Gavin is awesome! He has the guts to go and confront these losers who think they can stop Americans from flying a flag on their own vehicle in a public parking lot. They’re insane and on a power trip.
There needs to be a swift divorce between schools and state. The government has no business robbing property owners to support these Marxist indoctrination centers. I get mugged every April (property tax month in Colorado) to support schools that I don’t send my kids to.
Bojidar Marinov:
If the flags around this country were half mast to honor every civilian person murdered by cops, we will never be able to raise them full mast.
Just think about it, and think about the statism of a society that gives one government agent immeasurably more honor than to its multitude of murdered civilians.
I was thinking about the Theonomy Debate I posted. Stephen did a good job, but I thought of something else I would like to point out in regards to what Jim/fleebabylon said:
That [Stephen’s advocacy of executing adulterers] is because you are self righteous and puffed up in your ignorance. Jesus was the only one who was without sin and thus qualified to stone the adulteress woman yet he himself bore the wrath of God for her instead, becoming sin for her, paying the price in full. This is the new covenant, the covenant of life. The law is the ministry of death. Worldly governments and lost people are still under the law, but Christians are under grace. If your grace causes you to shout for the stoning of the adulteress rather than preaching the good news you are seriously confused. Maybe it is you that doesn’t like some of Jesus’ grace.
Clearly, Jim thinks it’s a bad idea to execute adulterers. Stephen pointed out repeatedly that Jim couldn’t provide a basis for determining whether executing adulterers is just or unjust. That is an important point, and absolutely true.
The thing I want to point out is that it seems Jim’s argument could be applied to any crime, including rape, murder or whatever. I assume Jim is in favor of some form of punishment for murderers. But why? I could quote verbatim what he said about adultery, and say he is self-righteous and puffed up in his ignorance , because he’s in favor of punishing murderers.
We live in a country where homosexuals and adulterers aren’t punished, but murderers are. That is the only basis for Jim’s arguments–that he wants to maintain the status quo. But unfortunately for Jim, homosexuality was punished in this country not that long ago. And adultery was punished at one point, though that has been a while.
The thought crossed my mind that maybe Jim has been guilty of adultery, but not murder. In which case the argument becomes hypocritical on a personal level. Though I certainly don’t know anything about him and don’t wish to accuse him.
I once heard a liberal criticize conservatism in that they fight against the new thing while participating whole-hog in the old thing. That is certainly a valid criticism where it is true (and it seems to be true in the vast majority of cases). It’s hypocritical to spite someone for getting a government subsidized Obamacare plan while sending your kid to government subsidized public school. Conservatives and Christians must be more consistent.
This is just another way to show the self-refuting garbage that results from rejecting theonomy. Once you reject the absolute standard of God’s law, you’ve begun to build your house on shifting sand. There is nothing to stop your slide into liberalism, except your own personal preferences.
Maybe there are a handful of good county clerks, but it is an extremely small percentage who are refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses.
For some reason, these homosexuals think that a piece of paper from the government can make their marriage something more than a fantasy. Two dudes can never be married, regardless of what the supreme court says.
Jesus said, “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Mark 10:6-9).
I thought it was interesting what Bojidar Marinov said about this situation today:
It is ironic to see that cop-worshippers among the church-goers in the US support Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis in her rebellion against the highest human judicial authority in the land.
It will be even more ironic when cops come to arrest her and remove her from office. What possible explanation will they have to make cops be “good” while serving illegal orders for an evil cause?
But I don’t expect cop-worshippers to change their minds. After all, after 1973, police has been the institution most committed to doggedly defending the abortion mills, not stopping before using torture, murder, and false witness against pro-lifers; and yet, cop-worshippers continue worshipping police. That’s because cop-worship is a religion, and no rational or moral – let alone Biblical – arguments can make its adherents change their minds.
“All it took was [courage] and a painters extension rod.”
This is a great way to defy local corruption–no vandalism, just standing bold.
Google or Youtube “strip search kids in school” and you will see that schools claim that they can strip search kids. I didn’t know this and it’s shocking to me. Sending your kids to school is looking more and more stupid.
The ideas of the majority of Christians that “justice doesn’t matter”, “Christians are citizens of heaven” and “Jesus is coming back any day now so don’t worry”, are wicked, unbiblical ideas that have gotten this country in the mess it’s in.
Those weren’t the beliefs of the black-robed regiment that founded this country on biblical principles. Our children are the ones who will suffer for these traitorous ideas.
Here’s a conversation/debate on theonomy. I respect the men who are against theonomy in this conversation, but they are dead wrong on this and it’s almost sad how badly they got beat in this discussion. I hope they will come to recognize their error.
How many times did Stephen ask what the standard for determining whether a law is just or unjust is? They never answered, yet they seem to be saying that the civil laws of ancient Israel are unjust. Their rejection of theonomy leads to self-refutation.
I like what Stephen said in his last comment. If theonomy is wrong that there is an absolute standard for governments, then the specific stances of theonomy become just political stances that are no better or no worse than socialism, Democrats, Republicans or Libertarians.
If theonomy is wrong, you can’t say executing adulterers is wrong, because there is no absolute right and wrong for governments.
But theonomy is awesome and it is called just and good in the New Testament. I want a just and good society for my kids and grandkids. And it’s worth it for Christians to work towards that as we are the recipients of the work of previous generations of Christians who didn’t have a defeatist worldview, but believed in a conquering King and a powerful Gospel.
Does Joe Biden not have any sense of personal space?
Jesus said, “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).
Cops are supposed to serve and protect, but that’s not the vibe I get from them anymore. They seem more like an occupying army.
This shows the contrast between Jesus’ words and the attitude of cops perfectly.
I can’t believe this cop is so timid that he feels like he had to arrest a woman standing in her front yard. No one is obligated to obey unlawful orders. You can stand in your front yard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40pf26zbvoQ
Then, there was some type of meeting regarding this incident, and the several squad cars are there issuing parking tickets. What a gay job those cops have.
https://youtu.be/bqPZxRWxxm4
I don’t understand any of the arguments I’ve heard against theonomy. If the civil law is just (and I don’t see how any Christian could argue that it’s not), then we are obligated to espouse it.
When a Muslim country cuts off a thief’s hand, only a theonomist can say that is too harsh, and offer more than just an arbitrary opinion.
Your view of theonomy appears to be simplistic. All laws reflect morality. God’s law is not divided up into three categories – moral, civil, ceremonial. Thomas Aquinas developed that view. Fact is, all laws given to man are moral. Which laws apply depend on what covenant one is in.
The universal laws that all but reprobates embrace reflect the unchanging moral code of what Paul called “the law of Christ.”
So everyone who sees God’s influence over laws is a theonomist to a degree. But only what I call extreme or hyper theonomists think Mosaic or Levitical laws ought to be enforced by current day governments. An extreme theonomist would embrace “an eye for eye” such as the Muslims practice, for that is application of the Levitical law.
A way to see the difference is to see how the Bible describes how adultery was handled under the Mosaic Covenant compared to how it is handled under the New Covenant. Adultery was punished by death under Moses; unrepentant adultery is punished by excommunication under Christ.
I guess you can call me a hyper theonomist.
Cutting off a thief’s hand is not an eye for an eye. That ‘eye for an eye’ law was meant as a guide to magistrates to make sure that the punishment fits the crime. The penalty for stealing is specifically given in the law, and anything else is not justice. What do you think the proper punishment for theft is and what is your biblical basis?
If a country passed a law saying the penalty for adultery is death, by what standard do you call that unjust? Does the New Testament say somewhere that there should not be a civil punishment?
I cited that law as an example, not to draw a parallel to the Muslim practice. My opinion for crimes against property is that the criminal ought to repay his victim. The civil government can restrict his mobility, but the thief should not be imprisoned.
I said nothing about what pagan governments may do about adultery. I mentioned the difference between what the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant taught as punishment. Civil governments are not party to the New Covenant.
Like
“My opinion for crimes against property is that the criminal ought to repay his victim.”
Opinions don’t matter. Why is your opinion better than a Satanist’s? Atheists have all sorts of moral opinions, but such opinions can be dismissed out of hand, because they reject the Lawgiver.
“I mentioned the difference between what the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant taught as punishment.”
Where in the New Covenant is the civil penalty for adultery (or any other crime) discussed?
“I said nothing about what pagan governments may do about adultery.”
That’s why I asked the question: Is it unjust for the magistrate to execute an adulterer? Do you not want to answer, or you think the New Testament is silent on the topic?
Stephen – Christians are told to work, not steal. 1 Cor 5 describes the punishment for sexual immorality, which I referenced.
You have the problem in justifying how and why the Mosaic laws should be imposed in countries other than Israel.
1 Corinthians 5 doesn’t say anything about what the civil punishment for adultery ought to be. It only says what the church ought to do. Civil government wasn’t the topic. The New Testament is silent on what civil punishments ought to be, except for endorsing the civil law of the Old Testament.
You said, “You have the problem in justifying how and why the Mosaic laws should be imposed in countries other than Israel.”
In order to answer your ‘why’, read our conversation. It’s pretty simple. The civil laws are just, therefore they are obligatory.
Theonomy is a presuppositional argument. If you reject theonomy, you no longer have a basis to judge whether laws are just. If you reject theonomy, you can’t say theonomy is wrong, because you’ve given up the only standard to evaluate God’s law. That problem has been revealed clearly in this conversation.
You don’t have an answer for why it is unjust for Muslims to cut off a thief’s hand. You can’t answer a question that the Bible answers. This is important!
But the main reason why is because the law of the Lord is perfect (Psalm 19:7). The Lord has revealed to us PERFECT laws! Doesn’t that make you excited? (I realize the implementation will never be perfect.) The New Testament also says the law was just and good (Hebrews 2:2, 1 Tim. 1:8-11).
As far as the how, it must be done by the spread of the gospel by the Holy Spirit, as it has been done in the past. If you mean which laws, it would be the civil laws that aren’t specifically related to Israel. Books have been written on this.
I think the real reason why Christians reject theonomy is because they don’t like some of God’s laws. It isn’t pleasant to think that adulterers ought to be executed. But Christians are those who believe the Bible even when it’s unpleasant.
Baptists reject theonomy because we are not under the Mosaic Covenant. I gave you 1 Cor 5 because I was comparing the people of God under the two covenants, not trying to show you the NT guidance for civil governments. Romans 13 does that. For a detailed examination of the problems with theonomy, I encoruage you to listen to this sermon: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=822151130503
@Stephen
You said:
“Where in the New Covenant is the civil penalty for adultery (or any other crime) discussed?”
Response:
To answer your first question please read the 8th chapter of the Gospel according to John. The only people in the new testament who proposed stoning an adulterer to death (which was right under the law) were self righteous pharisees. Your attitude on this thread is very similar and you should really consider that. YOU deserve to die under the law. It’s not them, it’s YOU, Stephen the transgressor. If you are born again through saving faith in Christ how can you not know these things?
3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” 6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him.
10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her,“Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
You said:
“I think the real reason why Christians reject theonomy is because they don’t like some of God’s laws. It isn’t pleasant to think that adulterers ought to be executed. But Christians are those who believe the Bible even when it’s unpleasant.”
Response:
That is because you are self righteous and puffed up in your ignorance. Jesus was the only one who was without sin and thus qualified to stone the adulteress woman yet he himself bore the wrath of God for her instead, becoming sin for her, paying the price in full. This is the new covenant, the covenant of life. The law is the ministry of death. Worldly governments and lost people are still under the law, but Christians are under grace. If your grace causes you to shout for the stoning of the adulteress rather than preaching the good news you are seriously confused. Maybe it is you that doesn’t like some of Jesus’ grace.
-Jim
Manfred,
Thanks for the conversation. I hope you will study theonomy further. Since I’ve learned about it, God has opened my eyes to many wonderful things in His law (Psalm 119:18).
Jim,
Some (like James White) believe that John 7:53-8:11 ought not be in Scripture. I don’t know if it should be or not, but it is perfectly consistent with theonomy. There were all kinds of problems with how the Pharisees handled the woman caught in adultery. It was clearly a set up for Jesus. And He certainly didn’t abolish the death penalty in anything He said. The man who also must have been caught in adultery wasn’t brought to Christ, and no witnesses came forth. The law demanded she be found innocent and be freed. Jesus applied the law perfectly (of course).
Jesus rebuked the Pharisees over and over, not for following the laws of Moses too closely, but for twisting them. Jesus upheld the death penalty for sons who reviled their parents (Mark 7:10). The first 13 verses of Mark 7 is Jesus explaining how they were pretending to follow God’s law, but had made up their own law. He held them to the standard of God’s law. He never released anyone from their obligation under the law, or said that government can now make up whatever laws it pleases.
You said, “Your attitude on this thread is very similar and you should really consider that. YOU deserve to die under the law.”
The wages of sin is death. And I deserve the eternal torture of hell apart from the blood of Christ. But that doesn’t mean that I have committed a death penalty crime under the civil law. Is it your contention that every Israelite should have been executed under their law?
I will ask the question I’ve asked to many fine Christians, and to which I have yet to receive a cogent answer. When a Muslim country cuts off a thief’s hand, is that too harsh? We all know that it is, but the real issue is whether we answer according to Scripture, or simply offer our opinion.
I think maybe my comment went to spam. Could somebody post it, or is it just gone? Thanks.
I released it from spam. It should show up. I read it. Your view of what Jesus told the Jews and your conclusion is misguided because because those people Jesus spoke to were under the Mosaic Covenant. Christian are not. It’s a simple-minded but false rule to assume everything in the OT continues unless removed in the NT. Read the epistles and the gospels – Christians are NOT under the Mosaic Covenant – that is the covenant of death (2 Cor 3).
Stephen said
“When a Muslim country cuts off a thief’s hand, is that too harsh? We all know that it is, but the real issue is whether we answer according to Scripture, or simply offer our opinion.”
Earthly governments are of this world. If earthly governments choose to cut off the hand of a thief I simply accept that they are bearing the sword against evil doers regardless of debating if the severity matches the crime. Yet we as believers are not of this world, our kingdom is not of this world, we are not under law but grace, and therefore no longer messengers of law (other than as a tutor to point men to Christ) but of grace. The problem is in your supposition. The corner stone is crooked so your whole argument follows.
Manfred,
I agree with your assessment of the Pericope Adulterae. I believe that should have been addressed to Jim as he’s the one who used it to argue against theonomy.
You said, “Read the epistles and the gospels – Christians are NOT under the Mosaic Covenant – that is the covenant of death (2 Cor 3)”
I’ve asked the question several times, but you haven’t answered: What standard do you use to determine whether a law is just?
If you could answer, it would help move the conversation forward. Clearly, you think executing adulterers is unjust. Unless you’re just offering your opinion, you must be using some absolute standard. What is it? You must believe there are contradictions between the moral laws of the Old Testament and the civil laws.
We’re talking about civil penalties, not whether an adulterer is going to heaven. They are two separate issues.
It seems to me that, like Jim, you are saying there’s no standard for judging civil laws, but the Old Testament civil laws are unjust. That is self-contradictory.
If theonomy is wrong, and there really is no standard to judge whether a law is just or unjust (as Jim seems to be saying), then theonomy is just another political position, that is just as valid as any other. You can’t call it unjust, just like you can’t call cutting off a thief’s hand unjust.
Do you see that these questions sound similar to the arguments of presuppositional apologetics? Presuppositional arguments can’t be refuted; theonomy is irrefutable. The only question is how much resistance are you going to put up before you give in to the truth. I resisted the truth for a time as well.
Jim,
You said, “Earthly governments are of this world. If earthly governments choose to cut off the hand of a thief I simply accept that they are bearing the sword against evil doers regardless of debating if the severity matches the crime.”
That’s shocking. It is the kind of absurdity that rejecting some aspect of biblical thinking leads to. God’s throne is built on righteousness AND justice (Psalm 89:14). To think that governments are free to do whatever they want is to reveal a gaping hole in your theology.
Furthermore it’s contradictory to say governments can do whatever they want, then argue vehemently that they can’t choose to follow Old Testament civil law.
Please tell me I’ve misunderstood what you’re saying.
“That’s shocking. It is the kind of absurdity that rejecting some aspect of biblical thinking leads to. God’s throne is built on righteousness AND justice (Psalm 89:14). To think that governments are free to do whatever they want is to reveal a gaping hole in your theology.”
They are as free, as God allows them, even free to crucify the Messiah. I did not say that makes them a just government, but you read everything through your little pet doctrine named theonomy.
“I’ve asked the question several times, but you haven’t answered: What standard do you use to determine whether a law is just?
If you could answer, it would help move the conversation forward. Clearly, you think executing adulterers is unjust. Unless you’re just offering your opinion, you must be using some absolute standard. What is it? You must believe there are contradictions between the moral laws of the Old Testament and the civil laws.”
Here are better and more honest questions friend:
Did Jesus die so we could take political / social dominion of this earth?
Is his kingdom of this world?
Is there anywhere in the NT are believers instructed to do anything other than pray for, pay taxes to, or submit to in matters that do not cause us to rebel against God.
While theonomist run around calling for the stoning of the adulteress (who did have two or three witnesses btw in John 8 and it IS cannonized) and trying to make america like OT Israel the real kingdom of God is passing them by. This is something that will have to be answered for at the judgment seat. Will you, a law breaker who deserves death and hell. allegedly having been forgiven by Jesus then run around calling for other law breakers to be killed and sent to hell?
The great thing about being a theonomist? You don’t even have to be born again or belong to Christ. It’s all just Pharisaical legal-theological gymnastics. Paul would have shut the mouths of such people in the early church. What a distraction to Christ and his kingdom. No different than hebrew roots really.
I heartily agree with Jim’s comment. There is a “law of Christ” that binds all man, summed up by the Lord Himself when He was asked what the greatest commandment was. He answered with a quote from Deuteronomy and one from Leviticus and declared that all of Scripture hung on these two. (He was not summarizing the Decalogue as some teach – read the text!).
ALL men will be judged by how they kept His law – not how well they implemented the laws of Moses in various cultures.
It is a fundamental flaw in biblical comprehension to assume laws given to national Israel can be applied to others; it’s even worse to assume they can be applied to Christians. The fellowship meeting in Acts 15 makes that clear.