops, and pretty much did what they wanted because they could.

In his article Mr. Armstrong observed: “Raiding such a community without probable cause is totally unconstitutional. This is my point about the Constitution–it is just a worthless scrap of paper with the purpose of providing propaganda and false hope. The Constitution protects nobody. It was supposed to be a self-restraint upon government. It fails in every respect. Government agents can do as they like and it is the BURDEN of the citizen to prove that they violated the Constitution.” I might not have said it quite the way he did, but he does have a point.

There are no real restraints upon government, no real checks and balances so that if one branch oversteps its bounds the others will bring it to heel. They all collude with one another to quash whatever rights the citizens have, all the while telling us we live in a “free country”–the freest on earth they tell us–and it’s all just so much bovine fertilizer. This government has gone rogue–it went that way noticeably when the Lincoln administration started, but it had been showing signs of major slippage before that. John C. Calhoun noticed it before he died in 1850.

It really appears to me that we have a government that is one thing when we have been told it was something else. Most of us who have followed the political situation realize that we have been shamelessly lied to by “our” government about just about everything in our lifetime. But what about our ancestors? Were they lied to in the same way about what went on in their day? What about the War of Northern Aggression, the Spanish-American War, World Wars 1 and 2, Pearl Harbor, the USS Liberty, the Kennedy Assassinaton, and a plethora of other things I could spend paragraphs on just listing? Where, in all of this and more, has there been “constitutional” protection for our citizens–from their own government?

We had better start grappling with some of this folks, before the gates to the FEMA camps open wide and we all become “memory hole” material–naturally under the protection of the US Constitution, replete with its “checks and balances.”

15 thoughts on “Christian Opposition, Checks & Balances, Etc.

  1. “It has been duly noted by Mr. Cronkrite that almost nothing has been written about Christian opposition to the final results of the Constitutional Convention. And I have to admit that none of the history I have come across has mentioned any of this, even the home school material.”

    Not to toot my own horn, but I have, including a home school curriculum.

    “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” devotes a chapter to examining every Article and Amendment by the Bible. It’s a 565-page book available as a hardcover book or an ebook from our store page. The entire 565-page book is also available for free in its entirety at

    For anyone who participates in our Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar will receive a complimentary copy of the 85-page “Primer” of “BL vs. USC.” It’s the “Primer” upon which our Curriculum is based, and which can be found on our store page.

  2. Martin Armstrong: “This is my point about the Constitution–it is just a worthless scrap of paper with the purpose of providing propaganda and false hope. The Constitution protects nobody. It was supposed to be a self-restraint upon government. It fails in every respect.”

    I’ll add:

    “…3. Every problem America faces today can be traced back to the fact that the framers failed to expressly establish a government upon Yahweh’s immutable morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments. (Would infanticide and sodomy be tolerated, let alone financed by the government, if Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments were the law of the land? Would Islam be a looming threat to our peace and security if the First Amendment had been replaced with the First Commandment? Would Americans be in nearly as much debt if usury had been outlawed as a form of theft? Would crime be as rampant if “cruel and unusual punishment” had not been outlawed and criminals were instead punished with Yahweh’s altogether righteous judgments? Would we be on the fiscal cliff if we were taxed with a flat increase tax rather than a graduated income tax?)….”

    For more, see our Featured Blog Article “5 Reasons the Constitution is Our Cutting-Edge Issue” at


      Are the writings of the early church fathers equal to the Scriptures?

      Are the writings of Tertullian 140-230, Cyprain 200-258, Chrysostom 344-407, Augustine 354-430 the literal , God breathed, word from God the Father? No they are not, if their writings were the inerrant word of God then they would be included in the 66 books of the Bible.

      The writing of the early church fathers are no more the inerrant word of God then are the writings of John Calvin, Martin Luther, Max Lucado, Robert Schuller, Billy Graham, John Knox, Benny Hinn, Joesph Smith, Alexander Campbell, or Mary Baker Eddy.

      The only way Scripture is found in the writings of the early church fathers or any other writers, is if their writing were copied directly from Scripture, were repeated verbatim from the Bible, or if their doctrinal positions are synonymous with Scripture.

      There are many who accept the writings of the early church fathers as being accurate, authoritative, and Biblically sound doctrine.

      If you believe the early church fathers to have been pillars of the church, dependable in their preaching and writings, then, why do you not believe what they wrote?

      Tertullian 140-230 A.D. ” Baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged into the water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from our sin.”

      Are men plunged into water to be sprinkled? Baptism is by immersion and it frees men from sin.

      The Epistle of Barnabas 70-100 A.D. “Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water,indeed descended into the water full of sins and defilement!

      Barnabas believed baptism was by immersion. He also taught that men were still in their sins before they were baptized. Barnabas did not teach “faith only” salvation.

      Ireneus of Lyons 190 A.D. For we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

      Ireneus did not believe in the false doctrine of original sin. He believe new-born babes were without sin. Why do you not believe that?

      Theophilus of Antioch 181 A.D. “Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration all who proceed to the truth and are born again and receive a blessing from God.

      Why do you not trust the church fathers when they say remission of sins is through water?

      Cyprain 200-258 A.D. “For he has been sanctified, his sins beingput away in baptism, and has been spiritually reformed into a new man, has become fitted for receiving the Holy Spirit; since the apostle says, As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.!

      Cyprain says sins are forgiven in baptism making us able to receive the Holy Spirit. It you believe the early church fathers are reliable, why do you not believe that?

      Terullian 203 A.D. “Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life… [But] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism…

      It you trust Terullian, why do you not believe him when he said some men want to to destroy water baptism and its purpose?


      When, what the early church fathers said was in agreement with God’s written word, it was true.

      If you believe what the early church fathers wrote was authoritative, factual, trustworthy, and reliable, then, why not believe what they said even if it is at odds with your denominational catechisms and creed books?



  3. It’s about time someone hit the nail on the head with this topic as painful as it is to admit.
    In my travels through life I’ve personally experience how the constitution is anything but Godly or even works. I Produce cable shows and have had them taken down why? Because one religious group that runs the town didn’t like my interpretation of WW2 history, so they feel I don’t have a right to say what I want. You haven’t experienced hate until they hate what you say, now apply this to all the other ways our freedoms are being infringed upon.
    There is no end to the abuse, and who do we have to defend ourselves….NO ONE!
    The lawyers, the courts, the police are all fighters against God and what is right and just.
    Ted W is right on in his thoughts and why things have gone so horribly wrong.
    I have a little different view than his on what the solution is….See Daniel 2:44
    PS 127-1 Unless Jehovah has built the house it is to no avail that the workers work hard on it. Mankind can try as much as they can but things are IMO lost and God judgement awaits.
    The four winds of destruction have been held back long enough.
    One more thing, yes mankinds view of history is wrong in so many ways lets not forget…the victors write the history.

    Jim Rizoli
    jjrizo on youtube

  4. The Constitution, and the “gov’t” therein and thereof, is secular and thus a “Kingdom of this world” by scriptural definition, thus also under the spiritual authority of the Devil. Therefore it usurps, due to the biblical free-will of the living men/women, the true governing authority of and under the one true Christ, Yeshua/Jesus. Scripture states “Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord”. The United States of America left that with the ratification (contractual agreement) of all documents from 1774 forward. Those docs were written by and to be executed for Masons. The Masonic Order is NOT of the one true Christ, Yeshua/Jesus.
    Might be time to execute the main solution for this nation’s ills: 2nd Chronicles 7:14.

  5. Revised History…Mr. Benson.
    How about taking on the Holocaust as a topic of debate?….Now that would be a topic that would cause some interesting discussion. It’s the only topic in the world that has been put aside in the no discussion section of life. I’m one of the very few that has taken it on and have the wounds to show from doing it.
    Revising history can be applied to many time periods. The Constitution is one that is pretty benign compared to the issues I take on.
    Sample of my work…

    Jim Rizoli
    jjrizo on youtube

    • Jim,
      Actually back when I wrote for the National Educator out in Fullerton, California back in the late 80s-early 90s I did several articles on the Zionist situation and I believe I did one or two on the holocaust either for the Educator or for the Christian News out of Missouri.

      For some time now my main focus has been on the War of Northern Aggression since I feel that it was a pivotal turning point in our history and nothing has been the same here since it took place and I have felt that we need to re-learn the real history of that era because we’ve been mostly lied to about it.

      I watched one of your you tube presentations and I don’t disagree with you, but at my age (76) I can only do so much so I have to prioritize.

  6. Thanks for getting back to me. I appreciate the work that you’re doing on the subject matter that you are doing also.
    I continue to learn new things, and I hope to continue to learn more.
    Whatever subject matter that we write about the important thing is that we tell the truth.
    I’m glad I had the opportunity to bump into you on the Internet.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s