Having a hard time with "theonomists." Are they truly Christians?

[DrDeck]

Theonomists believe that ultimately our government should adopt and establish the Law of Moses (I'm being serious) and should ultimately stone children for their disobedience to their parents and even stone homosexuals. They want to adopt a law that the writer of Hebrews called "obsolete" and one which Paul said carried and conferred a "curse."

To me it seems that if you want an entire nation to submit to this law you are likely not a Christian and are rather a heretic. God gave this law to Israel only (Ps. 148) and Paul said that it was "abolished" in Ephesians 2.

As an aside, many people seem to be confused by whether the law was merely "fulfilled" or abolished. Jesus said that the law would not pass away until "heaven and earth pass away." He spoke this to the Jews (the sermon on the mount was near the Sea of Galilee) and thus it is important to consider any Hebrew idioms that may be used. As it turns out, the phrase "heavens and earth" was a Hebrew idiom denoting the Temple of Jerusalem. When Jesus said that the law would stand until heavens and earth passed away He was predicting the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. when Nero invaded and ordered General Titus to raze Jerusalem. When this occurred, the diaspora followed making it impossible for the Jews to follow the law of Moses. This view comports with Eph. 2 and much of Hebrews which suggests that the law was in fact "abolished" (Eph. 2:15). Further, the Jews did not truly begin following the law of Moses when they were reunited in 1948. Even Orthodox and conservative Jews do not adhere to its strictest and most brutal instruction.

Again I ask, how in the world can these people who have such immense disregard for human life, who believe that women should be banished from their towns when they are menstruating be actual Christians? Hopefully, I am missing something.

This is my first ever post on this forum. I regret that it is so intense and possibly divisive but I feel it is well worth discussing as this is a rising doctrine in our country.

God bless.

 

[Hazelelponi]

In my understanding of Christian Theonomy is to rule our states according to Biblical principal.

That would make things like same sex marriage not be recognized by the state, for example, but wouldn't actually ressurect Levitical law and archaic punishments...

In other words, I have never heard of any Christian wanting to stone anyone to death in any western nation anywhere on earth.

That said, how a person thinks we should run our nations isn't the test of being Christian... How they view Christ is.

Whether or not you vote for one, whether you're actual friends with any or associate any... All that's your business.

Whether they are Christian cannot be answered with only being a theonomist to go on.

I'm not one myself, but I've been leaning far more sympathetic as of late I must say.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Theonomists believe that ultimately our government should adopt and establish the Law of Moses (I'm being serious) and should ultimately stone children for their disobedience to their parents and even stone homosexuals. They want to adopt a law that the writer of Hebrews called "obsolete" and one which Paul said carried and conferred a "curse."

To me it seems that if you want an entire nation to submit to this law you are likely not a Christian and are rather a heretic. God gave this law to Israel only (Ps. 148) and Paul said that it was "abolished" in Ephesians 2.

As an aside, many people seem to be confused by whether the law was merely "fulfilled" or abolished. Jesus said that the law would not pass away until "heaven and earth pass away." He spoke this to the Jews (the sermon on the mount was near the Sea of Galilee) and thus it is important to consider any Hebrew idioms that may be used. As it turns out, the phrase "heavens and earth" was a Hebrew idiom denoting the Temple of Jerusalem. When Jesus said that the law would stand until heavens and earth passed away He was predicting the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. when Nero invaded and ordered General Titus to raze Jerusalem. When this occurred, the diaspora followed making it impossible for the Jews to follow the law of Moses. This view comports with Eph. 2 and much of Hebrews which suggests that the law was in fact "abolished" (Eph. 2:15). Further, the Jews did not truly begin following the law of Moses when they were reunited in 1948. Even Orthodox and conservative Jews do not adhere to its strictest and most brutal instruction.

Again I ask, how in the world can these people who have such immense disregard for human life, who believe that women should be banished from their towns when they are menstruating be actual Christians? Hopefully, I am missing something.

This is my first ever post on this forum. I regret that it is so intense and possibly divisive but I feel it is well worth discussing as this is a rising doctrine in our country.

God bless.

Christian Reconstructionists are a very fringe movement. Unfortunately they are on the wide road of destruction. Blessings.

 

[DrDeck]

Christian Reconstructionists are a very fringe movement. Unfortunately they are on the wide road of destruction. Blessings.

I am afraid that I might be in agreement with you. :-(

 

[DrDeck]

In my understanding of Christian Theonomy is to rule our states according to Biblical principal.

That would make things like same sex marriage not be recognized by the state, for example, but wouldn't actually ressurect Levitical law and archaic punishments...

In other words, I have never heard of any Christian wanting to stone anyone to death in any western nation anywhere on earth.

That said, how a person thinks we should run our nations isn't the test of being Christian... How they view Christ is.

Whether or not you vote for one, whether you're actual friends with any or associate any... All that's your business.

Whether they are Christian cannot be answered with only being a theonomist to go on.

I'm not one myself, but I've been leaning far more sympathetic as of late I must say.

Isn't teaching people to abide by the law of Moses a heresy? If we are to abide by the law why did Christ die?

 

[Hazelelponi]

Isn't teaching people to abide by the law of Moses a heresy? If we are to abide by the law why did Christ die?

There's a difference between the Levitical Law and God's moral law...

The 10 commandments will never go away, and Christians are required to abide by them in Christ.

In the Bible Jesus was asked about what commandment Jesus thought was the greatest.

Jesus responded by quoting from Deuteronomy, Thou Shalt love the Lord you God with all your heart, mind and soul and the other like it, do unto others as you would have others do to you.

What we see here in Jesus' response is a the summary of the 10 commandments. This is the same as if Jesus had answered "All of them".

The 10 commandments have two halves divided quite neatly, the first half teaches our responsibility to God (God facing commandments) and the second part teaches our responsibility to those around us (man facing commandments.)

The God facing commands can be summarized exactly how Jesus summarized. If we love God with our whole being our actions towards God will reflect that in following the God facing commandments. Same with loving our neighbor as ourselves.. your not going to be hopping into bed with your neighbors wife, for instance, if you are loving your neighbor as yourself.

Jesus died in order to forgive the unjust (the sinner, which is all of us) and reconcile us to God.

For Christians that reconciliation begins the second we become Christian, and never ends.

But forgiveness and reconciliation with God isn't a free pass to sin... Sin didn't stop being a "crime against God", to be as clear as possible.

It's that as a Christian we recognize sin more, and work in our own life to overcome our own personal sin.

those who are Not Christian will have to give account before God after they die too, they just won't have Christ's covering for sin.

The reason why theonomists exist at all is because the Bible teaches that the law is our tutor, teaching us that we can't just simply avoid sin in our own power but need a Savior...

This is why they want God's moral law to be the model for some state laws .. it teaches those who are not saved that they need a Savior.

If people don't recognize that they've even sinned at all then they won't understand the need to be saved.

 

[DrDeck]

There's a difference between the Levitical Law and God's moral law...

The 10 commandments will never go away, and Christians are required to abide by them in Christ.

In the Bible Jesus was asked about what commandment Jesus thought was the greatest.

Jesus responded by quoting from Deuteronomy, Thou Shalt love the Lord you God with all your heart, mind and soul and the other like it, do unto others as you would have others do to you.

What we see here in Jesus' response is a the summary of the 10 commandments. This is the same as if Jesus had answered "All of them".

The 10 commandments have two halves divided quite neatly, the first half teaches our responsibility to God (God facing commandments) and the second part teaches our responsibility to those around us (man facing commandments.)

The God facing commands can be summarized exactly how Jesus summarized. If we love God with our whole being our actions towards God will reflect that in following the God facing commandments. Same with loving our neighbor as ourselves.. your not going to be hopping into bed with your neighbors wife, for instance, if you are loving your neighbor as yourself.

Jesus died in order to forgive the unjust (the sinner, which is all of us) and reconcile us to God.

For Christians that reconciliation begins the second we become Christian, and never ends.

But forgiveness and reconciliation with God isn't a free pass to sin... Sin didn't stop being a "crime against God", to be as clear as possible.

It's that as a Christian we recognize sin more, and work in our own life to overcome our own personal sin.

those who are Not Christian will have to give account before God after they die too, they just won't have Christ's covering for sin.

The reason why theonomists exist at all is because the Bible teaches that the law is our tutor, teaching us that we can't just simply avoid sin in our own power but need a Savior...

This is why they want God's moral law to be the model for some state laws .. it teaches those who are not saved that they need a Savior.

If people don't recognize that they've even sinned at all then they won't understand the need to be saved.

Where does the Bible make a disctinction between the moral and levitical law? It seems that covenant theologians are frequently making this distinction and yet I can find it nowhere in the Bible?

If Christians are subject to the moral and civil law than we must stone our children and put women on their menstrual cycles "outside the camp" mustn't we?

I can not agree with your line of thinking because Paul clearly states that the law was abolished and nowhere does he or the author of Hebrews make a distinction between any part of the Mosaic Law. There is no distinction throughout the entire Bible in fact. Rather Christ has told us to follow His two commandments of loving God and loving people. This is a parallel to the garden of Eden where God gave only two commandments (to multiply and to refrain from eating the tree of knowledge).

Personally I am shocked that so many Christians cling to the 10 commandments. The new covenant "is not like the old" in that it consists of "laws written on the hearts of men." Further, the laws written against us were "blotted out" (Col. 2:17). All of the ten commandments are summed up in Christ's "new" commands. If we are loving our neighbors we will not murder them, steal from them, or lie to them.

As far as the conviction of sin, the Holy Spirit convicts the world and the believer of sin & righteousness (Jn. 16).

 

[Hazelelponi]

Where does the Bible make a disctinction between the moral and levitical law? It seems that covenant theologians are frequently making this distinction and yet I can find it nowhere in the Bible?

All through the entirety of the New Testament Christians are called to live holy and exemplary lives.

"but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy." 1 Peter 1:15-16

Plus the type of conduct we are to abide is also repeated over and over throughout the entirety of the New Testament, which repeats the 10 commandments as a code for conduct - just not in so many words.

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Plus we can add Hebrews 13:4, Ephesians 5:5, 1 Timothy 1:10, Galatians 5:21 just to name a few more examples.

In examination of the New Testament, we find the 10 commandments are repeated as commandments to the church in the New Testament - whereas Levitical Law is not.

In fact, we are shown in Scripture how to live in pagan nations that would persecute Christians but never once taught to obey any of the Levitical Law.

That is why we make the distinction between "moral law" (which we still follow) being the 10 commandments and Levitical Law being other laws (ceremonial) as well as punishments for breaking what was, in those days under the Old Covenant in Israel, state laws...

The New Testament (which actually means New Covenant) portion of the Bible is a lesson teaching us how the Old Covenant was fulfilled in Christ and the New Covenant spoken of by the prophet Jeremiah is now begun (Jeremiah 31:31-34) in Christ and due to His finished work and how this affects us.

As far as how we live Holy lives, it is not through our own power but through the power of the Holy Spirit.


Next point: The Holy Spirit is what convicts His people of sin... Yes.

However, show me a sin that the Holy Spirit has convicted you of and I'll show you where it breaks one of the 10 commandments.

A sermon covering a portion of your thread topic I'll share:

 

[Peacemaker1]

Here is some teaching for you guys ( i have to do a lot lately on this whole funny forum)


Christians are called to have faith in Jesus Christ, not be taught by any groups, not be taught by any people, no examples of peoples lives, their own testimonies.

The words of Jesus Christ saved us, what words from many false teachers in the old testament saved anyone of Israel ?

So this absolutely says that Jesus Christ is the only to hear, as all before Him were thieves and robbers, ( I hope you people of the forum understand you show the same pattern, to try to entice peoples souls.)

Now regarding law, ten commandments, they are all nailed to the cross of Christ, we are made free, and the power any person or group has over us is destroyed, because of the love that Jesus Christ alone had for us, so who has right to speak anything any more, let them show the same laying down of their lives, the same charity and kindness for all that Jesus had constantly in compassion for all, then let them come and speak with me.




Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

 

[GDL]

Theonomists believe that ultimately our government should adopt and establish the Law of Moses (I'm being serious) and should ultimately stone children for their disobedience to their parents and even stone homosexuals.

I've read a lot of Theonomy. I have to agree with what @Hazelelponi says here and will comment below:

In my understanding of Christian Theonomy is to rule our states according to Biblical principal.

At the heart of Theonomy lies the question, By What Standard? Basically, if it's not by God's standard, then the Christian is making things up like the unbeliever.

So, what did God legislate when He ruled a nation? Just a few comments/questions:

1. How's the accommodation for homosexuality going for the US? Can we see why God legislated like He did? We're looking at legislation where God aggressively cut certain sins out of a culture for a reason. Having had many discussions years ago in a state that at the time was considering the same sex marriage issue, I told them that the slippery slope was applicable whether or not it was fallacious argumentation. At the root of the issue was ultimately for many proponents the obliteration of creation in kinds. Sorry to say I told you so, but from Rom1 it is extremely clear where this goes and who it is that's driving it.
2. The stoning of one's child who has become one of the dregs of society is always a favorite to discuss. But what does it say about the importance to be competent parents able to raise responsible children who become productive members of the society? Allowance for extremely wayward children facilitates a culture of wayward irresponsible parents. Sound familiar?

As was said above, there are principles to consider here. Seriously, how is it working out for cultures like the US that decades ago when I looked at it at had somewhere north of 3million laws on the books? The seemingly plain fact is that man is not good at legislating and as this culture worsens, laws have become more and more lax. Or maybe it's the reverse, as laws have become laxer, the culture worsens. Whatever the reality, it's a self-feeding spiral into deeper degeneracy. If one is watching, the degeneracy is eventuating in criminality and tyranny. Welcome to the continuation of socio-political theories and their legal systems.

So, by what standard? Man's or God's?

With the ending of the Mosaic Law Covenant came the NC instruction that the sacred Scriptures are good for wisdom for salvation, and that all God-breathed Scripture is beneficial for instruction in righteousness (2Tim3:15-16). Also, there is a lawful/proper use of law (1Tim1:8). It seems we're not very good at these things. As I read (past tense) Theonomy and not the fringes of it, there is most certainly some wisdom in it and that one question (By What Standard?) is not something I can set aside.

On another note, I've come to view this theory that 9 or 10 of the 10C are repeated in the NC as being more than questionable. Yes, sin is sin, but for the Christian to be drawn back down to a focus on the Mosaic Law Covenant as a rule of life is something the NC writers were fighting against more than what Paul was doing in Galatians. The Law of Christ takes us much further in our development as the new man in Christ in Spirit.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Theonomists believe that ultimately our government should adopt and establish the Law of Moses (I'm being serious) and should ultimately stone children for their disobedience to their parents and even stone homosexuals. They want to adopt a law that the writer of Hebrews called "obsolete" and one which Paul said carried and conferred a "curse."

To me it seems that if you want an entire nation to submit to this law you are likely not a Christian and are rather a heretic. God gave this law to Israel only (Ps. 148) and Paul said that it was "abolished" in Ephesians 2.

As an aside, many people seem to be confused by whether the law was merely "fulfilled" or abolished. Jesus said that the law would not pass away until "heaven and earth pass away." He spoke this to the Jews (the sermon on the mount was near the Sea of Galilee) and thus it is important to consider any Hebrew idioms that may be used. As it turns out, the phrase "heavens and earth" was a Hebrew idiom denoting the Temple of Jerusalem. When Jesus said that the law would stand until heavens and earth passed away He was predicting the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. when Nero invaded and ordered General Titus to raze Jerusalem. When this occurred, the diaspora followed making it impossible for the Jews to follow the law of Moses. This view comports with Eph. 2 and much of Hebrews which suggests that the law was in fact "abolished" (Eph. 2:15). Further, the Jews did not truly begin following the law of Moses when they were reunited in 1948. Even Orthodox and conservative Jews do not adhere to its strictest and most brutal instruction.

Again I ask, how in the world can these people who have such immense disregard for human life, who believe that women should be banished from their towns when they are menstruating be actual Christians? Hopefully, I am missing something.

This is my first ever post on this forum. I regret that it is so intense and possibly divisive but I feel it is well worth discussing as this is a rising doctrine in our country.

God bless.

I think they can be considered fellow Christians in practice even if not by hermeneutical agreement.

... The hard part will be putting up with their hyper-spasmodic form of Presuppositionalism and doing them the favor of disabusing them of their faulty epistemological assumptions. Be ready for the emotional cow they'll crow about when they find out they don't really have the solid justification for all their interpretive methods or the outcomes of those methods like they think they do.

Where to start the critical processing? I'd start ................... here: Theonomy – Presuppositionalism 101

...and then I'd move here, for starters: The Shadowy Nature of the Theocracy - Feeding on Christ

 

[Soyeong]

Theonomists believe that ultimately our government should adopt and establish the Law of Moses (I'm being serious) and should ultimately stone children for their disobedience to their parents and even stone homosexuals.

The traits with which someone views God’s teachings matches the view that they have of God for giving them. For instance, God is wise because He gives wise teachings and it would be meaningless to say that God is wise if He did not.

The Psalms express an extremely positive view of the Mosaic Law, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, which certainly matched his view of God, so if we consider the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express a correct view of the Mosaic Law, then we will share it as Paul did (Romans 7:22), while having anything less than the view that we ought to delight in obeying is incompatible with the view that the Psalms and the NT books that quote the Psalms are Scripture. For example, in Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the Law of the Lord and who meditate on it day and night, so we can’t believe in the truth of these words as Scripture while not allowing them to shape our view of the Mosaic Law. Likewise, anyone would be crazy to not want to be part of a nation governed by laws given in accordance with the wisdom of God and accurately described in Psalms 19:7-11.

The Kingdom of God is a nation governed by God’s law and Jesus spent his ministry teaching how to live as a citizen of the Kingdom of God, so Jesus and his followers are theonomists. For example, in Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so the Gospel is about spreading theonomy to the nations.

It should not be shocking that followers of the God of Israel think that we should follow what He has commanded His people to do in accordance with Christ’s example. Whether it is a correct understanding of the Bible that we should go around stoning rebellious children and homosexuals is another issue.

They want to adopt a law that the writer of Hebrews called "obsolete" and one which Paul said carried and conferred a "curse."

In Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant involves God putting the Mosaic Law in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so while the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete, the Mosaic Law didn’t become obsolete along with it. God’s righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), therefore all of His righteousness laws are also eternal (Psalms 119:160), so the the fact that the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete does not mean that God’s righteousness or righteous laws have become obsolete. For example, it was a sin to commit adultery in Genesis 39:9 long before the Mosaic Covenant, during it, it remains a sin after it has become obsolete, and that will never change.

According to Deuteronomy 27-28, relying on the the Mosaic Law is the way to be blessed while not relying on it is the way to be cursed. In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, the Mosaic Law is not too difficult for us to obey and obedience brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! There are many other verses that repeatedly affirm the same thing, so the Mosaic Law does not convey a curse, but rather it conveys a blessing while it is the refusal to submit to it that conveys a curse.

To me it seems that if you want an entire nation to submit to this law you are likely not a Christian and are rather a heretic. God gave this law to Israel only (Ps. 148) and Paul said that it was "abolished" in Ephesians 2.

Christ set a perfect example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6), so it is absurd to suggest that someone is likely not a follower of Christ if they think that followers of Christ should follow Christ’s example.

God gave the Mosaic Law to Israel in order to equip Israel be a light and a blessing to the nations by turning them from their wickedness and teaching them to obey it in accordance with spreading the Gospel and with inheriting the promise through faith.

The Bible uses the Greek word “dogma” to refer to something other than the Mosaic Law in every time that it is used outside of Ephesians 2:15 and Colossians 2:14, so you need to justify why those verses should be interpreted as referring to the Mosaic Law, especially in light of the fact that all of God’s righteousness laws are eternal.

As an aside, many people seem to be confused by whether the law was merely "fulfilled" or abolished. Jesus said that the law would not pass away until "heaven and earth pass away." He spoke this to the Jews (the sermon on the mount was near the Sea of Galilee) and thus it is important to consider any Hebrew idioms that may be used. As it turns out, the phrase "heavens and earth" was a Hebrew idiom denoting the Temple of Jerusalem. When Jesus said that the law would stand until heavens and earth passed away He was predicting the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. when Nero invaded and ordered General Titus to raze Jerusalem. When this occurred, the diaspora followed making it impossible for the Jews to follow the law of Moses. This view comports with Eph. 2 and much of Hebrews which suggests that the law was in fact "abolished" (Eph. 2:15). Further, the Jews did not truly begin following the law of Moses when they were reunited in 1948. Even Orthodox and conservative Jews do not adhere to its strictest and most brutal instruction.

Eternal instructions for how to act in accordance with God’s eternal nature can’t be abolished without first abolishing God. In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus specifically said that he came not to abolish the law and in Romans 3:31, Paul affirmed that our faith does not abolish God’s law, but rather our faith upholds it, yet you seek to abolish it rather than uphold it by faith. Laws that weren’t followed after the destruction of the first temple were once again followed after the construction of the second temple, so there is nothing about the destruction of the second temple that means that those laws have been abolished.

“To fulfill the law” means “to cause God’s will (as made known through the law) to be obeyed as it should be” (NAS Greek Lexicon: pleroo), so Jesus fulfilled the law by spending his ministry teaching how to correctly obey it by word and by example. Heaven and earth will not pass away until Revelation 21.

Again I ask, how in the world can these people who have such immense disregard for human life, who believe that women should be banished from their towns when they are menstruating be actual Christians? Hopefully, I am missing something.

How is that showing disregard for human life? Why do you think that us embodying God’s word incompatible with following the one who is the embodiment of God’s word?

This is my first ever post on this forum. I regret that it is so intense and possibly divisive but I feel it is well worth discussing as this is a rising doctrine in our country.

God bless.

Welcome to the forum. I appreciate your passion, but I think that it is misplaced. It should not make sense to you to interpret God’s word as speaking against obeying other parts of God’s word.

 

[GDL]

I think they can be considered fellow Christians in practice even if not by hermeneutical agreement.

... The hard part will be putting up with their hyper-spasmodic form of Presuppositionalism and doing them the favor of disabusing them of their faulty epistemological assumptions. Be ready for the emotional cow they'll crow about when they find out they don't really have the solid justification for all their interpretive methods or the outcomes of those methods like they think they do.

Where to start the critical processing? I'd start ................... here: Theonomy – Presuppositionalism 101

...and then I'd move here, for starters: The Shadowy Nature of the Theocracy - Feeding on Christ

Interesting links. Thanks.

Your 2nd paragraph seems a form of protesting to the extreme. If they are your words, it would have been fun to watch you debate Bahnsen.

One of the straw man arguments put forth by some is reflected in the title of the last linked article. The article is simply another point of view which of course there are (just as the OP shows).

But Theonomy for some of the Reconstructionists was not a Theocracy which we really cannot have without God being here, but a concept of how we do legislate given the fact that in a nation such as the USA, the legislation is done by elected representatives of the nation. So, what is our standard? Theonomy and some of the Christian Nationalism is the thinking of Christians looking at what the absence of mature (hopefully) Christian thinking has caused in politics and law.

There are simply 2 main courses believed in christendom, either we have no obligations or part in politics and we are just to evangelize, or we are to be involved and fighting against the certain degeneracy that will become from absence. Obviously the 1st view has been the norm and here we are.

Theonomy was the thinking 50 years ago and on to try to keep us from being where we are. Christian Nationalism seems to be the theme that is mainly the younger generation saying enough is enough. It seems also to be taking on some of Theonomy as well. How can it not?

 

[com7fy8]

This is my first ever post on this forum. I regret that it is so intense and possibly divisive but I feel it is well worth discussing as this is a rising doctrine in our country.

God bless.

Then, welcome to Christian Forums.

I can see the theonomy people could mean having Christian rules in government, and this would mean outlawing wrong things, but not stoning people.

How about outlawing arguing and complaining? The Bible does say >

"Do all things without complaining and disputing," (Philippians 2:14)

Arguing and complaining have helped to ruin relating in marriage, so children have a bad example and grow up not knowing how to love. Then, in their deep suffering they are desperate for pleasure to try to feel something nicer than their sin.

Their preference is for pleasure, then.

And plenty of Christians are arguing and complaining, and their bad example is helping produce kids who do not know how to love. So, they are helping produce the people with the problems we see, today. If you don't like the product, stop doing what is helping to produce it!

Have a law to be >

"swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath" (in James 1:19-20)

And >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Interesting links. Thanks.

Your 2nd paragraph seems a form of protesting to the extreme. If they are your words, it would have been fun to watch you debate Bahnsen.

Yes, that would have been "fun."

One of the straw man arguments put forth by some is reflected in the title of the last linked article. The article is simply another point of view which of course there are (just as the OP shows).

Of course. There's always more than one point of view. There's very often even more than two, or even three points of view on nearly any topic imaginable, especially if and when epistemology and hermeneutics have a presence in the stew of issues at hand.

But Theonomy for some of the Reconstructionists was not a Theocracy which we really cannot have without God being here, but a concept of how we do legislate given the fact that in a nation such as the USA, the legislation is done by elected representatives of the nation. So, what is our standard? Theonomy and some of the Christian Nationalism is the thinking of Christians looking at what the absence of mature (hopefully) Christian thinking has caused in politics and law.

"is"? Who is providing the "is" in this case? You need to cite your specific sources. Don't just say that "theonomy and Christian Nationalism is the thinking...." I'm not so sure that it clearly is that thinking.

There are simply 2 main courses believed in christendom, either we have no obligations or part in politics and we are just to evangelize, or we are to be involved and fighting against the certain degeneracy that will become from absence. Obviously the 1st view has been the norm and here we are.

There aren't "simply" 2 main courses believed in christendom. It's not a mere dichotomy between the choices that you've loosely pointed to.

Theonomy was the thinking 50 years ago and on to try to keep us from being where we are. Christian Nationalism seems to be the theme that is mainly the younger generation saying enough is enough. It seems also to be taking on some of Theonomy as well. How can it not?

I'm not even sure what you're talking about here. It sounds as if you're talking from a very narrow aperature of theology. I don't do "narrow," even IF I'm attempting to walk on the "narrow path."

 

[Soyeong]

Here is some teaching for you guys ( i have to do a lot lately on this whole funny forum)


Christians are called to have faith in Jesus Christ, not be taught by any groups, not be taught by any people, no examples of peoples lives, their own testimonies.

The words of Jesus Christ saved us, what words from many false teachers in the old testament saved anyone of Israel ?

So this absolutely says that Jesus Christ is the only to hear, as all before Him were thieves and robbers, ( I hope you people of the forum understand you show the same pattern, to try to entice peoples souls.)

Now regarding law, ten commandments, they are all nailed to the cross of Christ, we are made free, and the power any person or group has over us is destroyed, because of the love that Jesus Christ alone had for us, so who has right to speak anything any more, let them show the same laying down of their lives, the same charity and kindness for all that Jesus had constantly in compassion for all, then let them come and speak with me.




Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

The purpose of the barbarity of crucifixion was to act as a deterrent, so the Romans wanted to make sure that everyone knew why someone was being crucified, so the handwritten ordinance that was against someone was a sign that was nailed to their cross that announced the charge that was against them, such as in Matthew 27:37, where they nailed a sign to Christ’s cross the announced the charge that was against him. Likewise, there would have been a sign that was nailed to the crosses of the people crucified with Jesus that announced that they were thieves, which was how we know that they were thieves, and which has nothing do with nailing the law against being a thief to their crosses. They did not need to legislate new laws against being a thief every time someone was crucified for breaking it. The law against theft is for our own good, not a handwritten ordinance that is against us.

This serves as a perfect analogy for a list of the sins that we have committed being nailed to Christ’s cross and with him dying in our place to pay the penalty for our sins, but has nothing to do with nailing any laws to the cross. In Titus 2:14, it doesn’t say that Jesus gave himself to free us from God’s law, but to free us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God’s law is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20) while returning to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from would be the way to reject what he accomplished through the cross. Jesus is God’s word made flesh, so it is contradictory to have faith in him, but not in God’s word.

 

[The Righterzpen]

sn't teaching people to abide by the law of Moses a heresy? If we are to abide by the law why did Christ die?

Well in this sense, I think you don't have to worry about it because we'll never have a theonomy. Of course this doesn't eliminate the possibility of having to live under some sort of totalitarian rule at some point in the future. But that's a different issue altogether.

The practical question for governance is the protection of the citizenry and by what standard of rule?

Which actually would not be as hard to establish as keeping corruption out of the system would be! Which currently is the very real problem we have. It's not that our system is bad or that many of the current laws are bad; it's that the system is now so corrupt that essentially our democratically elected constitutional republic is pretty much just an illusion. Or at least on the state and national level it is. We do tend to have better "luck" at local governments running things more efficiently and effectively.

 

[GDL]

"is"? Who is providing the "is" in this case? You need to cite your specific sources. Don't just say that "theonomy and Christian Nationalism is the thinking...." I'm not so sure that it clearly is that thinking.

Point taken. Replace "is" with "seems to be from the many things I've read and from the online discussions I had on AmericanVision.org over the years when AV had a forum". This way I won't have to cite and then ask you to cite your sources for your statement.

There aren't "simply" 2 main courses believed in christendom. It's not a mere dichotomy between the choices that you've loosely pointed to.

Please be free to add or subtract as you choose. From what I've observed and the many discussions I've had and read, this seems to me to summarize the 2 main thoughts - either the Christians is to be involved or the Christian is not to be involved - a simple dichotomy as I read the input from many. "There aren't" and "It's not" are some very conclusive statements which I'm certain you must be able to elaborate upon.

I'm not even sure what you're talking about here. It sounds as if you're talking from a very narrow aperature of theology. I don't do "narrow," even IF I'm attempting to walk on the "narrow path."

In the continuing context of the few posts which I've entered here and of post #3 re: Reconstructionists, the narrow aperture would be the [continuation] of work on Presupposition and then Theonomy beginning with R.J. Rushdoony and those who came after him - one of them being Greg Bahnsen who I mentioned. That's the era. That's the aperture. My assumption was that this aperture and thereafter is what the OP is drawing from.

 

[Soyeong]

There's a difference between the Levitical Law and God's moral law...

Your claim implies that someone can be acting morally while disobeying Levitical Law, however, there is no example in the Bible where disobedience to Levitical Law was considered to be moral, nor do I see justification for thinking that it can ever be moral to disobey God. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws. Legislators give laws according to what they think ought to be done, so for you to suggest that Levitical Law is not moral law is to claim that God made a moral error about what ought to be done when He gave the Levitical Law and to claim to have greater moral knowledge than God.

The 10 commandments will never go away, and Christians are required to abide by them in Christ.

All of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160), not just ten of them. Christ walked in obedience to the Mosaic Law, not just the Ten Commandments, and in 1 John 2:6, those who abide in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked.

In the Bible Jesus was asked about what commandment Jesus thought was the greatest.

Jesus responded by quoting from Deuteronomy, Thou Shalt love the Lord you God with all your heart, mind and soul and the other like it, do unto others as you would have others do to you.

What we see here in Jesus' response is a the summary of the 10 commandments. This is the same as if Jesus had answered "All of them".

The 10 commandments have two halves divided quite neatly, the first half teaches our responsibility to God (God facing commandments) and the second part teaches our responsibility to those around us (man facing commandments.)

The God facing commands can be summarized exactly how Jesus summarized. If we love God with our whole being our actions towards God will reflect that in following the God facing commandments. Same with loving our neighbor as ourselves.. your not going to be hopping into bed with your neighbors wife, for instance, if you are loving your neighbor as yourself.

Jesus died in order to forgive the unjust (the sinner, which is all of us) and reconcile us to God.

For Christians that reconciliation begins the second we become Christian, and never ends.

But forgiveness and reconciliation with God isn't a free pass to sin... Sin didn't stop being a "crime against God", to be as clear as possible.

It's that as a Christian we recognize sin more, and work in our own life to overcome our own personal sin.

those who are Not Christian will have to give account before God after they die too, they just won't have Christ's covering for sin.

Everything that God has commanded in the Mosaic Law is either in regard to how to love God or how to love our neighbor, which is why Jesus said in Matthew 22:36-40 that those are the greatest two commandments and that all of the other commandments hang on them. For example, if we love God and our neighbor, then we won't commit things like adultery, theft, murder, or idolatry, but we also won't commit things like kidnapping, rape, favoritism, and so forth for the rest of the Mosaic Law, so if you think that we should obey the greatest two commandments, then you should also think that we should obey all of the commandments that hang not them.

The reason why theonomists exist at all is because the Bible teaches that the law is our tutor, teaching us that we can't just simply avoid sin in our own power but need a Savior...

This is why they want God's moral law to be the model for some state laws .. it teaches those who are not saved that they need a Savior.

If people don't recognize that they've even sinned at all then they won't understand the need to be saved.

Nowhere does the Bible say that God's law was given to teach us that we can't just simply avoid sin in our own power. Leading us to embody God's word is the way that the one who is the embodiment of God's word saves us. In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the Mosaic Law leads us to Christ because it teaches us how to know him, which is eternal life (John 17:3). God's law does not just teach us that we need a Savior, but also teaches us the way that he saves us. Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and it is by the Mosaic Law that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20), so living in obedience to it through faith in Jesus is intrinsically the content of his gift of saving us from not living in obedience to it.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Theonomists believe that ultimately our government should adopt and establish the Law of Moses (I'm being serious) and should ultimately stone children for their disobedience to their parents and even stone homosexuals. They want to adopt a law that the writer of Hebrews called "obsolete" and one which Paul said carried and conferred a "curse."

To me it seems that if you want an entire nation to submit to this law you are likely not a Christian and are rather a heretic. God gave this law to Israel only (Ps. 148) and Paul said that it was "abolished" in Ephesians 2.

As an aside, many people seem to be confused by whether the law was merely "fulfilled" or abolished. Jesus said that the law would not pass away until "heaven and earth pass away." He spoke this to the Jews (the sermon on the mount was near the Sea of Galilee) and thus it is important to consider any Hebrew idioms that may be used. As it turns out, the phrase "heavens and earth" was a Hebrew idiom denoting the Temple of Jerusalem. When Jesus said that the law would stand until heavens and earth passed away He was predicting the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. when Nero invaded and ordered General Titus to raze Jerusalem. When this occurred, the diaspora followed making it impossible for the Jews to follow the law of Moses. This view comports with Eph. 2 and much of Hebrews which suggests that the law was in fact "abolished" (Eph. 2:15). Further, the Jews did not truly begin following the law of Moses when they were reunited in 1948. Even Orthodox and conservative Jews do not adhere to its strictest and most brutal instruction.

Again I ask, how in the world can these people who have such immense disregard for human life, who believe that women should be banished from their towns when they are menstruating be actual Christians? Hopefully, I am missing something.

This is my first ever post on this forum. I regret that it is so intense and possibly divisive but I feel it is well worth discussing as this is a rising doctrine in our country.

God bless.

You will find that most laws in the western world are actually based on the Ten Commandments, so there would be no difference. We are already committed to comply with the laws of the land and we would have to take the consequences for being lawless if we decided not to observe them.