Category Archives: Theonomy

Abolish The Police, Christianity, consistency, Conversation, For My Kids, Theonomy

This Is How You Know When Your Beliefs Are True – Conversation With a Cop Friend

So my FB friend who is a cop posted a story about how a guy fell for a trick from the cops to bring his illegal drugs to them to have them tested. The cops then stole his drugs and took him to jail, i.e. they kidnapped the guy, which is a death penalty crime for the cops. Ha Ha Ha, death penalty crimes are so funny. Here’s the conversation.

This guy posts on theological topics several times per day. He’s more than happy to discuss theology; he just doesn’t have any idea how to answer my questions, yet he kidnaps people for a living. I could see how that would cause some coping problems and some inconsistencies in thinking. He’s only a few years from retiring from his government job in his 40s, so that kind of incentive makes it hard to turn your back on the antichrist system.

The issue is that doing drugs is a sin, but not a crime. Lex Talionis is the principle of eye for an eye, tooth for tooth–the teaching that the punishment fits the crime. There is no victim for doing drugs, so no one to sue for justice. He rejects that biblical principle for the lawlessness of man’s law.

Does he heave the ability to tell whether a law is just or unjust? He rejects the biblical system that would allow Scripture to speak on such an important topic, and he can’t turn from that inadequate system because he loves money and comfort.

I realize he’s in a difficult situation. The solution isn’t to expect guys like him to repent, but to help prevent young guys from choosing an unjust career. Stop the America worship and get pastors to teach the whole counsel of God.

Christianity, Theonomy

Were the Puritans Theonomists?

Here’s Joel McDurmon answering that question, and assigning some reading.

Well, that first of all depends on how one defines “Puritan.” It also depends on exactly what you mean by “that view” of Theonomy, because both Rush and Bahnsen 1) did not fully agree with each other, and 2) left many exegetical questions vague or unanswered, which means other people (“Puritans” included) could disagree with either or both at various points as well.

Nevertheless, there is substantial agreement, in some cases almost total with Bahnsen, among some of the Westminster Divines, some of their precursors, and some of the New England Puritans.

For their primary sources, I would start with these few places:

Johannes Piscator, Disputations on the Judicial Laws of Moses.
https://americanvision.org/12386/new-piscator-on-the-judicial-laws-of-moses-1607-or-theonomy-before-theonomy-was-cool/

Disputations on the Judicial Laws of Moses
The appendix in this book lists several theologians who followed this view, which is almost identical to modern biblical Theonomy.

For New England examples, see this collection of three sermons which relate that very view, clearly influenced by Piscator, et al after him. Appleton’s sermon especially is dead-on.
https://americanvision.org/12034/gods-law-in-the-american-founding-another-brand-new-book-from-american-vision/

https://store.americanvision.org/products/gods-law-and-government-in-america

Finally, there is a terrific historical essay in a journal called The Confessional Presbyterian. The essay is on “The Westminster Assembly and the Judicial Law: Part One, Chronology.” It outlines many published views of the Divines. Some are dead-on for Bahnsen’s view. Other’s are Constantinian. Some are in between. Still others are completely dismissive of the judicial laws. There was a full spectrum of views at the assembly. I recommend this essay, but the companion essay right after it, “Part Two: Analysis” is awful.

These all should give you a great start on this question and some primary sources. There are more listed in that last essay. It may be good at some point to pull them up a reprint them, but Piscator and the New England sermons are all I have in full right now.

Border Policy, Christianity, Theonomy

Conversation With a Crazy Guy

Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time I’ve had a conversation where the person doesn’t understand a concept from Kindergarten: That which isn’t illegal is legal.  I thought this was funny at first, but by the end it just got kind of sad. Here it is.

Crazy Guy – At least support your claim. Simply stating something does not make it fact. Tell me how biblical law supports open borders.

Me – Because there is no law against people moving to ancient Israel. In fact it is desirable. You’re the one who wants to enforce unjust immigration laws written by Ted Kennedy.

Crazy Guy – Welcoming strangers does not equate to allowing the free-flow of immigrants – the notion is ridiculous.

1 Timothy 5:8 ESV
But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Open borders are, without a doubt, counter-intuitive to this verse – fullstop.

Numbers 20:14-21 reports:

“Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom: ‘Thus says your brother Israel … here we are in Kadesh, a city on the edge of your territory. Please let us pass through your land. We will not pass through field or vineyard, or drink water from a well. We will go along the King’s Highway. We will not turn aside to the right hand or to the left until we have passed through your territory.’ But Edom said to him, ‘You shall not pass through, lest I come out with the sword against you.’ And the people of Israel said to him, ‘We will go up by the highway, and if we drink of your water, I and my livestock, then I will pay for it. Let me only pass through on foot, nothing more.’ But he said, ‘You shall not pass through.’ And Edom came out against them with a large army and with a strong force. Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his territory, so Israel turned away from him.”

Me – Edom is a pagan nation that had the laws of men. I guess it’s fitting that you’re using Edom’s pagan border policies to defend Ted Kennedy’s socialist border policies. 1 Timothy 5:8 has nothing to do with border policy.

There was no law against immigrating to Israel. God’s law defines justice. Your choice is between the law of God and the arbitrary, unjust laws of men.

Crazy Guy – Prove it.

Me – Prove what? If something isn’t illegal, it’s legal. If it’s illegal, show me, and I will repent. This is really quite simple.

Crazy Guy – Prove to me there were no immigration laws in ancient Israel. I will await your quotes from The Bible which proves this.

Also, just because the Bible speaks of welcoming strangers, it does not mean they were openly allowed in without restriction.

Me – This would all be discovered by you reading Scripture.

Crazy Guy – I’ve read it, multiple times, in Armenian and English. Now, if you could substantiate your claims that would be much appreciated. If you can’t, we will end the conversation here.

Me – How can I show you something that doesn’t exist?

Crazy Guy – If it doesn’t exist, how can you make a claim?

Me – A prohibition on immigrating to Israel doesn’t exist. Therefore, there is freedom to move to Israel.

This is one of the funniest conversations I’ve had in a while.

Crazy Guy – Wrong. Just because something specific was not written in the Bible, does not mean it DOESN’T exist.

You make claims based on something NOT written, rather than something written. What a joke.

The Bible is basically void of Jesus’ younger years, so using you logic it would mean those years didn’t exist.

Me – The law of the Lord is perfect (Psalm 19:7). I’m sorry you don’t like what it says.

Crazy Guy – Exodus 34:24

“For I will drive out nations before you and ENLARGE YOUR BORDERS, and no man shall covet your land when you go up three times a year to appear before the LORD your God.”

I guess God is following the Devil, too? If there is no need for borders, why did God promise to enlarge them? If there is no need for borders, why would God secure control of land to a certain person or group?

Me – Borders are to limit governments. Not to prevent the free movement of people. Thanks for the conversation. I have to get going.

Crazy Guy – Where is this law you claim to exist? If it is not written, it must not exist. You cannot substantiate you claim, and you therefor run from providing an answer.

Christianity, Conversation, Reject Socialism, Taxation, Theonomy

Property Tax is Theft

So there are at least two tax hikes on the ballot for Canon City. One is a property tax increase for the school district…for the children. I’ve posed this objection several times, and no one has answered yet, because there is no rational answer. Here’s the objection, and the response of someone who is normally reasonable, logical and successful in life.

His response is that voting gives the government the ability to steal. I don’t know whether voting turns stealing into not stealing, or just means that government can steal. But what a silly answer. Clearly this is a religious view for him. He thinks there is some sort of magic that takes place at an election that causes property tax to be acceptable.

Pastors need to be talking about this from the pulpit. There is stupidity in America, because pastors are not doing their job. They’re not preaching against covetousness and theft, or explaining that the government is accountable to the law of God.

The second tax hike is a lodging tax, and someone went around and put up an obscene number of bandit signs around town. The slogan on the signs says, “The tax someone else pays.” I hope there is a pastor in this town that points out the obvious violation of the golden rule being promoted on those signs to every man, woman and child in this town, but I’m not holding my breath.

Christianity, Theonomy

Woe to Those Who Call Tyranny Freedom

Isaiah 5:20: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”

Woe to those who call evil good. I see three possibilities for people who are calling evil good.

  1. Deception. They do it because they know they’re evil people and they’re trying to trick you.
  2. Perversion. They think they’re right and good but they are incorrect.
  3. Ignorance. They don’t know what is good and evil, and they are well-intentioned, but wrong. This is the category many Christians are in without knowing it.

It’s kind of a fine line between category 2 and 3.

The point is that there are many conservatives and Christians praising this country saying this is a free country. What they’re doing is calling tyranny freedom and freedom tyranny. Woe to them.

Freedom and liberty are good things. They are a result of God’s law and God wants them for us (assuming He’s not pouring out His wrath). James 1:25 calls God’s law the perfect law of liberty! I’m proud of God’s law. Jesus said the truth will set you free (John 8:32)! If that doesn’t get you excited, I don’t know what will. Let’s go build a free country!

Christians are the only ones who can do it. Everything else is a failed worldview that leads to the tyranny of rule by man’s law. The choice is theonomy or autonomy (God’s law or self law).

Continuing to call this a free country at this point shows that you are ignorant of the teaching of God’s law. You’re willing to call bitter sweet and light darkness. You don’t know your right hand from your left. How do you rectify this fearful situation? Study the perfect law of liberty.

When I say this isn’t a free country, does that mean this isn’t the freest country? Generally, that is the argument from someone when someone says this isn’t a free country. They’ll say, “Well then why don’t you move to another country?” That is a terrible argument.

I don’t know if this is the freest country or not. But the standard isn’t other countries. The standard is the perfect law of liberty. Liberty and freedom are absolutes under God’s law just like good and evil, justice, truth and the laws of logic.

So start comparing what you see in America to God’s law–not to Mexico or Norway. Mature Christians are to be discerning good and evil, right and wrong, freedom and tyranny (Hebrews 5:14). Whatever you do, don’t be calling good evil or freedom tyranny.

Basic Economics, Capitalism, Christianity, Economics 101, Theonomy

Ann Coulter’s Marxist Line of Thought

Ann Coulter said, “You want a higher minimum wage? Turn off the spigot of low-wage workers pouring into the U.S. and it will rise on its own through the iron law of supply and demand.”

That quote is self-contradictory. If Ann is so concerned about obeying the iron law of supply and demand, why does she still want government interference in the free market? Who is going to turn off the spigot of low-wage workers? Government, of course (cops to be exact). She’s fine with them interfering with the market in that way, but doesn’t want them interfering with the market to raise the minimum wage.

We need a higher level of thinking among conservatives. We need pastors to step up and teach what the Bible teaches on these things. The law of God is a firm foundation for capitalism.

Don’t pretend to be a constitution-loving, free-market, small-government conservative if you support government harassment of non-criminal individuals crossing the border. You’re a Marxist who wants government control of the labor market. You’re just as bad as Bernie Sanders. With conservatives like Ann, who needs liberals?

You have to listen to this short podcast on this topic for a refreshing dose of liberty and capitalism based on Scripture.

Capitalism, Christianity, Taxation, Theonomy

Thou Shalt Not Covet a Community Center

A group of people are pursuing the idea of a community center in Canon City.

Good for them. Build a community center. Make a boatload of money off of it. Whatever you do, don’t try to fund it with stolen money.

People can build whatever they want. It’s good to build things that are well-run and serve other people. Profit is a measure of how well you have served others. Christians should be the best at turning a profit, because they should be the best at serving others.

However, I have a sneaking suspicion that those who are pursuing this idea would be wanting to raise taxes to pay for it. If that is the case, they will be stealing money from some who have no intention of using the facility to subsidize reasonable prices for those who will use it. Taxation is taking money from people by threats of force. Theft is taking money from people by threats of force.

There is no magical ceremony that can change theft into not theft. Getting 50% plus one to vote in favor of a tax increase isn’t the magical ceremony that makes taxation any less violent.

Covetousness leads to theft, and if these people covet a community center, they are in sin. Voting for any tax increase is to violate the Tenth Commandment.

 

 

Abolish The Police, Police Abuse, Power Trip, Resistance to Tyranny is Obedience to God, Theonomy

Interesting Comment

I came across a comment on Facebook that got me thinking. It’s from an anarchocapitalist:

The idea is not to dismantle the U.S. government. The idea is to teach people a system of morality that is universal; that “don’t steal” and “don’t kill” applies to everybody. Once people everywhere, all over the world, understand this basic concept and would cringe at the idea of ruling, taxation and war then all governments will dissolve on their own. Spreading anarchism is a bottom up approach not a top down one.

The part where he says, “The idea is to teach people a system of morality that is universal; that “don’t Steal” and “don’t kill” applies to everybody.” caught me. That is a very good summation of the Great Commission.

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20).

Jesus said to teach the nations to observe all that He has commanded. The anarchist says we need to teach people universal morality, and even mentions two of the Ten Commandments. I don’t know if he’s a Christian or not, but universal morality can only come from the God of the Bible.

The job of Christians is to teach the nations all the He’s commanded, but we have done such a terrible job of that. Our problem seems to be four fold:

  1. Christians seem to root for the Republican regardless of how far from the Bible  he is.
  2. The commands of Christ are equally applicable to individuals as to the government, but rather than apply biblical morality to government, we twist Romans 13 to teach that we should obey whatever evil command government comes up with. Government becomes the law giver, and we end up with no king but Caesar.
  3. Pastors warp Romans 13 to teach that we should obey government almost no matter what, when in reality, Romans 13 is dynamite laid at the foundation of tyrannical government.
  4. The antinomian bias of American Christianity means many of us don’t even know what right and wrong is. How can the world know what universal morality Christ has commanded if Christians don’t even know? It’s our job to teach it, but we have to know it before we can teach it.

This reminds me of what Bojidar Marinov said. He’s speaking specifically of police, but it applies to all areas of tyrannical government:

“Every single positive change in history starts with change in our hearts, and change in the pulpit. Which means, concerning the standing occupying army of police, we need to first change our hearts and trust God that maintaining a social order is not the same as having a standing army for terrorizing the population. Then we need to purge the pulpits of any preacher who supports the existence of police, or the existence of any other tyranny. At the very least, do not support with your money pulpits which support tyranny.”

I’m ashamed to say it, but I believe Christians are to blame for the tyranny we are suffering under, because we are no longer preaching biblical morality. We need to do better.

Abolish The Police, Police Abuse, Power Trip, Theonomy

Not Everyone Is Fully Human, Right?

How many jokes have you heard about dropping the soap in the jailhouse shower? I’ve heard many, and often they’re told by people who are making the point that if someone breaks a law, they deserve whatever they get. If you don’t want to suffer homosexual rape in jail/prison, don’t commit the crime. However, being sodomized is not a just punishment for any crime.

This is so important that I don’t see how Christians are not all over it. Justice is an absolute. Absolutes come only from God. It’s impossible to speak of justice apart from the absolute standard of justice provided in God’s law. Anytime someone utters something about justice, they’re demonstrating that they’re created in God’s image.

Christians can know what justice is. How is this not a huge selling point for Christianity? How are we not proclaiming justice from the rooftops? But not only are most Christians not giving the life-giving solutions found in God’s laws to our dying society, we join in with non-Christians in misunderstanding and mocking Old Testament laws.

I don’t know Fremont County Sheriff Jim Beicker personally, though I believe he is a regular church-goer. He is accused of covering up the abuse and death of an inmate in his jail. Those who say that criminals get whatever they deserve, probably love Beicker all the more.

However, the punishment for whatever crime this inmate received was not the death penalty, or medical malpractice, or whatever. It is the job of the sheriff to keep inmates alive and safe while depriving them of their freedom.

Of course, it is possible that the just sentence for whatever crime this guy committed was the death penalty. The Bible gives the death penalty to murderers, adulterers, kidnappers, rapists, blasphemers, and those who revile their parents. If he wasn’t convicted of any of those crimes the proper course of action for the civil magistrate is to make him perform restitution.

Whatever crime he committed, he was treated as if he was subhuman, and a Christian like Beicker is supposed to treat everyone, even convicted criminals like they’re created in God’s image.

We all have God’s law written on our hearts, and this terrible situation is an opportunity for Christians to pluck those strings on their hearts to convict the local civil magistrates, and show them what they ought to be doing, and what God expects of them.

Christianity, Taxation, Theonomy

Answers to Larken Rose’s Questions

Larken Rose is an anarchocapitalist who posed these questions to someone who is opposed to anarchism. I’d like to answer his questions from a Christian theonomist perspective.

I have learned a lot from anarchocapitalists, and Larken in particular makes a lot of good points. I’d agree wholeheartedly with much of what anarchists say, but I think they don’t have a philosophical foundation for their system (which only Christianity can provide), though I love to see them ripping our current system to shreds.

So here are his five questions. I’ll put his writing in italics and answer the question just below each question.

1) Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?
No human can delegate any moral rights. However, absolute morality, which Larken appeals to even though he’s not a Christian, can only come from God’s law. Part of God’s law specifies that there is one purpose and only one purpose for government: to punish evildoers. So there is a group of people (which would be a tiny fraction of the size of our current government) who do have the right to preside over trials and aid the people in carrying out justice.
I’m still trying to figure out what anarchists believe about how to punish criminals, so I don’t want to misrepresent what they believe, but I think there are some anarchists who would agree with that preceding paragraph.
To pick on the non-Christian viewpoint a little, Larken says that moral rights can’t be delegated, but why not? It seems to me that apart from God’s definition of good and evil, whoever has the most guns gets to define morality however they want. He might say that we learn right from wrong by Kindergarten, and I’d say that is because we’re created in God’s image. So he’s resting his whole view on blind faith that we all seem to know right from wrong, when there can be no such thing as absolute morality apart from Christianity.
2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?
As previously stated, judges have the right to preside over a trial and sentence someone to the proper, just punishment. The kings in Israel were not to wield executive power or to establish an army, but were the supreme judge of the land.

3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?

No. This is a good point. I tried to express this to people in my community who supported the sales tax hike for roads last November. It was often like talking to a brick wall.
4) When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?
Absolutely. God is no respecter of persons.

5) When there is a conflict between an individual’s own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to “obey the law”?

God’s law is the standard by which all other laws are to be judged. A law that contradicts God’s law doesn’t need to be obeyed. However, I’m sure Larken would agree that some battles aren’t worth fighting, or are too costly to fight. I think that even though the income tax laws amount to theft, I ought to pay them, because I have a responsibility to be with my family if I’m able. I pay the thief, because he has a gun to my head–not because I have a moral responsibility to pay.