In case you don’t remember, Eric Garner was choked to death when he was resisting arrest. He had the audacity to buy cigarettes wholesale and sell them retail. This type of lawless free-market capitalism that tries to go without submitting to the proper government permitting, laws and taxation cannot be allowed.
Mr. Garner didn’t submit to his arrest by the fine, upstanding law men of the NYPD and they had no choice but to choke him to death.
I say all the previous sarcastically. It almost makes me cry to see Garner choked to death. He was murdered. The cops who murdered him should be executed. He should have the right to sell loose cigarettes. And Seinfeld should be able to set up a lemonade stand without government harassment. What we have in this country is outright fascism.
I’m not insinuating that Seinfeld wasn’t choked to death because he’s famous or white. I’m sure he did exactly as the officers said to do. If you do exactly what they say, their egos are stroked; their power trip is a comfortable one, and they will certainly let you live. But the only one Christians are supposed to obey unquestioningly is Christ. We don’t always get the luxury of living a peaceful life.
Garner would still be alive if he had done what the officers said to do. But his attempted arrest was unjust and evil. He will stand before God having not sinned in selling loose cigarettes or resisting his attempted kidnapping. I’m not saying it was wise, and maybe there was some bad luck that he died (though I don’t believe in luck), but the police were enforcing unjust laws, because that’s what cops do.
In the second scenario, according to God’s Law, the activist is guilty of murder.
Here’s why, copied from this article that you ought to read in its entirety.
The Difference Between Murder and Homicide
“Now, some say today, “murder” is a strong word. Let’s say they were “homicides,” may be as a result of the use of excessive force, but not necessarily driven by malice or criminal intent. This claim is based on lack of understanding of the Biblical Law. But does the Biblical Law actually speak of the difference between murder and homicide?’
“Yes, it does. A special section in the Law speaks about that difference: Numbers 35:15-28. The first part, vv. 15-21, explains the case for murder:’
These six cities shall be for refuge for the sons of Israel, and for the alien and for the sojourner among them; that anyone who kills a person unintentionally may flee there. But if he struck him down with an iron object, so that he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. If he struck him down with a stone in the hand, by which he will die, and as a result he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. Or if he struck him with a wooden object in the hand, by which he might die, and as a result he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. The blood avenger himself shall put the murderer to death; he shall put him to death when he meets him. If he pushed him of hatred, or threw something at him lying in wait and as a result he died, or if he struck him down with his hand in enmity, and as a result he died, the one who struck him shall surely be put to death, he is a murderer; the blood avenger shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.
“The second part explains the case for unintentional homicide:”
But if he pushed him suddenly without enmity, or threw something at him without lying in wait, or with any deadly object of stone, and without seeing it dropped on him so that he died, while he was not his enemy nor seeking his injury, then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the blood avenger according to these ordinances. The congregation shall deliver the manslayer from the hand of the blood avenger, and the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge to which he fled; and he shall live in it until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the holy oil.
“Obviously, the distinction between homicide and murder is in the intention of the killer. But how can we read the mind of a person to know the intention? Since we can’t read minds, the Law gives the solution: Look at what’s in the hand of the killer, and how it is used. If it’s a weapon specifically designed to kill (an iron object), the killer must be clearly tried for murder – I say “must be tried,” because there is still a special case of lawful use of weapons which will be examined below. If the weapon was not specifically designed to kill (stone or wood object), but the movements of the killer’s hand showed intention to strike, then he must be tried for murder, again, allowing for the special case of lawful use of weapons. It’s that simple.”
So, in the second scenario in the video, the activist was guilty of murder under God’s law. If a cop did such a thing, and many have, (many examples having been posted on Youtube) , they take a few paid days off while it is investigated, and are almost always found to be justified and put back on duty. The guy will go the rest of his life thinking he was justified, while in God’s sight, he’s guilty of murder.
Now, the question of whether that takes him to hell can never be answered specifically by us. It’s a case by case basis. Even a murderer commits many other sins that are adequate to take him to hell. And if the murderer cop is not a Christian and never becomes a Christian, you could always say that he should have sought Christ for the forgiveness of his lying, even if he didn’t think he was guilty of murder.
But how can adding such a serious sin to his account help the guy? I don’t think the Bible gets too specific on the punishment for specific sins, but I shudder to think the harm that having unbiblical laws in this country is having on the souls of men.
For the Christian cop who commits murder and gets away with it civilly, his past, present, and future sins are forgiven. His intentional sins are forgiven, and the sins he commits out of ignorance are forgiven. Because Jesus’ blood is of infinite value, and He took all the sins of the elect on the cross. But Christians need to start thinking more clearly on this. This is a big deal.
Then, there is the doctrine of bloodguilt, where if murderers habitually go unpunished in a society, the ground is going to cry out for justice. And we will all suffer for the murder of babies and the murders that aren’t brought to justice because of the unjust laws of our government.
The Old Testament civil law is not unjust. According to the New Testament, it is just (Hebrews 2:2, 1 Tim. 1:8-11). But some Christians say it is unjust.
They trot out some laws they don’t like, and say they’re bad laws. I’ll admit some of the laws definitely seem foreign to us. But, rejecting them leads to some self-contradictions.
God gave the Jews the moral law, and almost all Christians believe it is sill binding on us today. The civil law, which some Christians dispute as to whether it still applies, is certainly consistent with the moral law. Bible-believing Christians can’t believe there are contradictions between the moral and civil law.
Since the moral law still applies today, you can’t say the civil law is unjust. That would mean there would be a contradiction between the moral and civil law. You have to believe that the civil law is just, even if you believe there are some range of laws that are now just. You can’t exclude the civil law from your range of just laws, or say it’s unjust, or point out laws you think are unjust.
If you think there are unjust civil laws, you’re saying there is a contradiction between the civil and moral law.
The truth is that the civil laws are the case laws of the moral law. They can’t contradict the moral law.
When you adopt an unbiblical idea, it inevitably leads to contradictions in your thinking.
I’ve had to wait in line at the Canadian Peace Arch border crossing for three hours. How many billions of dollars, just in lost productivity of people, is wasted at this one crossing every year?
Every single one of the 16 Republican presidential candidates is for keeping illegal immigrants out. They’re choking up the welfare system, don’t you know? Republicans want the welfare system to be strong and vibrant!
Are they listening to what is coming out of their mouths?
But Carly Fiorina is kind of wishy washy on Trump’s wall idea. She said, “Border walls aren’t particularly effective.”
On Twitter, someone asked Ann Coulter whether the Great Wall of China worked, and she said, “I’m so glad you ask. Yes it did! So does Israel’s wall, China’s wall w/ N.K., etc. Carly not sure wheels work.”
I said, with no response from her of course, “The Berlin Wall and North Korea’s wall with South Korea worked, too. But capitalism involves free movement.”
I don’t understand why conservatives want to keep cheap labor out of this country, and keep government off our backs. That’s the whole reasoning behind conservatism is free markets and small governments, but I guess conservatives have been duped on this issue.
I’ve heard a saying before, “Where people and money don’t cross borders, armies do.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
What Higgs says there is certainly true. But I think it’s even more true about prison guards. There may be good cops if they are working to sabotage the system, and keeping their job as a means to destroy the system and abolish the police from the inside. I doubt there is one such individual in this country, but I hold out hope.
What about prison guards? It’s theoretically possible (though unlikely) that a cop could avoid or refuse to enforce a lot of laws, and maybe keep his job. But by just showing up at work, isn’t a prison guard or employee of whatever sort, enforcing all the laws? Anyone contributing to the maintenance and operation of the prison is helping enforce all the laws on the book, because the main deterrent to breaking the law is prison.
And the very existence of the prison itself is unbiblical. The only valid punishments in the Bible are execution, restitution and lashes. Prison is not an option as punishment, though jailing someone awaiting trial may be acceptable. Anyone who works for prison, and isn’t there to sabotage the system, holds an unbiblical job.
So all the unjust laws, tax laws, drug laws, and whatever ridiculous crimes people may commit to end up in prison are enforced by prison guards and the many prison guards who claim to be Christians that are spending their lives upholding our evil system.
The three biblical options for punishment in Scripture are:
Restitution and penalty paid to victim.
Less than or equal to 40 lashes.
Death Penalty.
There are no other options.
Kent Hovind was released from prison and gives all kinds of horrible stories of injustices occurring in prison. The last thing we need to do is break up families, but 85% of prisoners are divorced while in prison. He is against the war on drugs, as putting a large percentage of the population in prison is just exacerbating the problem.
It boils down to doing things God’s way or doing things our way. Doing things our way is idolatry, but it is profitable for a season.
Good cops can’t blindly follow orders to enforce wicked laws. Most of the laws in this nation at this point are wicked laws. When a cop acts righteously, he won’t remain a cop for long, because to be a cop, you must act unrighteously.
Here’s an example of a good cop in this video. You can see how the wicked cops responded. They were embarrassed. They arrested him and fired him.
So much for good cops. How many times has a good cop stepped up since Chet Gallagher did? I seriously doubt there’s more than 10, and sadly I’d be willing to bet that most of them weren’t Christians. Many of the remaining wicked cops think they’re Christians. They must start acting righteously, which will lead to their immediate firing or face church discipline for shirking their duty to stand for God’s law.
Working for the Secession of Fremont County from the Union
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.