Why Theonomy?

[Clete]

Ok, fine. Would Muslims be allowed to worship? How about Jews? I mean in their temples/mosques, not their homes.

Yes of course they would. However, they would not be allowed to teach things like "How to be a suicide bomber." or the like. That would be conspiracy to commit murder and would be punishable by death.

And if people would simply be responsible for their actions, what need is their for a monarchy? Again, why not, say, a libertarian form of government?

This question has already been asked and answered.
Because no other system is any better than a monarchy and there are advantages to a monarchy, which cannot be had in any other system. Thus it is the best possible system, which I strongly suspect is why God chose it over your alternatives.

Finally. No atheist believes that Christ is coming back to sit on a literal throne. So your first paragraph sounds delusional to us.

I am only answering questions in the context of this discussion, which was explicitly about what the Bible has to say about what sort of government we should have. What doesn't make sense to me is why someone in your position would care.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[billwald]

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."


Thus "real" Theonomists claim that the Mosiac Law only applies to non-believers and that they will not be judged by the laws they impose on the rest of us. "Non-believer" is generally defined as anyone who does not conform to the theology of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Yes of course they would. However, they would not be allowed to teach things like "How to be a suicide bomber." or the like. That would be conspiracy to commit murder and would be punishable by death.

Ok, that's cool. As long as you don't start whacking heretics.

This question has already been asked and answered.
Because no other system is any better than a monarchy and there are advantages to a monarchy, which cannot be had in any other system. Thus it is the best possible system, which I strongly suspect is why God chose it over your alternatives.

I still don't see how you can make the case that God wants us to have amonarchy.

I am only answering questions in the context of this discussion, which was explicitly about what the Bible has to say about what sort of government we should have. What doesn't make sense to me is why someone in your position would care.

Resting in Him,
Clete

The reason I care is because if you believe we should have such a government, then you must also believe that I would have to be subject to it. To put it simply, there's no way I would be subject to it. A monarchy is a monarchy, and there's no way I'd ever allow one to come into ppower over myself and mine without a fight.

 

[Granite]

Clete talks a good game but he's in good company with Puritans, the Genevans, and others who had the best intentions before they started killing their enemies.

It has ALWAYS happened eventually.

 

[Gerald]

Yes of course they would. However, they would not be allowed to teach things like "How to be a suicide bomber." or the like. That would be conspiracy to commit murder and would be punishable by death.

But isn't teaching things like "How to be a Muslim" just as dangerous? I mean, consider the children you'd be consigning to eternal hellfire because you haven't worked to win them away from Islam.

The most consistent theonomist I ever ran into envisioned a society wherein non-Christians would not be allowed to seek converts, nor would they be allowed to interfere with attempts to win converts away from them.

 

[Turbo]

Justin, if God had not intended to put a king over Israel other than the Lord Jesus Christ, He would not have given them these laws:

"When you come to the land which the LORD your God is giving you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say, 'I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,' you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the LORD has said to you, 'You shall not return that way again.' Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.

"Also it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this law in a book, from the one before the priests, the Levites. And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statutes, that his heart may not be lifted above his brethren, that he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left, and that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children in the midst of Israel." Deuteronomy 17:14-20​

 

[Caledvwlch]

But isn't teaching things like "How to be a Muslim" just as dangerous? I mean, consider the children you'd be consigning to eternal hellfire because you haven't worked to win them away from Islam.

The most consistent theonomist I ever ran into envisioned a society wherein non-Christians would not be allowed to seek converts, nor would they be allowed to interfere with attempts to win converts away from them.

You're right. If you want to consistently apply the idea of Biblical rule, you need to make all other religions illegal.

 

[Granite]

You're right. If you want to consistently apply the idea of Biblical rule, you need to make all other religions illegal.

...which would happen.

 

[Gerald]

You're right. If you want to consistently apply the idea of Biblical rule, you need to make all other religions illegal.

I keep reminding them of this ugly little fact, and they keep not listening.

:bang:

 

[Clete]

You're right. If you want to consistently apply the idea of Biblical rule, you need to make all other religions illegal.

Gerald is an idiot, you would do well to ignore him. What you've said here is not true at all. It is not a crime to go to Hell, nor is it a crime to believe something that will send you there. If there is a religious group that cannot live peacefully within the law then they would have problems under a Biblical form of government but not because they aren't Christian but because they do not follow the law. The Jews didn't execute you for not being a Jew and even if they had, such a law would not apply today because no one is suggesting that we set up one gigantic world-wide nation of Israel. There were laws in the Old Testament that had exclusively to do with Israel that were symbolic (i.e. not moral) and served a very specific purpose which would no longer be valid now that the Messaiah has been born.
The bottom line is that there would be no such prohibition of rival religions. There just simply wouldn't be. Anything said to the contrary is outright ignorance and obfuscation. If you are going to reject God's system you should at least reject it because of what it actually is, not what some nut job says it is.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Jefferson]

The author of 1 Tim is not commending the Law as a "proper" form of government,...

You're right. He's not commending the Law as a proper form of government in verses 3-7 but he IS commending it so in verses 8-11.

... but is giving a distinction that it is not an appropriate guide for the behavior of Christians.

Again, you're right. It's not an appropriate guide for Christians. But verses 8-11 says that it is an appropriate guide for the rebellious.

Note all the present tense verbs in the passage. I'll highlight them:

"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."

Does this sound like Paul taught the law was to be used but no longer? If so, then why all the present tense verbs?

 

[Caledvwlch]

Gerald is an idiot, you would do well to ignore him. What you've said here is not true at all. It is not a crime to go to Hell, nor is it a crime to believe something that will send you there. If there is a religious group that cannot live peacefully within the law then they would have problems under a Biblical form of government but not because they aren't Christian but because they do not follow the law. The Jews didn't execute you for not being a Jew and even if they had, such a law would not apply today because no one is suggesting that we set up one gigantic world-wide nation of Israel. There were laws in the Old Testament that had exclusively to do with Israel that were symbolic (i.e. not moral) and served a very specific purpose which would no longer be valid now that the Messaiah has been born.
The bottom line is that there would be no such prohibition of rival religions. There just simply wouldn't be. Anything said to the contrary is outright ignorance and obviscation. If you are going to reject God's system you should at least reject it because of what it actually is, not what some nut job says it is.

Resting in Him,
Clete

What about the First Commandment?

And Gerald: I know you're not an idiot. This guy just doesn't like you.

 

[Jefferson]

Because we are a large portion of the population that you wish to enslave under a Biblical despotism.

You call a 5 percent income tax "enslavement" and "despotism?" If that's enslavement, where do I sign up?

 

[Jefferson]

No, I didn't fail to notice that. Indeed, it's quite in sequence, according to the text:
* God sets up the Mosaic Law, that requires no king but Himself.
* The people don't like it, so they whine about having a king. God appoints judges.
* The people don't like the judges, so they whine about having a king. God appoints a king (Saul).

It is only after the advent of the Kingship in Israel--the human monarchy that God never wanted for His people--that God promises the Messiah will sit on the throne.

Clete, 1 Sam 8 is a direct indightment of any human monarchy.If you assert that your Bible is true, then you must acknowledge that having a human king was, at best, a "lesser evil," and at worst a total screw-up on the part of the people that God allowed them to do, for the hardness of their hearts. According to your text, God knew it was a mistake before Saul was anointed.

Justin

Wrong. In Abraham's time God foreshadowed Israel's Messiah as both king and priest by the man Melchizideck who was the king of Salem and priest of the most high God. And Christ came after the order of Melchizideck.

Centuries before Israel asked for a king, God told Moses to write in Deuteronomy 17:15, "You shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses." Does that sound like God is against kings?

History and prophecy show that God planned to establish Israel's Monarchy 1,000 years before Christ. Israel refused to wait on the Lord for a king in God's own time so God was angry with them for that. But 400 years before Samuel, God commanded that Israel's future kings should obey the Law.

One generation prior to God's own timing, Israel demanded a king and God gave them Saul in about 1,050 BC. So Saul from the tribe of Benjamin was "born out of due time" just like the apostle Saul (Paul) (also from the tribe of Benjamin) was also "born out of due time." God was mad at Israel, not for demanding a king, but rather for demanding a king on their own time table instead of waiting on God's timing.

 

[Freak]

OK, you and Jay have expressed that, and I respect your opinions. What I'm more interested in is Biblical justification as to why the Mosaic Law applies to Gentile nations today.

Justin

"Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

The use of the law allows the believer to open the hearts of the unbeliever (where they may be found) for their need of Jesus Christ. The law is needed to restrain evil and maintain some societal order. The apostle Paul encouraged the use of the law, in his letter to young Timothy--clear Biblical justification--to restrain evil and to expose evil.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Justin, if God had not intended to put a king over Israel other than the Lord Jesus Christ, He would not have given them these laws:

Deuteronomy 17:14-20

Thanks. I made a brief mention in passing, but didn't dig up the precise reference. However, even here note that God is not saying "I want you to set up a king": He's saying "When you set up a king, do it My way."

Justin

 

[Delmar]

Captial crimes considered under the Old Testament should be considered crimes under the New Covenant, ideally. However, with the sinfulness of humanity, I doubt, that any government of the world will adopt the fulness of Biblical Law. So, it is a moot point. However, we should utilize the Law as a tutor to bring humanity to Jesus Christ.

I don't think that the fact that it won't happen makes it a moot point. It is always right to say what's right!

 

[Clete]

What about the First Commandment?

What about it? Worshiping things other than God is a sin now, and will remain a sin from now on regardless of the sort of government is in place. That doesn't make it a crime. Are you sure you understand the context of this discussion? This question doesn't even make sense to me.

And Gerald: I know you're not an idiot. This guy just doesn't like you.

Gerald would have you discipline your children with stun guns, or at least he says he would (perhaps simply to get a rise out of people). In any case, he is a confirmed idiot, my feeling toward him are irrelevant.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Freak]

I don't think that the fact that it won't happen makes it a moot point. It is always right to say what's right!

Which I did. I have stated clearly what God desires but have clearly denoted that the sinfulness of man leads one to think that the fullness of biblical law won't come to pass. But I do believe in miracles. So...

 

[Clete]

Which I did. I have stated clearly what God desires but have clearly denoted that the sinfulness of man leads one to think that the fullness of biblical law won't come to pass. But I do believe in miracles. So...

You are, of course, right. Outside of God's intervention, man would never invoke such a righteous law except by force, which those of us who know God's law would never use as it would be in violation of that very law. A situation that I think God has put in place intentionally. No one but God Himself will be able to take the credit when humanity is finally taught the lesson that God's law is righteous, holy and good. And, of course, He does indeed intend to teach that very lesson, in due time.


Resting in Him,
Clete