Why Theonomy?

[Caledvwlch]

Theonomy is paranoid, fanatical, potentially violent, and absolutely dangerous.

Not to put to fine a point on it... :chuckle:

 

[Clete]

Why a monarchy then? If the monarch does not rule by his word, then why not a representative republic? Why not a dictator?

Well for one reason it is dramatically easier to get one man to repent rather than a commitee.

With committee, which is what a democracy or republic is, the best you can hope for the the average amount of righteousness in a nations leadership. People are evil by nature, the more are involved in being the head of a nation the less righteous that nation will be.

Further, since we are talking about what the Bible would advocate and not what we would come up with on our own, it is important to point out that the Bible never condones representative republics. In fact when the representatives of the people came to Moses with there desire for input in the way things were run, Moses said for all the representatives and those who want to follow them to go stand over there, and all those who want to follow me (Moses) we'll stand over here. Then when they were all situated, God openned up the Earth and swallowed the representatives down alive into Hell.

God does not like representative governments, period. And neither do I.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Caledvwlch]

Well for one reason it is dramatically easier to get one man to repent rather than a commitee.

With committee, which is what a democracy or republic is, the best you can hope for the the average amount of righteousness in a nations leadership. People are evil by nature, the more are involved in being the head of a nation the less righteous that nation will be.

Further, since we are talking about what the Bible would advocate and not what we would come up with on our own, it is important to point out that the Bible never condones representative republics. In fact when the representatives of the people came to Moses with there desire for input in the way things were run, Moses said for all the representatives and those who want to follow them to go stand over there, and all those who want to follow me (Moses) we'll stand over here. Then when they were all situated, God openned up the Earth and swallowed the representatives down alive into Hell.

God does not like representative governments, period. And neither do I.

Resting in Him,
Clete

So you don't like freedom then. Whenever power is consolidated into one place or onto one man, people suffer. There's no avoiding it. Even King David had a man murdered, and was constantly at war, therefore responsible for countless deaths in and around his nation. The man was a despot, freedom was unheard of. What you're talking about is erasing any semblance of checks and balances and putting all civil power in the hands of one man. Even under the constraints of the Bible, how can such a madman be stopped?

 

[Clete]

So you don't like freedom then. Whenever power is consolidated into one place or onto one man, people suffer. There's no avoiding it. Even King David had a man murdered, and was constantly at war, therefore responsible for countless deaths in and around his nation. The man was a despot, freedom was unheard of. What you're talking about is erasing any semblance of checks and balances and putting all civil power in the hands of one man. Even under the constraints of the Bible, how can such a madman be stopped?

"Such a mad man" could be stopped much more easily than could an out of control committee of evil men.

King David is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. He clearly did evil things and yet he (singular) repented of those acts and so the whole nation benefited from one man's repentence. As I said, it is not a perfect system; no such perfect system exists. It is clearly the best possible system available.
And of course I like freedom. That was a stupid thing to even say. Democracy is no guarantee of freedom. If you think it is, you're are truly to be pitied. It is the rule of law that guarantees freedom. And in a Biblical government the king would have no authority to make new laws or change existing ones. Laws are not to be made but discovered. God has given us the law, we (including the king) are only to enforce it. Thus there is no undue consolidation of power to one man as you suggest.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Granite]

Dictatorship no matter how you dress it up is still an offense against liberty and leads to slavery. :dunce:

 

[Clete]

Dictatorship no matter how you dress it up is still an offense against liberty and leads to slavery. :dunce:

Which is why I am not talking about a dictatorship. Pay attention.

Dictators rule by fiat; their word is law. That would not be the case in a Biblcal government.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Granite]

Which is why I am not talking about a dictatorship. Pay attention.

Dictators rule by fiat; their word is law. That would not be the case in a Biblcal government.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete, this is a crock of BS and we both know it. David's word was law, and I really don't care how he tried to justify it. Using "the Bible" to justify one-man rule is...well, it's dictatorship. You can call it a "monarchy" or whatever else you fanatics use to honeycoat your totalitarianism, but nothing changes what you would do if given half a chance.

The minute you people get power you abuse it, and there is not a single exception in Christianity's history.

 

[Caledvwlch]

"Such a mad man" could be stopped much more easily than could an out of control committee of evil men.

I'm still not following you here. A committee, as you put it, stops itself. The point of checks and balances is making sure that the government can't get things done.

King David is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. He clearly did evil things and yet he (singular) repented of those acts and so the whole nation benefited from one man's repentence. As I said, it is not a perfect system; no such perfect system exists. It is clearly the best possible system available.

The best possible system available is the one that safeguards freedom. We're not in total disagreement here. Oddly enough. :chuckle:

And of course I like freedom. That was a stupid thing to even say. Democracy is no guarantee of freedom. If you think it is, you're are truly to be pittied.

I never said anything about democracy. I said representative government.

It is the rule of law that guarantees freedom. And in a Biblical geovernment the king would have no authority to make new laws or change existing ones. Laws are not to be made but discovered. God has given us the law, we (including the king) are only to enforce it. Thus there is no undo consolidation of power to one man as you suggest.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I don't think it is only the rule of law that guarantees freedom. It also requires personal responsibility and self-government. And while it's nice that you say the king would have no authority to make new laws, who's going to stop him if he decides to? Is God going to personally intervene? That would be nice, but I don't think there's really a historical precedent for such an event. Or would we simply wait around for our monarch to repent? The monarchy thing is a bad idea. There's a reason that monarchies are virtually extinct.

 

[Clete]

Clete, this is a crock of BS and we both know it. David's word was law, and I really don't care how he tried to justify it. Using "the Bible" to justify one-man rule is...well, it's dictatorship. You can call it a "monarchy" or whatever else you fanatics use to honeycoat your totalitarianism, but nothing changes what you would do if given half a chance.

The minute you people get power you abuse it, and there is not a single exception in Christianity's history.

I've already addressed David's failings, which you ignored. You could be the most intellectually dishonest person on this site.

The failings, which you attribute to a Monarchy, are perhaps slowed by a democracy at first, but the same abuses of power take place nonetheless and once they are in place, they are impossible to remove, IMPOSSIBLE. A democracy will inevitably move more and more in the direction of removing the consequences from the people's actions because it is the people who are making the rules. The result will be a break down of society and a collapse of the nation and in the end anarchy, the ultimate expression of the liberal idea of what it means to be free (i.e. no law). In fact, it is just the opposite. Without the rule of law, there can be no lasting or meaningful freedom. Without the rule of law it will truly be the Darwinian’s paradise; survival of the fittest and only the fittest.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

I'm still not following you here. A committee, as you put it, stops itself. The point of checks and balances is making sure that the government can't get things done.

The history of this country would belie this point. We have seen a steady errossion of our freedoms in this country and that will undoubtedly continue.

The best possible system available is the one that safeguards freedom. We're not in total disagreement here. Oddly enough. :chuckle:

As the stomach knows good food, so the heart knows truth.

I never said anything about democracy. I said representative government.

Variation on a theme.

I don't think it is only the rule of law that guarantees freedom. It also requires personal responsibility and self-government.

Says who? There is no historical justification for such a statement and there is certainly no Biblical justification for it and God is much smarter than we are.

And while it's nice that you say the king would have no authority to make new laws, who's going to stop him if he decides to?

See Granite! This is the sort of thing that comes up when people who are actually thinking interact with one another. You would do well do pay attention to your fellow pagan here.

The law provides for civil disobedience. In other words, God says that we should not follow any law that a rogue king might attempt to create. Again, it is the law that ultimately rules, not the king.

Is God going to personally intervene? That would be nice, but I don't think there's really a historical precedent for such an event. Or would we simply wait around for our monarch to repent? The monarchy thing is a bad idea. There's a reason that monarchies are virtually extinct.

No, God would not personally intervene. However, the law would not be the convoluted mess that we have today. It would fit on maybe two or three pages and would be simple enough for a third grader to understand. Most people would have the entire thing memorized in a society under a Biblical government and they would be fully aware that they were under no obligation to follow any "new law" that the king handed down.
And while there would no doubt be evil kings who would make the country groan under his rule, such a king would eventually repent or die and then you at least have the potential for righteous leadership. In a representative government the same evil humans simply keep on putting the same sort of idiots into power and those in power keep changing the rules to make it easier for them and their kind to stay in power.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Caledvwlch]

The history of this country would belie this point. We have seen a steady errossion of our freedoms in this country and that will undoubtedly continue.

Sure it will continue, but not because the system was flawed to begin with, but because guys like Abraham Lincoln, FDR and Woodrow Wilson screwed us over with cool things like abrogation of state's rights and socialism and world government.

As the stomach knows good food, so the heart knows truth.

That remains to be seen.

Variation on a theme.

Not really. Democracy is a completely inaccurate buzzword. It infuriates me that politicians throw that word around as if it was the savior of the world. We never were a democracy, and hopefully, we never will be. A representative government, on the other hand, is not a majority rule system. It is a minority protection system.

Says who? There is no historical justification for such a statement and there is certainly no Biblical justification for it and God is much smarter than we are.

So you don't believe in personal responsibility and self-government? God didn't create us smart enough to govern ourselves? I mean, sure we've had some bumps and bruises over the years, but things have certainly improved, relative to the whole timeline of known history. At least we're not laboring serfs, making sure our lord gets fat.

See Granite! This is the sort of thing that comes up when people who are actually thinking interact with one another. You would do well do pay attention to your fellow pagan here.

The law provides for civil disobedience. In other words, God says that we should not follow any law that a rogue king might attempt to create. Again, it is the law that ultimately rules, not the king.

And if the king went to war on his people? He would be the guy in control of the army, no?

No, God would not personally intervene. However, the law would not be the convoluted mess that we have today. It would fit on maybe two or three pages and would be simple enough for a third grader to understand. Most people would have the entire thing memorized in a society under a Biblical government and they would be fully aware that they were under no obligation to follow any "new law" that the king handed down.

You know that new laws do have to come around from time to time. Before the invention of the automobile, there were no traffic safety laws. Are these laws unbiblical?

And while there would no doubt be evil kings who would make the country groan under his rule, such a king would eventually repent or die and then you at least have the potential for righteous leadership. In a representative government the same evil humans simply keep on putting the same sort of idiots into power and those in power keep changing the rules to make it easier for them and their kind to stay in power.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I still don't see how you can justify the installation of one-man government, using a 3-thousand year-old constitution with things like Deut. 25:11-12 in it. God hasn't revealed any laws to us. Just because it is written, doesn't make it so.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

First Timothy 1:8-11 - "But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust."

OK, now this is a start to an answer of the question I am asking. Let's look at the passage right before the one you cite.

1 Tim 1: 3-7 - "As I urged you when I went into Macedonia--remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm."

The author of 1 Tim is not commending the Law as a "proper" form of government, but is giving a distinction that it is not an appropriate guide for the behavior of Christians. Those who were teaching the Law to the church in Ephesus were teaching "other doctrine"--and at that, these false teachers were "understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm."

Justin

 

[Granite]

I've already addressed David's failings, which you ignored. You could be the most intellectually dishonest person on this site.

The failings, which you attribute to a Monarchy, are perhaps slowed by a democracy at first, but the same abuses of power take place nonetheless and once they are in place, they are impossible to remove, IMPOSSIBLE. A democracy will inevitably move more and more in the direction of removing the consequences from the people's actions because it is the people who are making the rules. The result will be a break down of society and a collapse of the nation and in the end anarchy, the ultimate expression of the liberal idea of what it means to be free (i.e. no law). In fact, it is just the opposite. Without the rule of law, there can be no lasting or meaningful freedom. Without the rule of law it will truly be the Darwinian’s paradise; survival of the fittest and only the fittest.

Resting in Him,
Clete

David's "failings" are inexcusable: that this randy murderous thug was a man after Jehovah's own heart says more about Jehovah than anything else.

Dictatorship no matter what you call it still leads to tyranny, and Christianity melded with political power has ALWAYS bred abuse; there is no exception.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Define Theonomy.

Wikipedia: Theonomy is the idea that God's laws (as interpreted by a specific religious outlook) must be applied to all spheres of public and private everyday life: not only religious mandates – but also political, social, and cultural rules. In this sense, theonomy is generally considered an expansive version of theocracy, which involves conforming civil law to a specific religious group's idea of what is mandated by God's laws.

It seems to me that the Bible calls for a Monarchy, a Constitutional Monarchy to be more precise.

And it seems to me that anyone who makes that statement has completely ignored Samuels warning to Israel regarding what a king would do in 1 Samuel 8.

1 Now it came to pass when Samuel was old that he made his sons judges over Israel. 2 The name of his firstborn was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba. 3 But his sons did not walk in his ways; they turned aside after dishonest gain, took bribes, and perverted justice.

4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, 5 and said to him, "Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations."

6 But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." So Samuel prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD said to Samuel, "Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. 8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day--with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods--so they are doing to you also. 9 Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them."

Now, what was that about the Bible calling for a monarchy?

Justin

 

[Granite]

Anything to justify Christian totalitarianism, I suppose...

 

[Caledvwlch]

Anything to justify Christian totalitarianism, I suppose...

Oh granite... I seem to remember a day when someone I know might have been favorable toward such a thing...

 

[Granite]

Oh granite... I seem to remember a day when someone I know might have been favorable toward such a thing...

Looking in the mirror bud?:chuckle:

 

[Clete]

Wikipedia: Theonomy is the idea that God's laws (as interpreted by a specific religious outlook) must be applied to all spheres of public and private everyday life: not only religious mandates – but also political, social, and cultural rules. In this sense, theonomy is generally considered an expansive version of theocracy, which involves conforming civil law to a specific religious group's idea of what is mandated by God's laws.

In that case, as I suspected from the beginning, I do not support theonomy.

And it seems to me that anyone who makes that statement has completely ignored Samuels warning to Israel regarding what a king would do in 1 Samuel 8.

Now, what was that about the Bible calling for a monarchy?

Justin

To suggest that God is not in favor of a monarchy is to ignore the Bible almost completely. I don't understand why every one always brings this silly point up. It was not God's desire AT THAT TIME for Israel to have a king and there was good reason for that which I will not go into here but it is so obvious that God intended to give them a king that it's just prepostrous to think otherwise. Is it not Biblical to say that Jesus will come and sit on David's thrown as the King of King's? That sounds like a pretty strong endorsement of a monarchy to me.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

In that case, as I suspected from the beginning, I do not support theonomy.

OK, then that answers my question.

As for God recommending monarchy, that is a separate topic from theonomy, but (if we can put the insults and derision to the side) I would like to cover it in a separate thread. However, one teeny-tiny point seems to be escaping you....

Is it not Biblical to say that Jesus will come and sit on David's thrown as the King of King's?

Remember that God's objection to a monarchy was because Israel rejected God as a king. According to your doctrine, Jesus is God: therefore, if Jesus will be king, then is that not God being king? :duh:

Justin

 

[Clete]

OK, then that answers my question.

As for God recommending monarchy, that is a separate topic from theonomy, but (if we can put the insults and derision to the side) I would like to cover it in a separate thread.

The question was posed in the context of what the Bible recommends so my introduction of a monarchy is on topic. If you do not want to discuss it that's fine but then you won't be discussing what the Bible has to say but what you have to say. Sort of borring if you ask me. And I have not been insulting to you or anyone else on this thread unless they have been intentionally dishonest and unresposive, in which case they deserve to be insulted.

However, one teeny-tiny point seems to be escaping you....



Remember that God's objection to a monarchy was because Israel rejected God as a king. According to your doctrine, Jesus is God: therefore, if Jesus will be king, then is that not God being king? :duh:

Now who's being insulting? Why ask me this question as though I'm too stupid to have realized that Jesus is God? Don't be a hypocrite and we'll get along just fine okay?

What you failed to notice is that I said that Jesus is going to come and sit on DAVID'S thrown. David was not God and Christ sitting on that thrown is a direct endorsement of both David as a king and the monarchy which he ruled.

Resting in Him,
Clete