I think this person hasn’t debated theonomy before, or thought much about these issues, but it is still an interesting discussion.

This person is a dispensationalist. I will admit I haven’t studied much about covenant theology, but the one thing I know is that dispensationalism is preposterous.

Rainy Day said:

I just sold my condo couple weeks ago. do I still have a right to that condo? No! In the beginning when God chose Abraham, the father of the Jews, he wanted a peculiar people to himself. He was their God, until they rebelled in the wilderness under Moses leadership. This is called the OT dispensation. the new dispensation is called grace. One of the scholar asked Jesus at one time, what is the greatest law among all the laws in the OT. Jesus said there are only 2, and on these two hang all the laws and prophets.

Moses laws: there were 10.

Jesus laws: Only 2.
1. you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and might.
2. you shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Hey, but check out Moses laws, and compare to Jesus laws, aren’t they the same? first 5 has to do with God, the last five has to do with men. Paul, John, James called them “royal laws”. the book of Leviticus is full of “laws”, call them civil or whatever. but the BIG TEN are called “moral laws”. these applies to every creature living in Gods universe!

If God were to run America today, we would end up just like the Jews, REBELLED!! rebelled because His laws were too restrictive, that is why God rewrote another contract and gave it to Jesus to sign it with His blood, its called GRACE(God’s Riches At Christ Expense)!

Loving God and obeying His moral laws is by choice. You have a choice to love God or reject Him. He is not holding a gun to your head!!

—————————————-

I said:

We are saved by grace through faith, and not of works. Yet, we still live under thousands of federal, state and local laws. What do these civil laws (mostly unjust) have to do with my salvation? If anything, they cause people to sin and hinder people from getting saved. Wouldn’t it be better to have perfect laws?

Concerning Jesus’ two laws, they were a summary of the law, and He was quoting Deut. 6 & Leviticus 19. To summarize something isn’t to replace the thing you’re summarizing, but to express it simply.

Also, the civil laws of Moses were case laws of the Ten Commandments–an explanation of them. If you want a thorough understanding of “You shall not murder,” read the case laws. How should murder be punished? If someone is killed accidentally, what should happen? If two men are fighting and one dies, is the guy guilty of murder? And many more questions.

We can have man’s laws, or we can have God’s laws.

—————————————-

Rainy Day said:

I was trying to say simply that we are no longer under the old covenant, but under the new covenant. It’s all there in the book of Hebrews. the ten commandments which include, thou shalt not kill are called “God’s Royal laws(the big ten) which Jesus indeed simplified them when He said, there are only two laws, love God and love your neighbor. Man’s laws are Gods laws, and we are commanded by Paul of Tarsus to follow them too because they are the law of the land put there by God!

—————————————-

I said:

Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:17-19).

We are under a new covenant for our salvation. But the law is an expression of God’s character. To ignore it (if that’s what you’re saying) is to miss the point. It is still valuable.

Your surface-level interpretation of Romans 13:1-7 contradicts the rest of Scripture. When Paul was executed was Rome acting as an “avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil”?

—————————————-

Rainy Day said:

Yes, I know. so what do you do with these verses in Hebrews?
1. Hebrews 4:9,
2. Hebrews 8, the whole chapter explains in detail what Jesus sacrifice means. When Jesus was talking in the verses you mentioned above, he was talking before His crucifixion! a sacrifice once and for all! Christians are confused because they don’t understand covenants! When He said, “it is finished”, it means its done! A peace treaty thats based on his blood which is more valuable than animals blood. The blood not only forgives sins, it also restores whatever we lost in the garden of eden because of adam choice! the grace dispensation is so much better than the law dispensation.

—————————————-

I said:

If a cop pulls you over for speeding, do you tell him you don’t have to pay the ticket because you’re under grace? We’re not talking about salvation. We’re talking about the laws of the land. Do you prefer God’s law or man’s law?

—————————————-

Here’s a little more analysis of the discussion on theonomy from the other day.

I initially asked about their claim that the death penalty for bestiality was unjust, and in his first comment, C Jay said, “And the Bible, properly interpreted, does not give permission to anyone to execute capital punishment except in the case of murder per the Noahic Covenant.”

Here’s Genesis 9:5-6, the relevant portion of the Noahic covenant to which he is referring, “And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.”

But is this passage teaching that the death penalty is only to be used for murder? It specifies the death penalty for murder, but specifies no penalty for anything else. If you’re going to take this to say that only murderers should receive the death penalty, then you have to say that the government shouldn’t punish any other crime, including rape and kidnapping.

That is certainly not what Genesis 9 is teaching, but C Jay never responds to the objection that that is where his logic leads. Here is why C Jay’s is wrong that the death penalty is prohibited by the Noahic Covenant (except for murder):

1. The doctrine of bloodguiltiness.
2. The Mosaic civil law wasn’t given to only the Israelites.
3. The Noahic covenant isn’t called law.

Bloodguiltiness

In Genesis 4, Cain murders Abel, and Abel’s innocent blood has a voice that calls out to the Lord (Genesis 4:10). God is aware of every drop of innocent blood that is shed, and He will account for it, as He says in Genesis 9. This is called the doctrine of bloodguiltiness.

And later in history, the Lord reveals that murder isn’t the only crime that causes bloodguiltiness. In Leviticus 20:10-16, several different sexual sins are listed, including bestiality and homosexuality. For each of the sexual sins listed it says, “their blood is upon them.” These sexual sins don’t involve the shedding of blood, yet there is bloodguilt in the sin, so the death penalty is pronounced for each one. Is bloodguilt something that comes and goes with covenants? Certainly not.

The Law Wasn’t Given to Only The Israelites

Saying that the law was only given to the Israelites is a point that also fizzles under more scrutiny. Leviticus 20:23 says, “And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them.” The Canaanites that lived in Israel’s land before them suffered the death penalty at the hand of the Israelites for all the sins listed in that chapter, including the sexual sins. The Lord expected them to be sexually pure. There are other examples of other nations adopting or being held accountable to Israel’s law.

The Noahic Prohibition of Murder Isn’t Called Law

Romans 5:13-14 says that there was no law until Moses. That would preclude the Noahic covenant as offering a law. The rest of Scripture never calls the laws of any other country law. It often refers to their lawlessness–even nations that prided themselves on their laws, like the Romans. Check out this excellent article on that topic.

Conclusion

It is wishful thinking to believe that the Noahic covenant prohibits the death penalty for all but murder. Genesis 9 is only nine chapters into the Bible. The Lord, starting in the next book of the Torah, reveals a perfect and just civil law. If you reject it, there is no standard of justice to call any civil law just or unjust. C Jay (and none of the others I’ve ever asked these questions of) ever answered my questions about justice, because there are no answers. C Jay refused to discuss those questions, claiming that his covenant theology dictates that theonomy is wrong.

Well, if there’s one thing I know, it’s that theonomy is true, and C Jay never provided one valid argument against it. So if your other theology dictates that theonomy is wrong, either your other theology is wrong, or you’ve misapplied it.

It seems this simple question can not be answered by non-theonomists: When Muslims cut off a thief’s hand, is that unjust?

The Bible provides the proper punishment for stealing, homosexuality, murder, kidnapping, adultery, etc. I would guess that most Christians like the biblical punishment for stealing. The problem is if they accept that, they have no basis for rejecting the punishment for adultery and homosexuality, which they don’t like.

These guys put up a lot of barriers to discussing theonomy, but we had a fairly long discussion, until it just became apparent they have no answer for my objection, and now they won’t even post my last comment. I’m sure they’re nice guys, and we’d probably agree on a large percentage of laws, it’s just that they arrive at them for a different reason.

They claim to have a biblical basis for rejecting theonomy, but it seems more like smoke and mirrors to me.

Here’s my argument:

1. Theonomic laws are just.
2. Just laws ought to be the laws of the land. (He agreed to this one.)

The problem is that there is no basis for rejecting the first point if you reject theonomy. Non-theonomist Christians may be able to eliminate a lot of unjust laws, but ultimately, there’s no way of knowing what sins ought to be civilly punished, or how, without the only place in the Bible that explains it.

Their defense against theonomy is that Baptists have a different covenant. I think I cut through that when he agreed that just laws ought to be the law of the land. The only argument left is how to determine whether a law is just or not, which as you’ll see they never responded to my many questions about that.

If they have an answer for my simple question, why don’t they give it? What is their absolute standard of justice? The guy wrote 6 comments and never got around to gracing me with his explanation.

Here’s the discussion:

• 

  Sorry Bill. I had approved it but do not see it either. Don’t know what happened.

  The Bible is the absolute standard of justice. And the Bible, properly interpreted, does not give permission to anyone to execute capital punishment except in the case of murder per the Noahic Covenant. The exception to this was during the Israelite theocracy, but since the civil law was abrogated with the covenant, we cannot use it as the basis for our present situation. Thus, we must lean on the Noahic Covenant since the world is still under that one.

  

  Where does the Noahic covenant specify the penalty for theft, rape, kidnapping, etc.?
  • 

    It doesn’t. You’re obviously trying to make a bigger point, namely, that unless the Bible tells us exactly what civil law code we ought to have today, we can’t have any justification of criminal prosecution. But in any case, I can’t categorically adhere to your theonomic conclusions because, as per the above essay, I reject your formulation of Covenant Theology on which theonomy depends.

    • 

      You’re making it too complex. The civil law is obligatory because it is perfect and just. If we’re free to choose whatever laws we want (even if you wanted to constrain it by the moral law), why can’t we choose Old Testament civil laws? If you reject theonomy, you no longer have an absolute standard for justice. You don’t know what justice is for any crime except murder.

      

      Correctly exegeting Scripture is “making it too complex” for theonomists.
      

      I’m not making anything complex. I believe that the Mosaic Civil law was provided under the Covenant that was given to national Israel. This Covenant has been abrogated. Therefore, the Civil Law given to national Israel has been abrogated. Simple.

      No everything that is perfect and just is obligatory. For instance, God’s command to Abraham that he kill his son was perfectly just. But it is not obligatory for people who are not Abraham. Were God’s dietary laws just or unjust? If just, are they obligatory (of course, we’d both answer no)? If unjust, how can a just God give an unjust command? Similarly, just because God’s civil law was just does not mean it is obligatory for people to whom it has not been given.

      (I should also point out that the Covenant under which the Civil Law was given was in fact *imperfect* and thus needed to be replaced by a Covenant that was perfect. But that is a reference to the Covenant, not the Civil Law itself, so I won’t press that secondary point home.).

      “why can’t we choose Old Testament civil laws?” You can. No one is stopping you or the other theonomists from voluntarily agreeing to a covenant in which such laws are enforced. We only reject the idea that they are obligated to be forced on all of society who dissents (such as us Baptists). But yes, we libertarians certainly would let you build such a community just like we’d let a group of idealist socialists build a covenant community based on the community ownership of property as long as every member voluntarily agrees to be there (please don’t interpret me to be saying socialists and theonomists are similar!)

      “If you reject theonomy, you no longer have an absolute standard for justice.” Translation: if you do not interpret the Civil Law as I do, you must obviously not be using the Bible to build a case for justice. In which case, I don’t really have a response except, okay.
      

      You said, “No one is stopping you or the other theonomists from voluntarily agreeing to a covenant in which such laws are enforced.”

      I would contend that is what the early colonists did. Those who executed Thomas Granger were carrying out theonomy. Yet you have called his execution unjust. Do you believe Christians are free to enforce unjust laws?

      1. If I have to choose between a just law, and an unjust law, which should I (as a Baptist) choose?

      2. You said, “Translation: if you do not interpret the Civil Law as I do, you must obviously not be using the Bible to build a case for justice. In which case, I don’t really have a response except, okay.”

      You keep saying you have an absolute standard for justice. I’ve yet to hear any specifics except that you think those who shed blood ought to be executed. What is the just penalty for rape? When Muslims cut off a thief’s hand, is that just? Do you differentiate between accidental homicide and murder, and on what basis?

      

      “I would contend that is what the early colonists did.” No, Granger did not voluntarily agree to these rules. If he did, I will change my opinion about the justness of the situation.

      “Do you believe Christians are free to enforce unjust laws?” No.

      1. You should choose a just law.
      2. You are missing the entire point, which is what I previously stated. I am denying your presumption “that unless the Bible tells us exactly what civil law code we ought to have today, we can’t have any justification of criminal prosecution.” If you want specifics, we can look into that, but first you have to understand my approach. Especially, you have to understand that someone’s inability to come up with a just system does in no way make a positive proof of theonomy. Since the present context is about theonomy I would encourage you to stick with that. My view that the abrogation of the Mosaic Covenant renders the Civil Law abrogated and thus, there is no specific law code that God demands of nations today. Like Calvin said, each nation is free to initiate laws that are appropriate for its specific context (I agree with the general approach of this, though I have my own modifications and clarities to add) precisely because there is no modern national Israel. National Israel pointed to the church in a type/antitype way. Your disapproval of this does not prove theonomy. Which is what the present post should be about. The specifics of laws is a different conversation.

      • 

        “Granger did not voluntarily agree to these rules.”

        I don’t see how someone agreeing to certain laws makes an unjust law enforceable. At best, it would mean that he committed suicide, and the people who helped/forced him to commit suicide are guilty of murder.

        You said, “Like Calvin said, each nation is free to initiate laws that are appropriate for its specific context (I agree with the general approach of this, though I have my own modifications and clarities to add) precisely because there is no modern national Israel.”

        I’ve kept asking for your absolute standard of justice, and this appears to be it. Justice is whatever is “appropriate for its specific context.” Maybe you can see why I’m not impressed with the absoluteness of your absolute standard of justice.

        You have no basis for saying that the death penalty for bestiality is unjust. The Noahic covenant is silent on that. You have no basis for saying Muslims cutting off a thief’s hand is unjust, or that the death penalty for adultery, rape or homosexuality is unjust.

        You have no basis for saying whether theonomy is good or bad– just that it doesn’t line up with your personal opinion. You need to repent of you false personal opinions.

        • 

          Im having a hard time Bill because you are not following my arguments at all. The reason I pointed out that Granger did not voluntarily agree to these rules is because you asked me what was wrong with building a community in which theonomy was *chosen* to be the rule of the land. I said if such rules were voluntarily agreed to, i’d have no problem (because my only argument is that theonomy is not obligatory). You said that the Puritan societies were indeed voluntarily. I disagreed by expressing my understanding that Granger did not voluntarily agree.

          As for Calvin, again you are not following my point. My point there is not that kings can do whatever they want. My point is clearly that, like Calvin, I believe that Israel Civil laws are not obligatory and binding on nations today. They may borrow from these laws, adopt them, or learn from their principles, but God does not treat the modern nation like he did national Israel. That is the extent to my citing Calvin. I don’t even agree with Calvin’s views of an ideal civil order, preferring instead the much more “libertarian” approach of the later English dissenters and especially the New England Reformed Baptists

          I haven’t even mentioned or argued yet my “absoluteness of your absolute standard of justice.” I keep trying to help you realize that I am merely, in the present context, explaining why I cannot adhere to the theonomic system. So you can come back at me all day about how I haven’t impressed you with my case yet, and my response will always be: “I know. That’s because I haven’t explained it yet. The context of our conversation is why I am not a theonomist.” I am making a negative case *against *theonomy,* not a positive case *for* libertarianism.

          “You have no basis for saying whether theonomy is good or bad– just that it doesn’t line up with your personal opinion.” Actually, and contrarily (perhaps you didn’t read the above essay and the links posted at the end), I have explained time and again that my basis for rejecting theonomy is exegetical. Your blaming it on “my opinion” indicates to me that you have no willingness to engage in a meaningful dialogue.

          “You need to repent of you false personal opinions.” I will repent when I am convinced A) that my understanding of Covenant Theology and the nature of the Kingdom of Heaven is wrong; and B) that someone else’s understanding of these things is correct. Until then, I see no need to repent, because I believe that I have understood the Bible correctly (that’s why I believe it.). You and I have our differences of understanding of the nature of certain exegetical conclusions, but it is unhelpful to demand my repentance until I first see where I err. And to be clear, since there are a variety of differing views on Covenant Theology in the Reformed tradition, your command that I repent could just as well be applied to anyone else in the Reformed world with whom you disagree.

          

          Yes. I’m having a difficult time following you. It seems you have contradicted yourself repeatedly. Clearly I’m missing something.

          If I moved into a HOA where the covenants said the death penalty was required for someone who painted their house the wrong color, would it be acceptable as a Christian for me to submit to the death penalty, or for one of my neighbors to carry out the death penalty? If it’s not acceptable, why would it be acceptable for someone to submit to the death penalty for bestiality in a theonomic society?

          As far as all the links and the pages of documents you’ve written, it seems like obfuscation. I’ve tried to converse with you about several specific, concrete examples, and I can’t get you to commit to anything.

          

          Time to move on. Bill, you have not addressed a single argument in this post. You, like most theonomists, insist that theonomy must be true a priori, regardless of what Scripture says. You presuppose theonomy, not Scripture.

          Not having a standard of justice for modern nations today does not thereby make theonomy true. That’s a logical fallacy that Van Tillians are fond of.

          Of course I do believe Scripture provides us with a standard of justice (lex talionis, of which Gen 9:6 is an example), but the present issue is whether the civil laws of Israel continue to bind all nations, not whether Scripture provides us with a standard of justice.

          

          “I’ve tried to converse with you about several specific, concrete examples, and I can’t get you to commit to anything.” —Do you understand that there are two different issues here (1: whether theonomy is biblically justified and 2: what “my standard of justice is”)? You seem to be pressing me to answer 2, but I am trying to explain why I disagree with you on 1.

          Hence the talking past each other. I cannot be a theonomist, regardless of my own political theory. My understanding of covenants and kingdoms don’t let me. If you want to ask me about why I am a libertarian, I suggest you do so via email or in another comment section where the context calls for it.

          As for Granger, did or did not Granger agree that he should be executed before he committed his action? You said it was a voluntary set of laws. Can you prove this?

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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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?

4. 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

5. “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?

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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

9. @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

10. 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.

11. I think maybe my comment went to spam. Could somebody post it, or is it just gone? Thanks.

12. 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).

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. “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.

16. 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.

     

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.