Category Archives: Theonomy

Abolish The Police, Christianity, Theonomy

I Found a Better Rush

I grew up listening to Rush Limbaugh. I learned a lot from him. The issue I see now, is that he talks about freedom and limited government, but doesn’t call for the end of public school and Social Security, etc. He doesn’t make any mention of the Bible’s teaching on these subjects. But pastors don’t either.

R.J. Rushdoony (the better Rush) figured out what the Bible teaches on so many topics of life, and wrote tons of books. I’ve thought about some of what he’s saying here, and it’s good to know I’m not the first Christian to ever think about these things. There were probably thousands of Christians in the early church, and then Rush and then me. Here’s the quote referring  to early Christians, and their employment under Caesar:

As Christ’s servants or slaves, bought with a price, they could not voluntarily enslave themselves to men.

As a result, while Christians could be office-bearers under Caesar, they were servants of Christ alone. They could not, unlike modern office-bearers, see themselves as servants of the people, or servants of the state. They were Christ’s servants, “bought with a price.”

The early church had serious weaknesses which far surpass those of the church today, but its strength was far greater. There was a reason for this. First as Williams has pointed out, the faithful were a community, and a responsible community. Second, the early church was aware of its conflict with the world; now, there is little sense of conflict. It would not occur to a church, its officers, or its members today to raise such questions as these: Is a judge who does not challenge the humanistic law which is taking over our country faithful to Christ? Is he the servant of the people, or the state, or is he Christ’s servant? Is a union member who does not work against the humanistic and coercive tactics of the unions faithful to the Lord? Can employers and workers disregard Ephesians 6:5-9 and be counted as godly? We do not yet accept pimps and prostitutes into church membership, but can we legitimately accept antinomians who assume that a verbal profession of faith can replace a disavowal of Christ in their works?

Abolish The Police, Police Abuse, Power Trip, Theonomy

More Stupidity

Below is a post from a Christian on Facebook. I have responded to one of his post’s in the past.

copworship

This guy is essentially presenting an argument that goes like this:
1. Traffic stops are dangerous.
2. Therefore cops are entitled to treat everyone as dangerous during a traffic stop.

I deny that traffic stops are that dangerous. People are occasionally shot whether they’re cops or not. Stringing together a video of violent traffic stops and posting it on Youtube isn’t statistical evidence, though it can be persuasive. Police don’t have a dangerous job. They ranked as the fifteenth most dangerous job in 2013 between grounds maintenance workers and painters. I’ve never seen a memorial to fallen grounds crew members, but clearly, there ought to be one.

Obviously, if traffic stops aren’t that dangerous, the conclusion of his argument doesn’t work either. But, even if I were to concede that his first point is correct, the second point doesn’t necessarily follow. Maybe there are better solutions to dangerous traffic stops.

The manufacturer of my car has determined the best type of oil for the engine, and specified that in the owner’s manual. If I put in something other than what they’ve specified, I’m risking suboptimal performance, or even ruining the engine. If I put in water, I don’t know how far I’d make it down the road, but not very far.

God knows human beings even better than my manufacturer knows my engine. God defines right and wrong, just and unjust. The existence of police (at least in their current form) is illegal under God’s law. They are tantamount to putting water in an engine instead of oil. Who knows what all the bad effects will be, but cops being shot during traffic stops isn’t the only one.

But rather than my Christian friend calling for the biblical solution, he’s saying that we need to put more water in the engine–saying cops need to be tougher and more suspicious of everyone.

I don’t know this guy too well, but from what I know he is a nice guy, and a devoted Christian. But, the pulpits have failed miserably in that Christians can go on thinking like this. Who defines good and evil? Here’s a news flash: Ruth Bader Ginsburg does not define good and evil. I think American Christians are having a terrible confusion about what is good and what is evil.

Theonomy

Don’t Yank on the Chain If You Don’t Know What It’s Connected To!

This article talks about how the German people are wondering about whether the Muslims converting to Christianity are genuine.

bm

Bojidar Marinov said the following in response:

In other words, one bad idea leads to another, and all of them together lead to more statism. People ask for the government to control the movement of people (a bad idea), but then realize that this leads to injustice and cruelty to Christians in the Middle East. Then they try to mitigate this by calling for the government to stop only Muslims (another bad idea), even though they have read multiple articles explaining that Muslims have no problem parading as “Christians,” and then they see Muslims getting baptized in droves. Now, since no one is sure if these conversions are real, the next step is to get the government to decide if they are sincere or not (another bad idea). Step by step, somewhere down the road, because we have been manipulated by irrational fears, we will let the government decide for us if we really are Christians or not, and what does it take to be a Christian.

Christianity, Theonomy

Practical Christianity

The Bible applies to every area of life, though you wouldn’t know it if your only source of information is modern American Christianity. Someone asked Bojidar Marinov if there is a systematic theology book that discusses economics. Below is his answer.

bm

Any area of practical study and application is deadly to anti-Theonomists, for it exposes their nakedness. If they want to be Biblical, they are forced to go to the Law of God, which makes them an easy target for Theonomists who point to their inconsistency. If they want to be faithful to their anti-Theonomic position, they have to rely on humanistic theories which can be easily exposed as anti-Biblical. If you go back and read Joel’s and mine articles against the Two Kingdoms rhetoric, you will see that most of the time all we need to do is wait for these guys to talk on some practical issue – economics, politics, law, etc. – and show how they go against their own theology.

Therefore, the safest bet for all these seminary rats is to exclude such issues from their systematic theologies in order to avoid exposing themselves as inconsistent and as theological hypocrites. Keep only obscure hyper-spiritualized irrelevant topics under the title of “theology,” and relegate life and action and practical thought to the realm of “natural law” and common grace.

Theonomy

Great Question

Larken Rose posed this question, and I think it’s a good way to look at it.

Pick one:

1) Left jackboot on your throat.
2) Right jackboot on your throat.
3) No jackboot on your throat.

Here are typical responses you might hear from statists:

“But if we remove the jackboot on my throat, what will we replace it with?”
“It’s utopian to suggest that no jackboot should be on my throat!”
“If you don’t choose the left or right jackboot, you can’t complain!”
“The jackboot on my throat is for my benefit, and works for me!”
“Being allowed to choose a jackboot means that I’m free!”
“I am the jackboot!”

There is a righteous law, and the law of our government is far from it.The yoke of Christ is easy and His burden is light. There is no jackboot with Christ.

Theonomy

Tough Position for Anti-Theonomists

The question was posed as to why so few systematic theology books speak to an issue such as economics. Below is how Bojidar Marinov answered.

bm

“Any area of practical study and application is deadly to anti-Theonomists, for it exposes their nakedness. If they want to be Biblical, they are forced to go to the Law of God, which makes them an easy target for Theonomists who point to their inconsistency. If they want to be faithful to their anti-Theonomic position, they have to rely on humanistic theories which can be easily exposed as anti-Biblical. If you go back and read Joel’s and mine articles against the Two Kingdoms rhetoric, you will see that most of the time all we need to do is wait for these guys to talk on some practical issue – economics, politics, law, etc. – and show how they go against their own theology.”

“Therefore, the safest bet for all these seminary rats is to exclude such issues from their systematic theologies in order to avoid exposing themselves as inconsistent and as theological hypocrites. Keep only obscure hyper-spiritualized irrelevant topics under the title of “theology,” and relegate life and action and practical thought to the realm of “natural law” and common grace.”

Taxation, Theonomy

What Belongs To Caesar?

So many Christians quote the passage below (Mark 12:13-17) and say Jesus was teaching that you have to pay taxes, and that taxation is valid, because Jesus even gave his blessing here to Rome’s taxation. But is that really what He was saying?

Paying Taxes to Caesar

13 And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, totrap him in his talk. 14 And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone’s opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances,[c] but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to paytaxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” 15 But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius[d] and let me look at it.” 16 And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.” 17 Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him.

Rome’s occupation of Israel was God’s judgment on them, along with this tax. Additionally, the individuals attempting to trap Jesus were in rebellion to Christ, they were carrying Roman coins with blasphemous sayings on them into the temple. They were deserving of God’s judgment. I don’t think God’s use of Caesar to judge Israel is something that should be taken to legitimize such taxation or even a less brutal form of taxation. It certainly can’t be taken to mean that taxation by threat of violence is something that ought to be desired.

Jesus telling these individuals that they ought to pay the tax is not the same as saying that this particular tax is righteous. And Jesus wasn’t saying that future governments can implement whatever tax they might dream up. He just didn’t even speak on that, because He wasn’t addressing Caesar, but the taxpayers. When Jesus said they they were to render unto God the things that are God’s, He would also have told Caesar that he needs to render unto God the things that are God’s. It may be Caesar’s image on the coin, but God owns everything.

You see this scenario play out in the book of Philemon where Paul sends the slave Onesimus back to Philemon, his slave owner. This isn’t the Lord blessing the institution of Roman-style slavery or human ownership. It is taking things one step at a time, knowing that the gospel applied to culture will kill slavery eventually. It did destroy slavery in Rome, and it will destroy unjust taxation someday.

For a much more thorough examination of this passage, from someone much smarter than me, check out this article.

Abolish The Police, Resistance to Tyranny is Obedience to God, Theonomy

Stevens Destroys American Government

Marc Stevens (the guy doing this interview) is onto something. Cops, judges, attorneys, politicians and bureaucrats all claim that the law of the jurisdiction you’re in applies to you. When this guy asks them for evidence for that claim, none of them has ever been able to answer. Their only possible answer is that the law applies only because the law says it applies. That is circular and is invalid.

I could write a law in my notebook saying, “The following laws apply to me. Law 1-1(a): I can drive whatever speed I like.”

When the cops pull me over for speeding, I could show them my law and they ought to leave me alone by their standard. My law applies because my law says it applies. My laws are every bit as valid (that is completely invalid) as their laws.

Marc Stevens’ argument destroys our current antichrist system of government. As an anarcho-capitalist, he’s content to stop there. But there’s one thing he’s missing. If there was a transcendant standard–a law–all humans are responsible to live by, then the government could say we ought to obey the government’s laws because Scripture says so. This would provide them a valid reason for why we are under their jurisdiction.

The problem is their laws say it is illegal for them to appeal to Scripture. Just as in every other area of life, we must choose between Christ and absurdity. Our government has chosen absurdity, and their only justification for what they do is their constant threat of violence.

In order to appeal to Scripture, they would have to profess Christ as king, and that this is a Christian nation. Lip service wouldn’t be adequate. They would have to adopt just, biblical laws. Until then, they have chosen absurdity, and won’t be able to answer the question of why anyone has to obey their law other than “might makes right”. But their willingness to kill me doesn’t give them jurisdiction.

Theonomy

Is Theonomy Wooden

Someone asked whether theonomy is wooden and inflexible. Here’s what Joel McDurmon had to say to that:

It is actually high liturgy that is wooden and inflexible. It constrains and demands that “worship” be limited to “the book.” Then they distract themselves with “beauty”—embroidered robes, candles, shiny objects—as if that was flexibility. There is a reason the continuing anglican world is split into a hundred tiny denominations. It is just as wooden and inflexible as anything in the Reformed world.

On the converse, Theonomy stipulates that there are Ten Basic principles that can be applied in a million different circumstances. The only things that are inflexible are the civil and religious rights that God’s law gives (which cannot be alienated by any man or government), and the only thing that is highly regulated and strictly fixed, inflexibly, are the powers of civil government to punish or harm.

There is a reason why, historically, where God’s Law is taken seriously, you see liberty, and where high liturgy ascends in culture, you have tyrannical invasive church courts, canon law, and a state to match.