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

[GDL]

Our motives can be theonomic, but our application needs to be compatible the secular-based system. Affirming Fetal Rights does both.

A proper theonomic approach recognizes wisdom in dealing with cultures Matt19:8.

And you think that is a good thing...?

I guess if you set aside rhetoric and delete my question mark such a question becomes reasonable.

We no longer have slavery anymore (but the lack of fetal rights is a similar error).

We're not remaining on the same page. A problem with brevity at times. I was referring to minimum prosecution to maintain order which it looks like you covered next.

I spoke of non-felons. Capital punishment for murder still fits in the secular law model. (I don't know why you went there.) Death row conversions are a thing, starting with one of the thieves on the cross next to Jesus.

I went there due to how I understood your minimum prosecutions statement. Wasn't OC thievery recompensed with restitution? I guess he was fortunate to meet the God of restitution on a secular cross. Maybe some theonomic input into Rome would have helped. At some point there are no more opportunities for conversions. Some cases are severe enough for quick capital punishment.

There is no reason why

• a consenting homosexual couple,
• a heterosexual couple that agrees to having an "open" marriage or
• a fortune-teller, etc.

should ever be designated felonies in our current legal model. They certainly face judgment in the next life, but according to Paul, that is where some Christians come from [1 Corinthians 6:11].

The US legal model I assume. Doesn't the wisdom and principle of the theonomic model suggest looking at crimes God capitally punished and asking why? How is supporting fornication of almost any and all types (we're going towards all types) working for continuing stability or even lasting of the culture? First it was what, relax divorce laws, then the free sex culture, then the out of the closet agenda, then change marriage law, now however many genders anyone can contrive & chose your own, and the pedophilia coming to light. Ever wonder why God capitally punished such things? The slippery slope argument is not good technique but who can deny its applicability at times?

So, sure, we discuss capital punishment, but as the topic thinkers note, there is no neutrality. It's one system of thought or another. That was one of the early questions in Theonomy - By What Standard?

You have noted per Rom1 the conditions that proliferate when people reject knowing God and He turns them over to their minds of no value, have you not? Surely, we (Christians) can do better in adding to the legislative thinking that is currently degenerating at an ever-faster rate. Who's to blame, the secular or the light?

 

[9Rock9]

While I disagree with theonomy, I can kinda see how they arrive at their conclusions.

Theonomy has its roots in postmillennialism, the idea that society will gradually become more and more Christian until Christ finally returns. If the majority of the world is Christian, it should be easier to implement Christian moral laws.

Also, iirc, post-mill is similar to amillennialism in that we are already living in the Millennium, so God's kingdom is already here.

 

[Roderick Spode]

We Americans are not God's chosen people for being American. That is, the nationality of American does not make one a chosen person of God. Belief in Jesus Christ does. There are children of God (chosen) all over the world, living in nations with different types of governments they have to submit to, unless they violate certain commands by God (reading/owning a bible, gathering together in worship, etc.). But even in the case where Christians are instructed to defy certain prohibitions, like in China, it could be said the government is violating their own rules. For instance, in China, they claim to practice freedom of religion. So to prohibit Christian worship would be their own violation.

In the U.S., it's much different. Christians are active in politics. But it's still a secular government. We have to abide by that principle as opposed to demanding Judaic laws.

So, I don't know if these folks would be non-Christian (probably an individual issue), but have things mixed up concerning laws attributed to the ancient Israelites (God's chosen nation), and the modern Christian's relationship with our given countries we abide in, and governments we submit to.

 

[GDL]

While I disagree with theonomy, I can kinda see how they arrive at their conclusions.

Theonomy has its roots in postmillennialism, the idea that society will gradually become more and more Christian until Christ finally returns. If the majority of the world is Christian, it should be easier to implement Christian moral laws.

Also, iirc, post-mill is similar to amillennialism in that we are already living in the Millennium, so God's kingdom is already here.

Agreed re: postmil roots and one's eschatology certainly is part of his thinking structure. But irrespective IMO they ask one of the most valid questions I've ever encountered - By What Standard? - and it does not involve my eschatological thinking. For me it's a more simple and basic question of what God would want if I were a legislator or am supporting one with my vote.

 

[GDL]

We Americans are not God's chosen people for being American. That is, the nationality of American does not make one a chosen person of God. Belief in Jesus Christ does. There are children of God (chosen) all over the world, living in nations with different types of governments they have to submit to, unless they violate certain commands by God (reading/owning a bible, gathering together in worship, etc.). But even in the case where Christians are instructed to defy certain prohibitions, like in China, it could be said the government is violating their own rules. For instance, in China, they claim to practice freedom of religion. So to prohibit Christian worship would be their own violation.

In the U.S., it's much different. Christians are active in politics. But it's still a secular government. We have to abide by that principle as opposed to demanding Judaic laws.

While secular it has had more Biblical laws than it now does. Since Christians are active, what is their standard for their legislative input? That was part of the theonomic question. Although much of "Judaic" law was indeed "Judaic" since it was both religious and civil/criminal, calling it all "Judaic" seems to be a misnomer. Is "you shall not murder" only "Judaic"? This question can be asked about many of God's Laws which He gave to Moses and the children of Israel.

So, I don't know if these folks would be non-Christian (probably an individual issue), but have things mixed up concerning laws attributed to the ancient Israelites (God's chosen nation), and the modern Christian's relationship with our given countries we abide in, and governments we submit to.

Questioning their faith in the OP is in itself questionable at best. In the US we don't just submit to gov't - to a point - but we have the right to be involved in establishing it. What does it say about the Christian who lives in what we so far still have to whatever degree type of gov't we have who sets aside the statement and concept of Deut4:5-8 for example? Note the concepts of "wisdom" and "understanding".

In the NC we're told all God breathed Scripture is beneficial for instruction in righteousness 2Tim3:16. Righteousness and godliness are 2 of God's main requirements for man and His wrath is exercised against those who do not conform to these. Why would we not do our best to learn the greatness of His Law that He said would make a nation great and that would keep His wrath at bay for ourselves and our neighbors?

Theonomy like Biblical Law is a vast subject with many considerations. We're scratching the surface of it.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

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.

Do I agree with them? No.

Do I think they are Christian? I don’t think it matters and I don’t think it’s my place to judge.

When it comes to faith, if somebody tells me they’re X, I tend to take it on face value.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

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).

""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?""

The 10 commandments written bu the hand of GOD, were put Inside the Ark of the Covenant, the law of Moses written by MOses was put on the side of the ARK of the covenant. Jesus was teaching the commandments and said they would not pass away, the Law of Moses cannot be followed today for the most part, it was for the Israelites of that era, however some of these laws could be followed as they are still valid today.

Are you certain that Paul clearly abolished the commandments?? if He did so he would be considered a false prophet/ false teacher as it is written in Deuteronomy 13:1-5;
Deu 13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,

Deu 13:2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;

Deu 13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Deu 13:4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

Deu 13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

Following the 10 commandments is what Jesus told his followers, those who love him and love Father in Heaven to do. Saying anything else is not according to scripture.

 

[Roderick Spode]

While secular it has had more Biblical laws than it now does. Since Christians are active, what is their standard for their legislative input? That was part of the theonomic question. Although much of "Judaic" law was indeed "Judaic" since it was both religious and civil/criminal, calling it all "Judaic" seems to be a misnomer. Is "you shall not murder" only "Judaic"? This question can be asked about many of God's Laws which He gave to Moses and the children of Israel.

Questioning their faith in the OP is in itself questionable at best. In the US we don't just submit to gov't - to a point - but we have the right to be involved in establishing it. What does it say about the Christian who lives in what we so far still have to whatever degree type of gov't we have who sets aside the statement and concept of Deut4:5-8 for example? Note the concepts of "wisdom" and "understanding".

In the NC we're told all God breathed Scripture is beneficial for instruction in righteousness 2Tim3:16. Righteousness and godliness are 2 of God's main requirements for man and His wrath is exercised against those who do not conform to these. Why would we not do our best to learn the greatness of His Law that He said would make a nation great and that would keep His wrath at bay for ourselves and our neighbors?

Theonomy like Biblical Law is a vast subject with many considerations. We're scratching the surface of it.

One of the positives of today as far as Christianity is concerned, is that we seem to emphasize the Lordship of Jesus Christ, at least publicly possibly more so than the Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers were more careful about using the name Jesus Christ. We can kind of see this theme in a cultural setting in that in Anglo and Western European culture, a child is never given the name Jesus, which would probably be seen as dishonoring to the Savior. Of course in Latin American culture, a child may be named Jesus as meant to honor the Savior. A lot of Christian European history seems to lack emphasis on Jesus Christ. The Founding Fathers' apparent lack of emphasis on Jesus Christ is why a number of atheist activists claim they were deists. I don't think there were nearly as many deists as some claim. I'm only aware of two of the Founding Fathers that actually acknowledged themselves as being deists. It was accepted, but low on the totem pole. Atheism was accepted, but even lower on the totem pole. The only quote I know of by George Washington using the name of Jesus Christ was when addressing a Native American leader. I believe George Washington was a Christian, but he was of course still human. I think his intention when referring to Jesus to the NA leader was probably more political than evangelical. He proposed they follow the teaching of Jesus Christ, which would if successful prompt the tribe represented to be peaceful as opposed to warring. I think Thomas Jefferson had the same idea with his hyper-edited version of the Bible. To my understanding, one of the recipients was to be a Native American leader. I think TJ had the idea that tribes had enough magic and superstition in their myths, and sought to press the teachings of Jesus Christ as a means to emphasize peace.

It may have been one thing had the Founding Fathers emphasized serving Jesus Christ as their guide and leader, for each to seek Him personally, but their focus was acceptance of belief in the creator regardless of religion, which allowed for deism, Islamic belief, Hinduism, and even atheism. The positive being they would avoid the old European style of theocracy where a particular denomination, or State church was the ruler. The Founding Fathers who were devout Christians may have had good intentions when using neutral terms like Divine Being, but it may have lead to the continuation of some of the questionable secret organizations that exist to this day. Even the laws some States implemented for those running for office were loose enough for deists. So in a sense, we're under a form of Babylonian rule in America. When the Israelites were taken captive, they were to submit to their captors for their benefit. Daniel would proclaim "Oh King, live forever" as a pledge of allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar. However, when there became a demand to worship as a replacement of God, he took an opposing stance. Today, it's honorable as a Christian to pledge allegiance to the flag. If we were demanded to worship it as God, a replacement of Jesus Christ, we would obviously have to take a stance.

Fortunately now we have the opportunity to have influence in government as ambassadors of Christ. The Christians in China, from what I've heard believe the communist government is divinely appointed for this time, so they tend to stay out of government as ambassadors of Christ. Ambassadors have to respect and follow the laws of the nations they temporarily reside in. But at the same time they can't break allegiance to their real leadership.

 

[Soyeong]

""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?""

The 10 commandments written bu the hand of GOD, were put Inside the Ark of the Covenant, the law of Moses written by MOses was put on the side of the ARK of the covenant. Jesus was teaching the commandments and said they would not pass away, the Law of Moses cannot be followed today for the most part, it was for the Israelites of that era, however some of these laws could be followed as they are still valid today.

All of God's commands have the same moral authority regardless of whether God wrote them Himself or whether He told Moses to write them and regardless of where they are placed. The phrase "Law and the Prophets" straightforwardly refers to everything in the Law and the Prophets, not to just the Ten Commandments, and Jesus said that not the least part would pass away.

The Israelites were given a number of laws that had the condition "when you enter the land..." while they were still wandering the wilderness for 40 years, so there is nothing wrong with not following laws that can't currently be followed and there is nothing about not currently being able to follow certain laws that means that they have passed away. The condition for the Israelites to return from exile in Babylon was to first return to obedience to God's law, which contained instructions in regard to temple practice that couldn't be followed because the temple had just been destroyed. All of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160), so they are all eternally valid.

Are you certain that Paul clearly abolished the commandments?? if He did so he would be considered a false prophet/ false teacher as it is written in Deuteronomy 13:1-5;
Deu 13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,

Deu 13:2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;

Deu 13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Deu 13:4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

Deu 13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

Agree, those these verses include all of the Mosaic Law, not just the Ten Commandments.

Following the 10 commandments is what Jesus told his followers, those who love him and love Father in Heaven to do. Saying anything else is not according to scripture.

Jesus did not limit what he taught to just the Ten Commandments, for example, he taught not to hate our brother in accordance with Leviticus 19:17, and the woman suffering from bleeding grabbed hold of his tzitzit, which he wore in obedience to Numbers 15:38.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

All of God's commands have the same moral authority regardless of whether God wrote them Himself or whether He told Moses to write them and regardless of where they are placed. The phrase "Law and the Prophets" straightforwardly refers to everything in the Law and the Prophets, not to just the Ten Commandments, and Jesus said that not the least part would pass away.

The Israelites were given a number of laws that had the condition "when you enter the land..." while they were still wandering the wilderness for 40 years, so there is nothing wrong with not following laws that can't currently be followed and there is nothing about not currently being able to follow certain laws that means that they have passed away. The condition for the Israelites to return from exile in Babylon was to first return to obedience to God's law, which contained instructions in regard to temple practice that couldn't be followed because the temple had just been destroyed. All of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160), so they are all eternally valid.


Agree, those these verses include all of the Mosaic Law, not just the Ten Commandments.


Jesus did not limit what he taught to just the Ten Commandments, for example, he taught not to hate our brother in accordance with Leviticus 19:17, and the woman suffering from bleeding grabbed hold of his tzitzit, which he wore in obedience to Numbers 15:38.

I tend to agree with what you are explaining so well, I will look further at scriptures to see more clearly.

On another topic, I have a question you might be able to help me with I am searching but cannot find a satisfactory answer.

it is simply to know What is the name of GOD as he explained it when he spoke with Moses? My bible writes it as YAHWEH, some other bibles as YAHOVAH, I know it means I AM. if you cannot answer it is o.k.

Peace be with you.

 

[Soyeong]

I tend to agree with what you are explaining so well, I will look further at scriptures to see more clearly.

On another topic, I have a question you might be able to help me with I am searching but cannot find a satisfactory answer.

it is simply to know What is the name of GOD as he explained it when he spoke with Moses? My bible writes it as YAHWEH, some other bibles as YAHOVAH, I know it means I AM. if you cannot answer it is o.k.

Peace be with you.

The issue is that Hebrew script did not originally have vowel points and consonants can have a range of meanings depending upon which vowels are between them, such as mad, med, mid, mod, or mud, so there needed to be an oral tradition of how the words are pronounced in order to correctly know which word is used by the script. The text says that God's name is "YHVH" and problem is that Jews have a tradition of not pronouncing God's name, so there is some disagreement about which vowels should be used and there are not universal rules for how transliterate Hebrew words into English. The Masoretes were the ones who invented vowel points in Hebrew and for what it is worth, I have read an ancient manuscript with the vowel points for "Yehovah" for the name of God and "Yeshua" for the name of the Messiah.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

The issue is that Hebrew script did not originally have vowel points and consonants can have a range of meanings depending upon which vowels are between them, such as mad, med, mid, mod, or mud, so there needed to be an oral tradition of how the words are pronounced in order to correctly know which word is used by the script. The text says that God's name is "YHVH" and problem is that Jews have a tradition of not pronouncing God's name, so there is some disagreement about which vowels should be used and there are not universal rules for how transliterate Hebrew words into English. The Masoretes were the ones who invented vowel points in Hebrew and for what it is worth, I have read an ancient manuscript with the vowel points for "Yehovah" for the name of God and "Yeshua" for the name of the Messiah.

very informative thank you!

peace.