Here’s a great conversation regarding how to handle Syrian refugees.

1st Question: “With today’s situation with ISIS, how does one distinguish true refugees from embedded terrorists? Is this something to be left in the Lord’s hands, or Is there some other response? I do realise that much/all of the aggression could be the Lord’s wrath towards America because we have forgotten Him.”
———————————-
Bojidar says, “It has to be like everything else: From the mouths of two or three witnesses. It strikes me how no one really thought of the obvious solution: The legitimate refugees themselves, running from ISIS, would be able to recognize if someone is a member of ISIS. It is this fact that makes me skeptical when people say that ISIS would infiltrate the refugees – it would be just as dangerous as Eichmann infiltrating modern Israel.”
———————————-
2nd Question: “How then would you determine between true and false witnesses? I would expect the ISIS thugs to support each other and to bear false witness against the real refugees. How do you correct for that?”
———————————-
Bojidar says, “Just like everything else: Compare testimonies and use deductive logic and/or direct revelation. There is no cookie-cutter approach to this problem, and that’s why God instituted the only legitimate function of civil government: the courts. (And prosecution, by logical extension.)

Solomon understood that this is the greatest challenge before a godly ruler, and specifically asked for wisdom to deal with it (1 Kings 3:6-15). And guess what, his most famous court case was exactly that: to judge whose testimony was true and whose false (vv. 16-28). The solution to that case shows that it takes direct AND SPECIFIC wisdom from God, and that there are no fixed approaches to that issue.

(Which is why I argue that unless we restore the Biblical view of the gifts of the Spirit, we won’t be able to present a Biblical alternative to the modern court system. There is a reason why judges are called “sons of God” in the Bible.)”
———————————-
Question 3: “In a nation that is clearly *very* far away from following God’s Law, where we don’t give a rip about two witnesses, where we don’t have judges like Solomon who seek God’s wisdom, etc., how are we to proceed?”

Martin Selbrede says, “Lev. 26:6 teaches that the sword shall not go through your land IF His commandments are kept. Period. To expect peace while voiding His Law is suicidal insanity. To substitute state action for keeping His Law is to compound the problem with idolatry, insuring a worse disaster.”
———————————-
Bojidar says, “Martin beat me to it.

We preach the solutions of the Law of God in every area. We don’t advocate for state action in one area because we have abandoned the Law in another.”
———————————-
Bojidar says, “the other side is not emphasizing a Biblical principle, it is arguing from a strictly anti-Biblical perspective:

“The civil government needs to do its duty and protect its people by not letting wolves enter in uninhibited.”

There is no such thing as government-enforced preventive “protection” in the Bible. This would mean that a person is declared a criminal before he has committed a crime, based on certain government criteria. Or even worse, that a whole group is declared criminal based on their nationality, until individuals in it they prove otherwise.

Having proof for specific individuals that they are members of a crime syndicate is one thing. Treating a whole group as possible criminals without proof is another. We do that, and we are opening the door for concentration camps for our own children.”
———————————-
Bojidar says, “Vetting people is not the same as closing the borders to refugees; just as protecting your family is not the same as shooting everyone who enters your backyard.”
———————————-
Question/Comment 4: “It seems reasonable that a magistrate wouldn’t be involved unless accusations were made.”
———————————-
Bojidar says, Correct.

The Bible doesn’t exclude private investigations, though. These are outside the Biblically-mandated authority of the civil government, and therefore the Law of God doesn’t regulate those – as long as, of course, the private investigators stay within the Law in their ethical behavior. So while a government executive policy of curtailing people’s liberty is out of question (and besides, it never really works), private action is allowed, and I should say, necessary.

This is fully consistent with our theonomic views: Self-government is the most fundamental government, and we need to push every government action in this direction, and only accept solutions at a higher institutional level when they are permitted by the Law of God, and when there is no other solution currently available.

This is also the practical judicial difference between CR and the modern covenanters. Modern covenanters think in terms of natural law: if there’s some power in the society, it should be used to the fullest extent possible on every issue, regardless of whether the Law of God gives permission for such institutional action. We think in terms of spheres of authority: power should be used only where specifically allowed, and only when all other options have failed.
———————————-
Question/Comment 5: It does seem somewhat irresponsible to me that we wouldn’t have some kind of proactive measures in place. Yes, the private sector could (and likely should) handle that, but I don’t see any volunteers, either with time/expertise an/or money.
———————————-
Bojidar says, “So, how well did proactive measures work so far?

The only thing they can be vetted for directly at the border is diseases. If there is information about specific ones who are criminals, or have been part of a criminal/terrorist organization, they should be arrested and tried, not deported.

Back in the 1990s, many people in Easter Europe thought that the private sector wouldn’t be able to move in and replace the government in supplying the market. We couldn’t see any volunteers, either with time/expertise or with money. We all thought that we would starve until private owners learn how to produce and supply the market – and organize operations.

The day after the government monopoly and price controls were repealed, the stores were full, at prices at about the same level as before. Gradually, more and more goods appeared, and the prices were lower and lower.

Actually, there have always been people with expertise. And money shouldn’t be a problem.