Implications for Non-Theonomists

lntheonomy

I see three possible positions you can take regarding theonomy.

1. Theonomy is false. God doesn’t care about justice. Governments
can do whatever they want.
2. Theonomy is false. God doesn’t care about justice. Governments
can do what they want as long as they follow the moral law.
3. Theonomy is true. God cares about justice.

If theonomy is false, then it’s not just that God doesn’t care
about justice. It’s that there’s no longer a standard for justice.
We can no longer say whether a law is just or not.

To say the Old Testament civil law is unjust presupposes an absolute standard of justice. To claim the civil law is unjust is a self-refuting, self-contradictory sentence. There is no other standard for justice.

True Christianity and Immigration

bm

Bojidar Marinov says:

In the 1890s, the Roman Catholic bishop of New York complained that the Roman church is losing a large number of its members among the coming immigrants. And that almost immediately after they leave Ellis Island.

The reason?


The Presbyterian churches of New York had an round-the-clock watch to wait for the groups of immigrants who came out of the immigration facility on Ellis Island, and offered them temporary shelter and English courses, as well as low-pay temporary employment in the city. (While politics was controlled by the Irish mafia of Tammany Hall, the business in the city was controlled by Presbyterians and Dutch Reformed. It wasn’t until John D. Rockefeller – a fundamentalist Baptist – moved his Standard Oil headquarters to NYC that a major non-Presbyterian player appeared on the market.) This changed the play field entirely.

Keep in mind that 65% of the Arabs in the US are Christians. At least half of them have converted AFTER they arrived. Of those who don’t convert, the vast majority either become secularized, or have already been secularized in their home countries.  There is no reason why the [current crop of refugees from Syria] won’t have an even higher percentage of conversions.

Great Discussion on Homeschooling: Is Accepting Stolen Money a Sin?

I’ve written on this blog that I think that accepting tax money that was stolen is a sin. I was surprised to see what Bojidar Marinov had to say on that:

“I am not so hard-core as many people: I don’t believe USING tax money is sin per se, and I don’t believe we should excommunicate people for being on government payroll. It’s not because I am lax on the Law of God but because an ethical/judicial view of the Law requires that I focus on where the REAL CRIME is: The process of TAKING the money, not the process of their distribution. Thus, you won’t hear me criticizing government schools for the fact that they use tax money: the money is already stolen, and the secondary use of stolen money is not declared a crime in the Bible. In fact, short of returning that money to the tax-payers – which we don’t have the power to accomplish, yet – distributing it to areas where Christians will make use of it is a sort of “common-grace” remedy which mitigates against the worst aspects of the crime of taxation. Declaring the use of that money sin would guarantee that the money is forever lost for any good cause.”

———————————————–

I can see his argument, but I think the following comment from Paul Dorr closes the deal for me.

———————————————–

“…the process of distributing it” is not a real crime? Not sure I understand your position on this Bojidar Marinov. Consider Prov. 29:24 which says, “Whoever is a partner with a thief hates his own life; He swears to tell the truth,[a] but reveals nothing.” Government school administrators and teachers lie every day (in my work) about how they spend the stolen money. They clearly mark themselves as partners with the state/thief.


Psalm 50:18 says, “When you saw a thief, you consented with him…” School administrators and staff consent to spend the stolen money every day.

Even man’s law has a crime on the books called “receiving stolen property”. Not quite as serious as the original thievery, but a crime none-the-less.

Some of the greatest opposition my clients receive daily, is from fellow evangelical Christians with their children in the public school. I believe there is no greater temple to our statist idolatry than government stools….err, schools! We need to remove our children and rip our money out of their hands. God will bring them to an end….and I believe sooner than we think.

———————————————–

Bojidar goes on to say:

I agree with you, Paul, about government school administrators and teachers who lie about the use of the money. And of course, your argument about “consenting with thieves” is perfectly correct.

Here’s an application of the problem, though, where I am
afraid, I can’t see a solution within the more purely perfectionist position you take on it: A communist state where all property is government property, and all business is government business, and thus all jobs are on the government’s payroll. The land is stolen from its original owners, the capital was confiscated from private owners, the industrial facilities are stolen, the technology for production is stolen, the children in the schools and the kindergartens are stolen from their parents, the capital infrastructure was built on the compulsory labor of political prisoners, etc., etc.

A Christian with a family finds himself in such a situation. He has certain gifts and skills, and he knows he has to bide his time instead of going full-scale revolutionary resistance against the government. He has to feed his kids as well. But any gainful employment he can take is on government payroll, receiving stolen money for work, using stolen capital goods, on infrastructure built on the labor of political prisoners.

He has the choice, of course, to refuse to work and thus starve his family. But I somehow can’t see this as the Biblical solution. After all, Joseph could have refused to serve Pharaoh and could have stayed in jail. Therefore, the only judicial solution I see to the issue is that he is free to take a job – which will by necessity be a government job – and that being on government payroll is not sin per se. (Although, I agree with you that school administrators who lie WITH THE PURPOSE OF STEALING more of their constituents’ money ARE in sin.) Therefore, the sin is not in being on government payroll, it is in being on the robbing side of government – which is the case of your school administrators, but not necessarily of everyone who in one way or another receives a pay from the school.

I relate this issue to the much misunderstood issue of Ron Paul’s support for ear-marking funds. It was used by his enemies to create an image of a politician who is in favor of more taxes whereas his position was perfectly logical: “If I can’t stop the increase of the government budget, I need to at least make sure the money is not just given as general spoils to the bureaucrats but its purpose is specifically declared.”

I am willing to hear where I am wrong in this.

———————————————–

Here’s what I say. Bojidar is correct in his example of a communist country. Americans are in the same boat as a citizen of a communist country in some areas. I have no choice but to drive on roads that were built with stolen money. There is no alternative other then flying a helicopter, which is not a viable alternative due to financial constraints. But, where we have a choice, we ought not accept stolen money. And, where we have a choice, but choose to accept stolen money it is a sin.

Tyrants Twisting the Law

The popular thing for the politically correct class to do today is to not make any claims to certainty. Of course, this is an absurd position, because typing a sentence is a claim to certainty of whatever you’re talking about. For example, it is self-refuting to say, “There is no such thing as absolute truth.”

Gavin Seim got the Spokane Sheriff to engage in such absurdity on its Facebook page, and pointed out their error pretty effectively:

spokaneconvo

Maybe they’re saying the law is what they want it to be. Maybe they’re saying there’s no way of knowing what the law is. Maybe they’re saying Gavin is completely wrong, and they’re just not willing to say, “You’re completely wrong.” I don’t know.

What they ought to do is have the county attorney write up a press release, explaining why it’s legal for them to use unmarked cars for traffic enforcement (assuming they actually believe they have a case for such), and then link to it when this topic comes up. This issue has become big news with some of Gavin’s videos on this topic getting hundreds of thousands of views.

But it shows where they’re coming from that they can get snarky with a citizen on their public Facebook page. What business can get snarky without losing business? A government monopoly: that’s who. They’ve shown they’re not there to serve people or correct misunderstandings of the law, but to do whatever they want. And they don’t even care who knows it.

PS: I was wrong about how many views Seim’s videos have had on the unmarked car issue. The video below (and he has at least one other I can think of) has over 4 million views, and was also played on CNN.

Republicans Again?

I’m no longer voting for a presidential candidate just because they have an ‘R’ after their name. I’ve been fooled enough times. Rand Paul may be an exception to Bojidar’s quote below, but he currently stands no chance.

bm

Bojidar Marinov says:

I have a question. I am trying to think logically here:

1. All the Republican candidates support the Patriot Act and the NSA and Homeland Security.

2. All the Republican candidates promise to stand against terrorism and kill terrorists to keep us all safe.

3. Both Homeland Security and the NSA have added to their terrorist lists groups like constitutionalists, gun owners, veterans, anti-abortion activists, etc.

So . . . who exactly are these Republican candidates promising to crack down on?

And . . . why are we voting for them?

More Power Tripping

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMhNFGzqtIQ

I’m a little bit surprised they even have the ability to arrest him for such a silly thing.

How long are we going to put up with this kind of behavior? I wish all the people protesting the cops could actually spend their time doing something useful, like working to cut the budget of police or something specific.

Two Dirty Reformed Christian Cops

If there were 50 cops there in LA that June, 1989 day. Not ONE stood up to the others and said, “We shouldn’t be abusing these people.” That would be the bare minimum. Not only that, not ONE said, “We’re on the wrong side. We shouldn’t be enforcing man’s law when it contradicts God’s law.” Out of 50 cops that day, zero showed themselves to be good cops.

Zero out of 50 is a terrible percentage. Furthermore, below is the story of a good cop, and how that got him fired, because good cops can’t be tolerated on the police force, at least in Las Vegas. I’ll admit there might be good cops, but you must admit the evidence is pointing to a small percentage.

I’m shocked that at least two Christian cops in the course of this conversation [This post was a comment I made in the course of a Facebook conversation discussing the first video.] can’t bring themselves to say that the cops in the video were evil. What is the deal? What have they bought into that makes them so biased? I’ve asked them both directly to denounce those cops. This is a private forum where their fellow officers won’t ever know what they say, and they still don’t have the courage or the common sense to bring themselves to say anything bad about these other cops from 26 years ago.

How will these guys ever have the courage to actually stand up to their fellow cops in real life when they can’t call evil what it is on Facebook? If they want to see a bad cop, they can look in the mirror. I hope they prove me wrong and come out to strongly denounce what police across the country did to Operation Rescue. But I’m not holding my breath.

We live in a country under God’s judgment and generally run by ungodly perverts. Cops enforce the evil, pagan laws in this country, and I have Christians telling me I’m the one that has to assume a cop is good. It seems to me they need to start showing themselves to be good. When magistrates (which includes cops) in this country start standing up to evil, maybe then we can start identifying some good cops. Until then, the good cops are so few in number that they must keep a low profile, are under discipline, or already fired or quit.

Lessons To Be Learned

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDmwT8X1EX0

First of all, the video says he may still be charged. That is obsolete, he’ll be facing no charges.

There are some lessons to be taken from this situation:

  1. Take your kids out of public school!
  2. Kids in school have little 4th Amendment protection.
  3. Teach your kids not to talk to cops, even when they’re innocent!
  4. Teachers are too stupid to tell the difference between a clock and a bomb.
  5. Cops are too stupid to tell the difference between a clock and a bomb.

Homeschooling Discussion: Is It a Sin to Send Kids to a Public School?

Here are some fantastic thoughts on whether it is a sin to send our kids to a secular temple for their schooling from Bojidar Marinov.

bm

“So if you’re asked point-blank: “Am I in sin by having my kids in public school?” How do you respond?”

My answer: “Yes, you are. Just as much as you would be in sin if you sent your kids to the local mosque five days a week.” If they hate you for that, they will hate you for that. But some will be stung in their hearts who won’t be stung if you took the softer approach.

If you are a Calvinist, you should know this corollary from Calvinist soteriology: The reprobate won’t become less reprobate because you were friendly and soft; but the elect will be driven to respond if you speak as one of authority, not like their academically-feminized seminary professors (Matt. 7:29).