FAQ on Theonomy

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Frequently asked questions on Theonomy.

The best way to explain Theonomy is is to spell it out in its barest most basic form, and then to subject that explanation to a whole bunch of frequently (and not so frequently) asked questions, so that the theonomists can, by answering them, spell out the nuances of his position. So here goes. It’s presented as a dialogue between Theo (a Theonomist) and Libby.

This conversation is going to appear in daily digests, and each digest will deal with one main issue.

Libby: What is Theonomy?

Theo: Very basically, Theonomy is the view that it is right to obey God’s law. It comes from the Greek terms theos (“God”) and nomos (“law”). It shouldn’t be a freakish or strange word, as it has the same construction as several other English words. “Heteronomy” refers to the law or rule of an outside authority, “autonomy” refers to the law or rule of self, and likewise “Theonomy” refers to the law of God.

More specifically, Theonomy is a term used in Christian literature to refer to a school of thought in Christian ethics. Probably the most influential writer in this school of thought is the late Greg L. Bahnsen (and this in no way suggests that Theonomic ideas are themselves recent ideas – indeed Theonomists claim they are not). In a Christian context, which is the context of this thread, Theonomy is the view that the law of Scripture is the law that should govern our lives, and that where, according to Scripture, that law has political and legal ramifications, those laws should be applied in law and politics today. So the way God’s law should be followed, then, is not exclusively about public law in society (in fact the most important parts of it are not), but it does encompass this type of law.

Libby: OK, can you give some examples of what Theonomy would involve

T: Well, for example, we should love the Lord with all our heart, we should not bear a grudge against our neighbour, we should help the needy, and also on a public level, people who steal should be forced to make restitution, people who murder should be put to death, people who engage in sodomy should be-

L: Wait, wait, I don’t like what I think you’re about to say! You mean that in addition to the personal pursuit of holiness – which all of us Christians would say is a good thing – we should set up some sort of theocratic dictatorship?

T: OK, this conversation quickly took a turn for the worse! Can you please humour me here: Let’s not talk about “setting up” anything, since actually political processes for forming laws just don’t allow us to scrap society and “set up” a new one. Theonomy is concerned with what laws ought to be like, not about the method of changing laws, OK? We can talk about that at length some time, but for now I’d like to stick to the moral claim that this is what our laws should be like.

L: Sure, OK, let’s stick to that topic then. So you mean that we should set- I mean, you think that our system of laws should be a theocratic dictatorship?

T: OK, well at least I think you’re framing the question properly. I hope you won’t object to a little Socratic method here. Can you tell me what you mean by “dictatorship”? Surely you don’t just mean a country where you have to obey the law, right?

L: No. If that were the case, any nation with laws would be a dictatorship.

T: Right, so what did you mean? I’m just asking to make sure you’re offering an objection, and not just using reactionary language to make it sound like you’re offering an objection.

L: No, it’s a real objection. By “dictatorship” I mean a ruthless government that hands out unjust punishments for offences that don’t really deserve punishment at all.

T: Well then no, I’m not saying that the government should punish acts that don’t deserve it. Only acts that deserve punishment should be punished.

L: But that’s what any advocate of a dictatorship would say! It’s not like they’re going to say that the acts they would criminalise don’t deserve to be criminalised!

T: Well, since an advocate of dictatorship would say that, and an advocate of a non-dictatorship would also say that – right?

L: *nods*

T: - maybe you’ll need to come up with another way of testing whether or not a system of law amounts to a dictatorship.

L: Hmmm, OK, fair comment. A dictatorship is a system of law that is totalitarian – it governs every single facet of life and it seeks to control all of our behaviour.

T: OK, well that’s certainly a lot clearer. In that case, Theonomy is definitely not a dictatorship.

L: But wait a second, you were about to advocate laws against sodomy, weren’t you?

T: Yup. But that’s one act, hardly all of life.

L: But aren’t you saying that all acts that the Bible calls sins should be punished?

T: All sins are punishable by God, sure. But remember, I’m only saying that the laws that the Bible says are civil laws, applicable to the state, should be treated as – well, laws applicable to the state.

L: OK, so give me some examples of things that are sins but which you don’t think should be against the law of the land?

T: Sure, OK, there are plenty: Greed, lust, being an arrogant jerk, boasting, pride, lying – in general anyway, unless you’re bearing false witness or defrauding somebody – failing to love your neighbour as yourself, not loving God enough or being sorry for your sins – do you want me to keep going?

L: Ah, no. OK, point taken. But surely what you’re advocating is a dictatorship in some broad sense of the word.

T: How can there be a “broad” sense of being a dictatorship? What does that even mean?

L: Well it means having laws that are just so… so… wrong! I mean, you’d have to punish people for stuff like adultery! We’d have to execute people for kidnapping. Execute them! People would be able to sell themselves as slaves to work off debts. Slaves, Theo! This is really facist sounding!

T: So you mean that any of us with good moral sense will look at these laws and just see that they’re not right?

L: Well, yes! Isn’t that just obvious to you?

T: You know what, you’re right. It is. Kinda like how we look at the sermon on the mount and just intuitively see that Jesus Christ was a moral retard?

L: WHAT??? Theo, how can you say that? You’re talking about Jesus! How dare you presume to know better than the Son of God for crying out loud?

T: Oh it’s easy, apparently. You seem to have no problem presuming to know better than His Father.

…. Long pause ….

L: dang

T: Libby, you’re a Christian, right?

L: Of course I am, you know that.

T: Yes I do. Libby, I want to suggest that it’s wrong to just assume that we can intuitively know whether or not commands that God gave are moral or not. I know that God gave us a conscience to tell us right from wrong, but we’re also sinners. We’re influenced and motivated in so many ways by so many things. The appropriate attitude for us to take to God’s law is not to assume that we know better.

I’m very happy to address your questions about Theonomy, but I want us to be very clear about one thing. The question before us is what the Bible says about the question of God’s law. I am not interested in debating whether or not God’s commandments are right or just. Christian ethics is about asking what God wants of us. It leaves no room for asking whether or not He should want it. Are you ready?

L: Theo, that’s not what I was trying to do. Well… It’s not what I wanted to be doing anyway. Of course I’m ready.

T: Alright, now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, we can get into this.

L: Great! My first question is….

TO BE CONTINUED


So what have we learned here?
Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.

[Jnthn]

Looking forward to more on this. Very helpful to understand the view.

J

[dizzle]

Thank you!

[Amazing Rando]

Another good intro to theonomist/reconstructionist thought that I came across recently is Moses' Law for Modern Government: The Intellectual and Sociological Origins of the Christian Reconstructionist Movement (http://the-highway.com/recon_Duncan.html) by J. Ligon Duncan, III, recently Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA), a conservative Reformed denomination in whose midst theonomy has emerged and taken root.

The article is written by one who professes to be a critic of theonomy, yet is not a critique as such. Rather it is by and large descriptive, attempting to delineate as objectively and neutrally as possible what precisely the movement believes and hopes to acheive, and why it does so. It is predominantly a philosophical and sociological account of theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism that seeks to lay out the essential tenets of what it means to be a theonomist. Duncan's article quotes extensively from the late "fathers" of theonomy and reconstructionism, Rushdoony and Bahnsen, as well as contemporary authors such as Gary North, David Chilton, Gary DeMar, and Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. Well worth a look, IMO.

[Jnthn]

Rushdoony is a name that I've seen a number of anti-Christian sources throw out, particularly those who want to tar Creationists with Theocratic extremists.

Helpful to see him in a (sort of) context, as I'd never heard of him before.

J

[Amazing Rando]

Rushdoony is a name that I've seen a number of anti-Christian sources throw out, particularly those who want to tar Creationists with Theocratic extremists.

Helpful to see him in a (sort of) context, as I'd never heard of him before.

J

Rushdoony is also famous for his emphasis on home schooling. The strong resurgence of homeschooling in the USA in the last 3 decades can be traced in large part to his influence. As I understand it, he basically wanted Christians to keep their kids out of public schools until they could raise up a generation of national leaders who would "reconstruct" (i.e."Christianize") the USA.

Wikipedia has a pretty good overview (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.J._Rushdoony) of Rushdoony's life and work, though whoever edited the current version of the wiki does link Rushdoony (rightly or not) with the word that has become a lightning rod of controversy, "theocracy." I don't know if that label is justified or not, but there are scads of useful links and quotes from Rushdoony's books there.

[Kelp]

Thanks, Jack. I was waiting for a thread like this.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Another good intro to theonomist/reconstructionist thought that I came across recently is Moses' Law for Modern Government: The Intellectual and Sociological Origins of the Christian Reconstructionist Movement (http://the-highway.com/recon_Duncan.html) by J. Ligon Duncan, III, recently Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA), a conservative Reformed denomination in whose midst theonomy has emerged and taken root.

The article is written by one who professes to be a critic of theonomy, yet is not a critique as such. Rather it is by and large descriptive, attempting to delineate as objectively and neutrally as possible what precisely the movement believes and hopes to acheive, and why it does so. It is predominantly a philosophical and sociological account of theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism that seeks to lay out the essential tenets of what it means to be a theonomist. Duncan's article quotes extensively from the late "fathers" of theonomy and reconstructionism, Rushdoony and Bahnsen, as well as contemporary authors such as Gary North, David Chilton, Gary DeMar, and Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. Well worth a look, IMO.That article, unfortunately, conflates the terms "theonomy" and "reconstructionism." They are not the same thing, and the confusion caused by doing this really does make the issue that much murkier.

[Alien]

Hi Theo.

I'm not sure if you want discussion, or if you are just setting out what theonomy means to you.

I'll assume the former and you can respond if you wish. Here are four more questioners, all of whom agree with the fundamental principle of theonomy, that the world would be a better place if we all obeyed God's laws (apart from Mary of course who has a different view).

John (a liberal Christian): I think that's great! We should start by instituting a form of socialism! Let's begin by doubling taxation on the rich and dramatically increasing benefits paid to poor people. That's what Jesus spoke about, certainly.

Mohammed (a fundamentalist Muslim): I think that's great! We should start by instituting Sharia law, which forbids immodest dress, education of women and drinking alcohol, among many other things. That's what Allah told the Prophet Mohammed (peace be unto him), certainly.

Ajit (a Hindu): I think that's great! We should start by forbidding the eating of beef! That is what Ganesha has commanded, certainly.

Mary (an atheist): I think that's great! I don't believe in God or that the Bible has any authority today, but I do believe that morals have been programmed in us by evolution. Let's start by .... (well, who knows where this one would go).

OK, those are stereotyped, and are probably somewhat inaccurate, but I hope they serve to make a point. Not everyone agrees on what "god's law" is. Of course it's the law as set out in the Bible, I hear you reply? Even granting that, it's difficult to get half a dozen Christians together who all agree on the correct interpretation of the Bible.

So, unless you propose to simply impose Biblical laws as understood by one section of Christianity on everyone (and I seem to remember you favor a more democratic approach) then you will have to persuade all these people (1) that the Bible contains the exact wishes of God in this respect and (2) that your interpretation of what the Bible says is correct. Of course, with the atheist you're going to have to start one step back and convince her that God exists in the first place.

Go for it.

(fwiw, I agree that a society ruled by God's laws is the ideal state. I believe that's what Jesus was referring to when he talked about "the kingdom of God". Of course, I can't believe that Jesus would have supported the execution of homosexuals .... :wink:)

[Ryokan]

I think, along aliens lines, it would be hard for a tehonomic government not to become a dictatorship of the majority, as it is a government by God for man. What God thinks, more accurately what the majority thinks God thinks, would have to belaw. There would not be a baseline, areligious "bill of rights" that everyone could agree upon. Thats where there would be the dictatorship.
There is also the authoritarian problem. Any government that does not allow free speech, which a theonomic government could not as at the very least one could not "slander" God, or prohibit the free practice of religion, like promoting Arianism or Islam, would fall in that category for me. I think most Twebbers realize, at this point, that theonomist are not all crazy evil moonbats, but I don't think most would want to liveunder such a government. Someof us would be forced to be violently oppossed to one, (i.e. me). Its not a personal thing, but an ideological one.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I think, along aliens lines, it would be hard for a tehonomic government not to become a dictatorship of the majority, as it is a government by God for man. What God thinks, more accurately what the majority thinks God thinks, would have to belaw. There would not be a baseline, areligious "bill of rights" that everyone could agree upon. Thats where there would be the dictatorship.
There is also the authoritarian problem. Any government that does not allow free speech, which a theonomic government could not as at the very least one could not "slander" God, or prohibit the free practice of religion, like promoting Arianism or Islam, would fall in that category for me. I think most Twebbers realize, at this point, that theonomist are not all crazy evil moonbats, but I don't think most would want to liveunder such a government. Someof us would be forced to be violently oppossed to one, (i.e. me). Its not a personal thing, but an ideological one.
I understand that you think Theonomy is authoritarian and incompatible with a rights based system. This is not the thread to have that debate.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Hi Theo.

I'm not sure if you want discussion, or if you are just setting out what theonomy means to you.I'm setting out what it is.
I'll assume the former and you can respond if you wish. Here are four more questioners, all of whom agree with the fundamental principle of theonomy, that the world would be a better place if we all obeyed God's laws (apart from Mary of course who has a different view).

John (a liberal Christian): I think that's great! We should start by instituting a form of socialism! Let's begin by doubling taxation on the rich and dramatically increasing benefits paid to poor people. That's what Jesus spoke about, certainly.

Mohammed (a fundamentalist Muslim): I think that's great! We should start by instituting Sharia law, which forbids immodest dress, education of women and drinking alcohol, among many other things. That's what Allah told the Prophet Mohammed (peace be unto him), certainly.

Ajit (a Hindu): I think that's great! We should start by forbidding the eating of beef! That is what Ganesha has commanded, certainly.

Mary (an atheist): I think that's great! I don't believe in God or that the Bible has any authority today, but I do believe that morals have been programmed in us by evolution. Let's start by .... (well, who knows where this one would go).

OK, those are stereotyped, and are probably somewhat inaccurate, but I hope they serve to make a point. Not everyone agrees on what "god's law" is. Of course it's the law as set out in the Bible, I hear you reply? Even granting that, it's difficult to get half a dozen Christians together who all agree on the correct interpretation of the Bible.

So, unless you propose to simply impose Biblical laws as understood by one section of Christianity on everyone (and I seem to remember you favor a more democratic approach) then you will have to persuade all these people (1) that the Bible contains the exact wishes of God in this respect and (2) that your interpretation of what the Bible says is correct. Of course, with the atheist you're going to have to start one step back and convince her that God exists in the first place. This is an argument for moral skepticism.

Person 1: "I think we should have justice"

Person 2: "Great, that mans socialism"

Person 3: "Great, that means facism."

etc.


Moral disagreement does not automatically lead to moral nihilism or judicial relativism.

In any case, theonomy hasn;t been spelt out yet, so I'll just co ntunue this thread on it's stated purpose as spelt out in post #1. The second installment will be up today (NZ time).

[Ryokan]

I understand that you think Theonomy is authoritarian and incompatible with a rights based system. This is not the thread to have that debate.

You totally missed my point in that other thread. My crummy formatting surely played into that, but the crux of my point is there are things, regardless of rational, Americans in particular are going to find things authoritarian and wrong about a theonomic government. I pointed out the two biggies. I recognize you want acceptance, but those are very high hurdles.

[furay]

An FAQ should ideally be concise and to the point. I had high hopes judging from the thread title that you were compiling the definitive FAQ on theonomy. I didn't learn much from the OP. I guess I misunderstood the purpose of this thread.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Furay, that's entirely possible. It might be that you thought everything would be contained in the OP. But actually if you read the OP, you'll see that the questions and answers are being presented as a dialogue of - well, questions and answers, and that it's a daily digest.

By "daily digest" I mean that it is going to be presented in installments. The first post won't contain everything, but one day at a time as the "digests" are added, the position under consideration will be fleshed out. I do understand the impulsive desire of a lot of evangelicals (and perhaps some nonevaneglicals) to have everything summed up in a tiny bullet point list of verses or statements, but that was never the intent of this thread, it was always going to be presented as a dialogue (rather like a Socratic dialogue) in a daily digest format. I apologise if this was not explained well.

Ryokan, again, I really think you've misunderstood the purpose of this thread. Doubtless I am at fault for being such a horrible communicator and not explaining the purpose of the thread in the OP.

[Ryokan]

Furay, that's entirely possible. It might be that you thought everything would be contained in the OP. But actually if you read the OP, you'll see that the questions and answers are being presented as a dialogue of - well, questions and answers, and that it's a daily digest.

By "daily digest" I mean that it is going to be presented in installments. The first post won't contain everything, but one day at a time as the "digests" are added, the position under consideration will be fleshed out. I do understand the impulsive desire of a lot of evangelicals (and perhaps some nonevaneglicals) to have everything summed up in a tiny bullet point list of verses or statements, but that was never the intent of this thread, it was always going to be presented as a dialogue (rather like a Socratic dialogue) in a daily digest format. I apologise if this was not explained well.

Ryokan, again, I really think you've misunderstood the purpose of this thread. Doubtless I am at fault for being such a horrible communicator and not explaining the purpose of the thread in the OP.
Maybe, if you want to put out jsut an explanatory dialogue, why not write one of those essay thingy's we have, and then through up a comments page? It could be ninja like!

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Frequently asked Questions on Theonomy – Day Two

Main subject: The law and justification: Aren’t we under grace?

L: OK, so we’ve got that out of the way. My first question is, why do we have to obey the law to please God? I mean, nobody can really do that, right? We’re justified by faith. If we try to please Him by following the law, we’ll fail, because “whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.”

T: Before I answer that, can you tell me what you mean by “please God”? Do you mean just “make God happy,” or do you mean something more?

L: I mean a lot more than that. I mean to make ourselves acceptable in God’s sight.

T: Acceptable for what? Salvation?

L: Yes, what else?

T: OK, then my answer is very simple: I agree! We can’t please God by obeying the law, since we are all sinners who break the law. Even though we might not break big ones like laws against adultery, murder, stealing etc (although many of us do), we do break others, some of them just as important, like failing to love God with all our hearts. And Jesus explains that the spirit of the law is what matters in this regard, so that even lust is a sin comparable to adultery, and hatred and anger is a sin related to murder. So you’re absolutely right.

L: But how can you say that if you advocate Theonomy? I thought you said we’re supposed to obey God’s law.

T: We are!

L: But now you say we can’t be saved by obeying the law, because we will fail?

T: Look, the fact that I say we ought to do something doesn’t mean that I think that that’s our method of salvation. You ought to love the Lord with all your heart, right?

L: Sure.

T: Oh, so you think that if you love Him enough, or love him the right way, that’s how you get saved?

L: No. OK, I see what you mean. So you’re not saying anything about being justified by the law then.

T: I’ll say one thing about being justified by obeying the law (if by “justified” we mean being declared righteous in God’s eyes and being eternally saved): It’s impossible. It was impossible in Moses’ day, and it’s impossible in ours. Theonomy is a matter of ethics, not of soteriology. Just because following God’s law is the right thing to do, that doesn’t mean it saves us.

L: Wait, it was impossible in Moses’ day? But I thought that we are under grace, and the Old Testament Jews were under the law? So we’re saved by grace and they were saved by following the law. Paul said that clearly! “[Y]ou are not under law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14b).

T: And you think that being under the law meant being saved by following the Mosaic law, whereas under grace means being saved by grace?

L: Yep

T: So the only Jews in the Old Testament who were ever saved are the ones who followed the law perfectly?

L: Well, I don’t know if I’d say that any of them followed it perfectly…

T: But if those under the law were saved by following the law, then they’d have to do it perfectly. But actually, the law itself anticipates that those living under the law would still need their sins forgiven and they wouldn’t follow the law perfectly. That’s why they sacrificed animals as sin offerings. God forgave His people when they broke His law.

L: And you think the same is true of us as well?

T: Absolutely. That sacrificial offering was a foreshadow of the perfect offering of Christ. Check out what the author of Hebrews said about it:

For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.’ ”

So actually, those people in the Old Testament were forgiven on exactly the same basis that you and I are forgiven on, the perfect sacrifice of Christ. That’s God’s grace. So whatever the difference between them and us is, it’s not that they were saved by law and we are saved by grace.

L: OK, that makes sense. But if that’s true, then what the heck does it mean that we’re not under law but grace?

T: Well, that takes a little time to explain.

L: I’ve got all day.

T: OK. Do you think that when a word is used in the New Testament it always has exactly the same meaning?

L: I don’t think so. In fact no, I’m sure that’s not the case.

T: OK, can you give me an example?

L: Sure. Take a word like teleios. Jesus said that we should be perfect as God is perfect, and He uses that word (Matt 5:48). But Paul uses that word in 1 Corinthians to refer to maturity rather than perfection (1 Cor 14:20). It’s used that way in Heb 5:14 to refer to adulthood.

T: Right, that’s a great example. I just wanted to make sure you’re not someone who says that all words always and only have one meaning, regardless of the context.

L: No way!

T: Great. Because the answer to your question is based on the fact that the term “law” (nomos) can carry a range of meaning in the New Testament. In fact, I want to say that unless the idea of “the law” can be understood in a range of ways, the New Testament teaching on the law lapses into hopeless contradiction. In fact it’s not just Theonomists who have noticed this. Bruce Kaye wrote:
The difficulty is that Paul says things about the law which seem to indicate support and wholehearted endorsement of it, while at the same time saying things which suggest the opposite. These two aspects of Paul’s writing are not easy to resolve.
Bruce Kaye, “Law and Morality in the Epistles of the New Testament,” in B. N. Kaye and G. J. Wenham (eds), Law, Morality and the Bible (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1978), 76-77.

Part of the solution here is to recognise that “law” has a range of meanings. Here’s a sample: 1.) In its most familiar sense, it refers to the body of legislation given to Israel at Sinai. 2.) More broadly, it can refer to the Pentateuch (especially when it is coupled with “the prophets,” where “the law” is interchangeable with “Moses”), 3.) or it may refer to Scripture generally (as in 1 Cor 14:21). 4.) Additionally, it can refer to the Mosaic economy, that is, an era in salvation history marked by ritual and typology rather than fulfilment. 5.) More abstractly it can refer to a principle at work (Rom 7:23).

So the term could mean a variety of things, depending on context.

L: OK, I see that. So where is this heading? What sense of the word is being used when the NT says that we’re not under law but grace?

T: Well, let’s start by getting you to eliminate some options. Paul refers to “the law” in 1 Corinthians 14:21, right?

L: Yes he does. He says “In the law it is written…”

T: Yes he does. But he then quotes from Isaiah!

L: Yes, he does.

T: So the word there doesn’t mean the commands of God, it means the Scripture in general. Now when you read “you are not under law…” Do you think it means we have no reason to live according to Scripture?

L: Definitely not! Of course we should live in a biblical way.

T: Right. And if anyone suggested to you that we should NOT live according to Scripture, since Paul said we’re not under law, you’d be able to explain that this word can mean more than one thing, and it doesn’t mean “Scripture” in that verse. We have to make a case by case determination of what is meant based on context.

L: OK, so we need to look at the context of the passage that says “you are not under law but grace” then.

T: Exactly. That’s in Romans 6, right? Can you tell me what the context is there? Is Paul talking about Old Testament commands?

L: OK Let’s see…. OK, that’s a fair point. The Mosaic Law isn’t mentioned here at all. The chapter heading in my Bible is “Dead to sin, alive in Christ,” followed by “slaves of righteousness.” But wait, the chapter before is talking about the law that God gave Israel!

T: OK, so let’s go through from chapter 5 to 6 and sketch the ideas, shall we? Interrupt me if this sounds wrong, but I’ll start at 5:1.

Starting at verse 1, Paul celebrates the fact that we are justified through faith, and that we have been reconciled to God because Christ died for us.

Then from verses 12 to 18, Paul explains that just as death came though the sin (“transgression”) of one man, so the gift of righteousness is given because of the righteousness of one man. I realise I’m simplifying this. Then Paul says that the law was given, which actually increased transgressions. Personally, I think this means that when God’s law is more clearly spelt out in explicit commands, the guilt of sinners who violate those commands is made worse.

L: Right, I’m with you so far.

T: Great. So to break God’s law here is to engage in sin. It is to “transgress.” But then look at what follows in chapter 6. The next thing Paul says is that we should not sin, giving the excuse that we are not under the law. Now, up to this point, sin has been a violation of the law, right?

L: Yes, that’s true.

T: Exactly. So if someone says that since we’re not under law but grace, we should be able to break God’s laws, the answer here is “by no means. You died to sin!”

In other words, whatever you think “under law” means, it cannot possibly mean that we have no obligation to obey God’s laws. Paul then spends a few verses hammering out the fact that we died with Christ, and we should not live in sin, but we should offer our bodies to God as “instruments of righteousness.” We are dead to sin, and alive to God, who has saved us by grace. Then comes the verse you quoted: “For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.”

So the idea is not that we have no need of God’s commands anymore, since we are under grace. Rather, the thought is that since God has saved us by grace and we have died to sin, we must not let sin rule over us, since we are not under law, we are not looking to law to make us righteous (and this is not to suggest that anyone was ever supposed to do this), but rather we are looking to God by His grace to make us righteous.

L: So according to Theonomy, the law was never intended as a means of making us righteous?

T: Right. I mean, all of us think that we should do the right thing. We also think that the more God transforms our character (i.e. sanctification) the more we will do the right thing. But (hopefully) none of us thinks that by holding this standard we are somehow denying the grace of God and suggesting that God saves us because we do the right thing. So Theonomy is only about how we should go about finding out what the right thing to do is. It has nothing to do with justification, or the idea that we belong to the “Old Covenant.”

L: Ah yes. That reminds me of another question I had about the Old and New Covenants.

T: Look at the time! That one’s going to have to wait until tomorrow.

L: Tomorrow then!



What have we learnt today?

Theonomy does not undermine justification by faith, it does not imply that we have to perfectly follow God’s law to be acceptable to Him, and it rejects the claim that believers in the Old Testament were measured by a different standard for salvation that believers today (contra classical – but not more recent – varieties of dispensationalism).

The topic of the next installment will be the mistaken claim that Theonomy involves a return to the Old Covenant.

[dizzle]

Maybe, if you want to put out jsut an explanatory dialogue, why not write one of those essay thingy's we have, and then through up a comments page? It could be ninja like!

What Jack is doing is exactly what I was looking for.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

What Jack is doing is exactly what I was looking for.
And call me a sycophant, but the main reason I started this thread is because I knew you were.

[Ryokan]

What Jack is doing is exactly what I was looking for.

What he is doing is fine, I jsut think it would have helped clear up confusion for those of us who are, ah, less in tune.

[Jnthn]

I like the format. Makes it very readable

J

[Alien]

This is an argument for moral skepticism.

Person 1: "I think we should have justice"

Person 2: "Great, that mans socialism"

Person 3: "Great, that means facism."

etc.


Moral disagreement does not automatically lead to moral nihilism or judicial relativism.


No it doesn't. But in order to avoid both these things a consensus must be arrived at (note the conspicuous failure of laws that have forbidden actions that a significant minority wish to engage in, or don't see any harm in (prohibition, "the war on drugs", criminalization of prostitution, etc)). My point is that it is next to impossible to arrive at a consensus on somethuing which is, at base, a matter of opinion.

But I'll honor your request not to engage in further debate and simply read what follows.

Perhaps we can have this discussion at another time and place.

[Amazing Rando]

That article, unfortunately, conflates the terms "theonomy" and "reconstructionism." They are not the same thing, and the confusion caused by doing this really does make the issue that much murkier.

The article cites, though farther down, David Gordon's distinctive:



In light of this exegesis of various labels used in the movement it becomes apparent, for instance, that one may be a Christian reconstructionist without being a “theonomist” (though not vice versa). Hence, there are two major types or classes of reconstructionists: theonomic and non-theonomic. T. David Gordon is absolutely correct when he says:

"As socio-religious phenomena, Theonomy and Christian Reconstruction are closely related. The individuals involved in the one are ordinarily involved in the other. However, theologically and religiously they can be distinguished. Christian Reconstructionists exist in a variety of forms, and are ordinarily united in their belief that the Western world, and especially the United States, has departed from the Judeo-Christian ethical basis that once characterized its public discourse, with devastating results. Positively, Reconstructionists wish to see the United States return to a more biblical approach, or even a more Judeo-Christian approach, to the issues of civil life. Theonomy is more specific than this, though it does not disagree with it. Theonomy wishes to see every nation conform its civil practices to those revealed in the Mosaic legislation. Thus, Theonomy is more comprehensive than Reconstruction (theoretically concerned that all nations observe the Mosaic legislation) and much more specific about the legislation that it believes is to be observed. Theonomy does not wish merely a return to a biblical ethic, or a Judeo-Christian ethic, but to the ethic of the Sinai covenant."

Do you disagree with the distinction he draws here?

[furay]

First off, I want to apologize for my post. It seems to me it was a little rude. I wish I could say that was not my intent, but I was feeling snippy when I was writing it. Forgive me.

Furay, that's entirely possible. It might be that you thought everything would be contained in the OP. But actually if you read the OP, you'll see that the questions and answers are being presented as a dialogue of - well, questions and answers, and that it's a daily digest.

By "daily digest" I mean that it is going to be presented in installments. The first post won't contain everything, but one day at a time as the "digests" are added, the position under consideration will be fleshed out. I do understand the impulsive desire of a lot of evangelicals (and perhaps some nonevaneglicals) to have everything summed up in a tiny bullet point list of verses or statements, but that was never the intent of this thread, it was always going to be presented as a dialogue (rather like a Socratic dialogue) in a daily digest format. I apologise if this was not explained well.
That makes sense. May this prove to be a productive thread for you and all. :smile:

[Johnny MacManky]

Is this gonna turn into "40 Days of Theonomy"?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The article cites, though farther down, David Gordon's distinctive:



In light of this exegesis of various labels used in the movement it becomes apparent, for instance, that one may be a Christian reconstructionist without being a “theonomist” (though not vice versa). Hence, there are two major types or classes of reconstructionists: theonomic and non-theonomic. T. David Gordon is absolutely correct when he says:

"As socio-religious phenomena, Theonomy and Christian Reconstruction are closely related. The individuals involved in the one are ordinarily involved in the other. However, theologically and religiously they can be distinguished. Christian Reconstructionists exist in a variety of forms, and are ordinarily united in their belief that the Western world, and especially the United States, has departed from the Judeo-Christian ethical basis that once characterized its public discourse, with devastating results. Positively, Reconstructionists wish to see the United States return to a more biblical approach, or even a more Judeo-Christian approach, to the issues of civil life. Theonomy is more specific than this, though it does not disagree with it. Theonomy wishes to see every nation conform its civil practices to those revealed in the Mosaic legislation. Thus, Theonomy is more comprehensive than Reconstruction (theoretically concerned that all nations observe the Mosaic legislation) and much more specific about the legislation that it believes is to be observed. Theonomy does not wish merely a return to a biblical ethic, or a Judeo-Christian ethic, but to the ethic of the Sinai covenant."

Do you disagree with the distinction he draws here?Yes, very strongly. He says "one may be a Christian reconstructionist without being a “theonomist” (though not vice versa). " This is most untrue. It implies that a theonomist, by definition, is a reconstructionist. This isn't true at all.

Moreover, Reconstructionism is ore comprehensive that Theonomy, contrary to what this writer says. Theonomy is a view of ethics. Reconstructionism takes that view of ethics and combines it with postmillennialism, and usually (not always) Calvinism and presuppositionalism.


Additionally, even though in this paragraph an attempt at a distiction is made, it falls by the wayside throughout the paper, and the terms "Theonomy" and "Reconstructionism" are freely used as synonyms.

[Amazing Rando]

Yes, very strongly. He says "one may be a Christian reconstructionist without being a “theonomist” (though not vice versa). " This is most untrue. It implies that a theonomist, by definition, is a reconstructionist. This isn't true at all.

Moreover, Reconstructionism is ore comprehensive that Theonomy, contrary to what this writer says. Theonomy is a view of ethics. Reconstructionism takes that view of ethics and combines it with postmillennialism, and usually (not always) Calvinism and presuppositionalism.

Ah- though wouldn't theonomy extend beyond the realm of purely ethics (i.e. deciding which actions are morally right) and into something else, because the theonomic program lays forth a particular scheme for public policy? Or are the "public policy" elements a different facet altogether?

Also, since you are a theonomist, as well as a postmillennialist, Calvinist, and (I think) a presuppositionalist, would that make you a reconstructionist as well? I've never seen you apply that label to yourself, but is it a label that you accept or reject as a self-descriptor?

Additionally, even though in this paragraph an attempt at a distiction is made, it falls by the wayside throughout the paper, and the terms "Theonomy" and "Reconstructionism" are freely used as synonyms.

I did notice that. Duncan does seem to believe that "theonomy," "reconstructionism," and "dominion theology" are all facets of the same general movement. Perhaps they cannot be used quite as interchangably as he does, but I do think he's right in that they are pretty interrelated.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Ah- though wouldn't theonomy extend beyond the realm of purely ethics (i.e. deciding which actions are morally right) and into something else, because the theonomic program lays forth a particular scheme for public policy? Or are the "public policy" elements a different facet altogether? Yes, I meant to include political ethics as well. But Theonomy doesn't contain any eschatological elements, or the other stuff.
Also, since you are a theonomist, as well as a postmillennialist, Calvinist, and (I think) a presuppositionalist, would that make you a reconstructionist as well? I've never seen you apply that label to yourself, but is it a label that you accept or reject as a self-descriptor?Very roughly, I don't have a problem with people seeing me as a reconstructionist. The quibbles I would have a fairly minor. But my main reason for not adopting that label is that it assocites me with some *people* I'd prefer not to be associateed with :teeth:.
I did notice that. Duncan does seem to believe that "theonomy," "reconstructionism," and "dominion theology" are all facets of the same general movement. Perhaps they cannot be used quite as interchangably as he does, but I do think he's right in that they are pretty interrelated.Perhaps, but it becomes a real problem when peole (like, for example, J. Esmond Birnie) state that postmillennialism is false, and then declare that they've offered an argument against Theonomy.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Theonomy FAQ – Day 3

Main Subject: The Old and New Covenants

L: OK, so I can’t just a priori declare Theonomy unjust or dictatorial, and I can’t just assume that “under grace” rules out Theonomy. But still, You’re talking about the Mosaic Law, right? That’s part of the Mosaic covenant, and we’re not part of the Mosaic covenant. We’re in the New Covenant. So even if it’s not unjust or wrong, doesn’t it just put us back under the Old Covenant?

T: Are you saying that the only people who were ever under the moral standards of the Old Testament Law were those in Old Testament Israel?

L: Exactly. People before God gave the law to Israel were not under the law, and people living outside Israel were not held to the standards of the law either. Since we’re not part of that covenant people, just like the other nations weren’t, why should we live by its standards?

T: So… what standard were the other nations held to then?

L: Well, doesn’t Paul say in the book of Romans that people outside of Israel who didn’t have the law will be judged by their consciences?

T: Do you mean that if there was a culture that sincerely believed it was alright to rape babies, then God would judge them by that standard, since they thought it was OK?

L: Theo, that’s disgusting! Of course not!

T: But you just said that God would judge them according to their cons-

L: I didn’t mean it like that. I meant that their conscience reflected God’s moral standards in some basic way, so God still holds them responsible when they violate those standards.

T: Really? And what standards are those, Libby?

L: Natural law, of course!

T: But what is the content of that law?

L: Well, let’s look at the passage I’m talking about. It’s in Romans 2, verse 14. I’ll read it: “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law…”

T: Stop there.

L: Why?

T: Just so that we both agree about what’s being said before moving on. When Paul refers to Gentiles who do not have the law, he must be talking about a law that Jews have, and Gentiles don’t. What law is that?

L: The law of Moses I guess.

T: OK great. Keep reading.

L: “…do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.” See? It says “their conscience.” So their consciences know basically what’s right, and God will judge their actions based on that knowledge.

T: What knowledge?

L: The knowledge of their conscience!

T: And what does their conscience know? What is it that Paul says they do by nature?

L: The things required by the la- Oh…. the law.

T: Right. And we saw just a few seconds ago that this refers to the law that Israel had. This text says that even gentiles do by nature the things that the Law of Moses requires, because those things are written on their consciences.

L: That can’t be right!

T: Oh? So this doesn’t refer to the law of Moses, then? So what was the law that Israel had that the Gentiles didn’t?

L: Look, I said that it referred to the Law of Moses. I just don’t like the fact that that’s what it says. It just doesn’t make sense!

T: Why not?

L: Because the other nations were never rebuked for disobeying the law, and they were never called to obey it!

T: Well, firstly that’s irrelevant, even if it were true. And secondly, it’s not true!

L: Irrelevant? How could it possibly be irrelevant?

T: Well, when you write a letter to your friend Richard, you don’t write comments intended for Jane, do you?

L: *blinks* What?

T: The Hebrew Scripture was written for Israel, to be read by Israelites. Even if it included no moral instructions to the other nations, that wouldn’t mean that those nations had no standards of morality that it would be right to uphold, does it?

L: I suppose not. But still, it strikes me as a little strange that God said nothing about other nations failing to live by the law. I mean, you’d think it’s pretty strange to have all these other nations living against God’s will and for God to say nothing!

T: Well, if Romans 2 says what it appeared to say, He’d already told them. It’s called conscience. But more importantly, the Old Testament does explain that it is right for other nations to follow God’s law.

L: It does not! Where?

T: You should have let me tell you where before declaring that it doesn’t. Anyway, there are a few places. Take Leviticus 18:24-30 for example. It comes right after a list of forbidden acts, including same-sex sexual acts, incest, and human sacrifice. And then look at what happens. God says that he is driving out the previous inhabitants of the land because they did these things, and that if Israel does them, God will treat her in exactly the same way. So Israel is being treated just like the nations, when it comes to the obligation to keep these laws.

That’s not the only time we can see this. Look at Deuteronomy 4:5-8.
See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?

L: Well just a second – that doesn’t say that the other nations are being commanded to obey these laws.

T: That’s true, it doesn’t say that. But the speaker (Moses) is assuming that any right thinking person from any nation would immediately see that the laws God gave Israel are to be envied for their excellence and wisdom, and Israel’s obedience to these laws will be seen as an expression of wisdom by all. So even if it doesn’t speak about nations being told to obey these laws, it still speaks to us about what we saw in Romans 2 – that the other nations know on the basis of conscience that the law of Moses is right and good.

There are actually quite a few more examples of this kind of thing, but I’ll just pick one more for now. Who was the King that sent Israel back to her land at the end of the Exile?

L: Xerxes, right?

T: Right. Artaxerxes. Have a look at what he said when he did this, in Ezra 7:25-26
And you, Ezra, according to the wisdom of your God which is in your hand, appoint magistrates and judges who may judge all the people in the province beyond the river, all such as know the laws of your God; and those who do not know them, you shall teach. Whoever will not obey the law of your God and the law of the king, let judgement be strictly executed upon him, whether for death or for banishment or for confiscation of his goods or for imprisonment.

Now, what law was he talking about?

L: Well, he says “the law of your God,” so he must have been talking about the laws that God gave Israel.

T: I agree. Now here’s the interesting thing. Who are these laws being imposed upon? Was it just those living in the land of Israel?

L: Well, no. Not wasn’t. The area mentioned would have included all the people living in the trans-Euphrates area. But look, it only includes Jews living in that area, because it says “all such as know the laws of your God,” which would only include Jews.

T: Well, there are two problems with that. Firstly, Artaxerxes included criminal punishment, even execution, for people who break these laws. So it can’t just refer to individuals living in other nations, it has to include the civil authorities. And even more importantly, yes it says “all such as know the laws of your God,” but look at what comes next: “and those who do not know them, you shall teach.” There’s no way around this. The law was being imposed on people outside of Israel, whether they had the law of the covenant previously or not.

L: But that doesn’t mean this is the right thing to do! I mean, this is a pagan king, isn’t it? Who says that the godly Ezra would approve of this?

T: Good point. Just because someone in the bible said it, that doesn’t make it right. So let’s see what Ezra said about this king’s decree, right after the King’s words appear:
Praise be to the LORD, the God of our fathers, who has put it into the king’s heart to bring honor to the house of the LORD in Jerusalem in this way!

L: *long pause* dang!

T: So in the Old Testament, there’s no suggestion that the nations are not, morally speaking, under the law that God gave Israel. None. And there are some good indications to the contrary.

L: But what about the New Testament? Didn’t Jesus initiate a New Covenant?

T: OK, let’s be clear about something. We’ve already established that it’s wrong to think of non-covenant people being exempt from the standards of the law. The Old Testament taught that, and so does the New. We’ve seen this. That means, like it or not, that arrangements that God makes with His covenant people aren’t going to change this universal obligation of all humankind. But that being said, how exactly do you think the New Covenant changes things?

L: Well, if the law was the law of the covenant, then when a new covenant comes along, the law changes, right?

T: Have you forgotten what was just said? The law was the law of the covenant, but it wasn’t just the law of the covenant. It’s written on the heart! It was the standard over all the nations too. But OK, let\s overlook that for now. Are you saying that since the covenant is new, the law must be different?

L: Yes. That’s obvious, isn’t it?

T: How so? Please explain the logic that gets you from “this covenant is new” to “this covenant has a different law.” Just lay out the argument so I can tell how good it is.

L: Well…. It just has to be different, that’s all. New means different!

T: Let’s say that new means different. It doesn’t, but let’s say it did mean that. We’re not talking about a new law. We’re talking about a new covenant. You can’t just take it upon yourself to dictate how the covenant is new. In fact, you know what? The Old Testament told us exactly how the new covenant would be different. It’s in Jeremiah 31:31-34
“The time is coming,” declares the LORD,
“when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD.
“This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God, and they will be my people.
No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’
because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD.
“For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”

Now, can you see how the Lord says the new covenant will be different? It says that it will not be like the old covenant, because the people broke it. Instead, God will write His law on the hearts and minds of the covenant members, and they will know the Lord. God will take His law and write it on their hearts. The difference is not that God’s law applies to the Old Covenant but not the New. The difference is that the Old Covenant gives an external code that people cannot live up to. It doesn’t change people or assist them. It condemns them. In the New Covenant, God writes the law on the heart. But there is no suggestion here that the law is a new or different one.

L: But the New Testament tells us what the new law is. It’s not the law of God as revealed in the New Testament. It’s called “the law of Christ!”

T: Hold up there. Do you or do you not grant the point in Jeremiah 31. Do you see that God promised the people that He would make a New Covenant and it would be different because God would write His law on the hearts of the people and they would know Him?

L: *impatiently* Yes yes, OK I see that! But doesn’t the New Testament say something about a “law of Christ?” That might… sorta… explain these verses in Jeremiah. I mean sure, nobody who read Jeremiah could ever have understood it that way… but you know, sometimes the NT writers did funky things with the OT prophecies… Maybe?

T: Well alright, let’s look at that term in the New Testament. It’s in Galatians 6:2, “Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.”

L: See?

T: Oh. So all we have to do is carry each other’s burdens, and that’s it? There’s nothing more to ethics than that? Nothing?

L: Well, the New Testament fleshes out the law of Christ. You know, the Golden rule? And James called it the “Royal law.” Jesus is our king, so we should live by his royal law!

T: Ah yes, the Golden rule! Well, if everyone lived by that rule, we’d all be Theonomists.

L: I beg your pardon?

T: Well that rule says that the greatest command is to love God with all our heart. How can we do that unless we follow His law?

L: Look, it’s going to take a lot of work to show that by “Love God” and “Love your neighbour,” Jesus meant to suggest that the whole law follows from those two!

T: It may take less work than you think. Just take a look at what Jesus said there, in Matthew 22:37-40
Jesus replied: ”‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

*long, long, long pause*

L: dang

T: So sure, let’s take this “royal law” (as James called it in James 2:8) as the summary of our New Covenant obligations. Funny thing is, it was the summary of the Old Testament law too.

L: Woah. OK, this is really heavy. So if we take these two great commands of Jesus, we’re left with Theonomy?

T: Yup.

L: So these two commands summarise the whole law. The whole thing?

T: Yup. That’s what Jesus said.

L: Say, what’s that you’re eating?

T: Oh, this? Mmmmm, it’s some bacon and egg pie that Dee Dee Warren made me. My favourite! You want some?

L: AH HA!

T: *startled, choking on a piece of pie* What?!?!?!

L: Oh, sorry. But you’re eating bacon! The law says you can’t do that! I guess you’re not loving God with you heart, soul and strength!

T: Oh… well, nobody said it was simple. See, not all laws are alike. They serve different functions, they came in different categories, and…

L: *victoriously* NOOOOO, Mr Theo. This is just rationalization. I have you fair and square. If you think that all the law still remains, then you’ve got to give up bacon.

T: Tell you what, let’s pick up on this tomorrow, OK?

L: Oh, I’ll be waiting. I’ll be waiting….

T: *shivers*


So what have we learned today?
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.


The topic of tomorrow's installment will be: Categories of law?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Time is a cruel mistress. Other matters are pressing, so the next installment will be in a couple of days.

[JonLanceBarker]

well, so far, it seems i am instinctively a theonomist, even if i'm amillennial.
(so that would make me...not a reconstructionist?)
and i was going to ask you if you had to be postmillennial to be a theonomist, but that was answered already.
this is one cool thread you've got going.
i'm really looking forward to where you talk about the dietary laws...that should be interesting indeed. :thumb:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

OK... there's a window of time approaching in a couple of days. I'll add another installment then.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I promise! Within 48 hours the next day will be posted.

[dizzle]

I knew he was a postmillennialist.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

More of a futurist premil... endless promises of "any day now!" :wink:

[JonLanceBarker]

I knew he was a postmillennialist.

aren't you? :teeth: :hehe:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Theonomy FAQ – Day 4

Main subject: Categories of law

Libby: Hey, Theo! You’re not avoiding me, are you?

Theo: Avoiding you? Why would I be doing that? I was just coming to see you!

L: Oh don’t be so coy about it. You’d be avoiding me because the last time we spoke I had you in a corner. You showed that the New Covenant does not set aside God’s law, and you’d previously shown that the moral demands of the law extend to the nations as well as to Israel. And we started out establishing that I’m in no position to just reject the law because I don’t like it. But then I caught you eating Dee Dee Warren’s delicious home made bacon and egg pie! Bacon’s not kosher!

T: Oh yeah… that. Well, as I was saying, Theonomy’s not simple. But first of all, let me ask you – reflecting on what I’ve been saying for the last few days, did you find it convincing?

L: Oh, yeah! I mean, it’s seriously turned my thinking upside down on this issue. Now I see it everywhere I look in Scripture. I’m noticing the Theonomic claims of Scripture all over the place! John states it totally clearly – “whoever sins breaks the law – sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4). Paul is outspoken on his view of the law – “In my inmost being I delight in God’s law” (Rom 7:22). When the Apostle Paul speaks about people who are now breaking God’s laws, he says that “they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death.” Now that I know about Theonomy, I can’t avoid it when I open the Bible!

T: I’m really pleased to hear that. I wanted to ask that so we both understand that your challenge about eating bacon isn’t just a challenge to me. It’s a challenge to you. Unless we can sort this out, you have to stop eating bacon too.

L: I…. but… dangit Theo! We’ve got to sort this out RIGHT NOW!!!!!

T: OK, OK. Now, remember how just before we parted ways yesterday, I said that the law has categories that serve different functions, and you said that this sounds like a ratinalisation?

L: Yep, I did say that. And it does sound like a rationalization for keeping the laws that we like, and rejecting the ones we don’t. I mean, the law is a unit, or at least I’ve heard people say that. God didn’t say “this one is ceremonial, and this one is moral,” did He?

T: No, of course not. The words “moral” and “ceremonial” are not the biblical terms. They’re just terms that we use to categorise laws because they’re easy.

L: But how do you know that there are different types to be categorised at all?

T: OK, let me start here. Look at Leviticus 24:22
Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death. You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.

See that? So anyone who commits murder will be treated in exactly the same way, Jew or Gentile, right?

L: Well… yes, but what does that have to do with anything?

T: I’m getting there, just wait. Now, look at Deuteronomy 14:21.

You shall not eat anything that dies of itself. You may give it to aliens residing in your towns for them to eat, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God.”

See that? So anyone who eats an animal that you find dead is treated the same way, Jew or Gentile, right?

L: No – No, it says that Jews can’t eat it but they can give it to Gentiles who live among them

T: Right. Actually, that sentence about what the people could do with that type of animal comes at the end of a long list of food prohibitions in that chapter. It mentions pigs, fish without scales, bats and other things.

L: Wait, so people who were not native born Jews were allowed to eat bacon?

T: Yup.

L: Woo hoo! But… let me make sure I understand this. You’re saying that Jews can’t eat bacon but Gentiles can?

T: Not exactly. Like I said, it’s complicated. This law was distinguishing God’s national people from other people.

L: Gotcha. It looks that way.

T: But now there is no national people of God. So there’s no need to make such a distinction. Check out what Paul said to the Ephesians.
Remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (that done in the body by the hands of men) — remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Now, is Paul saying that people came close to Christ by getting circumcised?

L: No, it doesn’t look that way

T: No. In fact it looks like Paul is saying that the regulations that separate Jew and gentile have been abolished, right?

L: Right.

T: This is not just an isolated text either. Have a look at what Paul said to the Galatians:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

So is God still dealing with one specific covenant nation, the Jews?

L: No, there is no Jew or Gentile…. Wait, so there’s nobody who’s prohibited from eating bacon!

T: Right. It’s not that the law against eating it has been done away with. It just, well it doesn’t apply to anybody anymore, because no group exists as a unique nation of God’s people.

L: Well wait, wait. So let’s say that deals with the whole bacon thing – and by the way, when we’re done here, let’s go to Dee Dee Warren’s for some of that bacon and egg pie-

T: Amen to that!

L: -But what about the other laws that seem kinda weird? I mean, I wear cotton-polyester blend shirts. I have a garden that contains both onions AND potatoes, I mean, wouldn’t all this be ruled out as well?

T: You’re talking about Leviticus 19, right?

L: Right. It’s right here:

Keep my decrees.
Do not mate different kinds of animals.
Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.Why don’t we follow these laws today?

T: Well, that’s a good question, and here’s where I admit that it can be pretty complicated. I think the New Testament helps us to explain it. Do you know what the Jerusalem Council was?

L: Sure. It was a special meeting held by the church in Jerusalem with some of the Apostles to help resolve conflicts between Jewish and Gentile Christians. It’s in Acts 15.

T: Right, exactly. Now, I’m going to summarise my thoughts here, and give you a little something to read that provides some of the background behind what I’m going to say. You can check over the source I give to delve into it yourself.

L: OK, let’s hear it.

T: At the Jerusalem Council, a number of Jewish Christians were claiming that Gentiles had to actually become Jews if they wanted to be part of the people of God. In particular, it was the laws in Leviticus that were the sticking point here. Leviticus is often associated with a “priestly” outlook, concerned with preserving the special purity and uniqueness of the nation.

L: Alright, let’s grant that to see where you’re going with this. You’re going to give me some info about that to follow up on, right?

T: Sure thing. Now, the Apostles came to a conclusion, and wrote a letter to the churches, explaining how the conflict had been resolved and what decision had been made. They listed a bunch of laws in Leviticus – and they lifted them straight out of Leviticus 18, even in the same order – and they said that the Gentiles should not be required to do any more than this. Those commands were (Acts 15:29), “You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”

So, does that mean that Gentiles were allowed to steal?

T: No, of course not. So what are you saying about these laws from Leviticus? I’m not quite getting it.

T: Well, stealing is covered in other parts of the law, so of course they weren’t allowed to steal. What’s happening here in Acts 14 is that the Apostles are sifting through the requirements that Jews were trying to hold Gentiles to, apparently requirements from the Levitical law, and they are selecting out the ones that have universal applicability, and setting aside the ones that only applied to Jews in the first place. In other words, people don’t have to become Jews to be part of the Church (since, as I see it, there was no longer any covenantal significance of that specific nation), but that doesn’t mean they can ignore what the law said to all people.

L: *lightbulb goes on* Ah, OK, I think I get that. It makes sense. But wait, Leviticus also talks about, say… sacrificing babies to Molech, in chapter 20 verses 1-2. That command isn’t mentioned in Acts 15. So are you saying Gentiles can do that? Come on, surely not!

T: No, of course not. Firstly, it’s not obvious that the whole book of Leviticus is in dispute in Acts 15. But even if it is, homicide is pretty clearly covered elsewhere in the law, isn’t it?

L: Oh yeah.

T: Right, so I think there’s grounds for thinking that the kind of laws about separating crops and not mixing fabrics were actually laws that were specifically for the purpose of establishing Israel’s holiness – her uniqueness – a uniqueness that no longer exists. Of course, I don’t want to give the impression that doing this for every law is always easy. It might not be. But that’s not a reason to deny the principle that some laws served purposes that were tied to unique circumstances in salvation history, and it’s not really that they’ve been cancelled, they’ve just done their job now and they’re redundant.

Actually all Christians already accept this for some laws.

L: You know, just as you were saying that, I was thinking it. I mean, we don’t sacrifice animals anymore.

T: Exactly. And it’s not because we no longer need our sins atoned for, but rather because that was a shadow of the perfect sacrifice that was to come. Carrying on those sacrifices would be pointless. Actually, it would be offensive, because it would imply that the sacrifice of Christ was not perfect. What we do now is an act of remembrance, not a repeated or continuing sacrifice.

L: Hey, you were going to give me some material to read on this, right?

T: Right! I nearly forgot. Here’s a piece on the idea of categories of law, and here’s a piece on the New Perspective on Paul and the law. It contains a bit of material on the Jerusalem council that you might find helpful.

L: Thanks!

T: Now, are you thinking what I’m thinking?

L: Next stop – Dee Dee’s place for some bacon and egg pie!

T: WOOT! I hope she still makes those yummy sausage rolls.



NEXT TIME: Dealing with misrepresentations of Theonomy.

[dizzle]

no sausage rolls here, beef jerky all the way baby (I only caught that line, I will read this thoroughly later)

[Rupert Pupkin]

Thanks Jack, for shedding some light on this subject!

I do have a question which you might wish to answer which I think would shed a lot of light on your position, and would answer some of the issues underlying a couple of other people's comments I think. It is this:

To what extent is the objective, moral law that is revealed in scripture, also knowable by people who are not Christians?

That is, do you believe in a "natural law" that can be understood even by non-Christians, and which is basically compatible with scriptural morality?

Is there any "common ground" with non-Christians that we can appeal to, if we are trying to institute Christian laws?

I think this goes to the heart of some of the questions above. If only Christians can know true morality and law, then obviously either you are going to need a majority Christian population, or Christians will need to seize power and maintain it even though they are in the minority. But if non-Christians can appreciate and understand much of the moral law, then a basically Christian regime could be established which was democratic, even with a minority of Christians.

PS: Sorry but I posted this after only reading the first page of the thread, I thought that was all there was! Anyway, sorry if it appears out of context. But I'd still be interested in what you think!

[JonLanceBarker]

that's something i'd also be interested in knowing...by the way, Jackonomy, great thread!
:thumb:

[dizzle]

aren't you? :teeth: :hehe:

Of course.

[JonLanceBarker]

Of course.

well i'm not. :glare:

jk about the glare...:hehe:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Thanks Jack, for shedding some light on this subject!

I do have a question which you might wish to answer which I think would shed a lot of light on your position, and would answer some of the issues underlying a couple of other people's comments I think. It is this:

To what extent is the objective, moral law that is revealed in scripture, also knowable by people who are not Christians?

That is, do you believe in a "natural law" that can be understood even by non-Christians, and which is basically compatible with scriptural morality?It all depends on what you mean by "understood."" But I think basically the answer is yes. As Theo and Libby discussed, the Apostle Paul says that even those who don't have the law in writing still know the requirements of the law, as they are written on the heart.
Is there any "common ground" with non-Christians that we can appeal to, if we are trying to institute Christian laws?Well, there are a couple of issues there.

There's some common ground when it comes to moral knowledge, but there's no conceptual common ground. That is, while Christians and non-Christians might share moral beliefs, it's my position that if unbelievers were rigorously consistent, that wouldn't be the case. That's because the consistent natural man has no resources to defend moral beliefs, even though he has them. Our common ground is that Christianity is true, and both believers and non-believers are made in God's image, so we have a natural tendency to think God's thoughts after Him. So in fact we have practical common ground, but in principle the unbeliever denies the very basis of that common ground.

The other issue is that depending on one's eschatology, it may not be neccessary, in practical terms, to have common ground with unbelievers so that we can get them to accept biblical law while not believing. If a domonionist eschatology is correct - and I think it is - then the world will become more faith filled, and people will actually want biblical law.
I think this goes to the heart of some of the questions above. If only Christians can know true morality and law, then obviously either you are going to need a majority Christian population, or Christians will need to seize power and maintain it even though they are in the minority.Right. i go for the former option, not the latter.
But if non-Christians can appreciate and understand much of the moral law, then a basically Christian regime could be established which was democratic, even with a minority of Christians.Well here's the thing - since I think that all true moral beliefs have - conceptually - a Christian basis, I think that this is now the case in many Western nations. I'm skeptical that this could ever lead to a practical Theonomy though.
PS: Sorry but I posted this after only reading the first page of the thread, I thought that was all there was! Anyway, sorry if it appears out of context. But I'd still be interested in what you think!

No problem.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Thanks Jack!

If I can summarize: it seems to me that you do believe in a kind of natural law in the sense of a moral order built into creation which unbelievers can recognize, but you argue that they cannot support this on the basis of reason (given their presuppositions), and if they were consistent, they would have to disregard it.

This in turn seems to imply to me that this "natural law" is not known by unbelievers on the basis of reason, but on some other basis (perhaps "intuition", "perception", or something like that?)

It seems your position would allow you to hold that unbelievers can support Christian morality without having faith, even though they would be inconsistent in doing so. Consistency is not high on the agenda of many people in the community!

But I'd be interested in how you think this "natural law" is observable in nature without using reason. I'm not sure how that can be panned out.

What I'm getting at is that it seems to me that the theonomic position would work better if we allowed for natural theology and a common ground in reason with unbelievers. Once that common ground is denied (as it is by presuppositionalists), I think we have difficulty explaining how unbelievers could have knowledge of right and wrong or support Christian laws. I understand your pessimism concerning whether Christian legislation could be implemented without people being Christians. But perhaps that is just a contingent feature of our present society, and not something that is universal, due to the widespread influence of secularism. Perhaps we can unite in overthrowing secularism, with people who are not Christians but have other perspectives.

Let me put it this way: if we allow that what is right and wrong is, in principle, rationally knowable by anyone, whether Christian or not, then we might be able to recruit other religions and cultures to our cause, at least on specific points. Perhaps other religions and cultures do not obscure true morality in the same way that secularism does.

I understand that postmillennialists believe that the world will become increasingly faith-filled, but that seems to me unlikely (obviously we probably just have to disagree on that), which makes theonomy for me a kind of "pie in the sky" utopian theory, unless you can recruit unbelievers to the cause!

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Thanks Jack!

If I can summarize: it seems to me that you do believe in a kind of natural law in the sense of a moral order built into creation which unbelievers can recognize, but you argue that they cannot support this on the basis of reason (given their presuppositions), and if they were consistent, they would have to disregard it.Exactly right.
This in turn seems to imply to me that this "natural law" is not known by unbelievers on the basis of reason, but on some other basis (perhaps "intuition", "perception", or something like that?)Basically, yeah.
It seems your position would allow you to hold that unbelievers can support Christian morality without having faith, even though they would be inconsistent in doing so. Consistency is not high on the agenda of many people in the community!Well, it's high on the intentional agenda, but it's not practiced.
But I'd be interested in how you think this "natural law" is observable in nature without using reason. I'm not sure how that can be panned out.I think moral inutitionism is a very plausible epistemology.

In fact, if I get a bit of spare time I plan to put together a paper on this in the near future, arguing that moral inutitionism is best construed as a species of relabilism. Were were created to think morally, and when those bits of our faculties are working reliably by inutiting in the way they were meant to, they have a tendency to produce true moral beliefs.
What I'm getting at is that it seems to me that the theonomic position would work better if we allowed for natural theology and a common ground in reason with unbelievers. Once that common ground is denied (as it is by presuppositionalists), I think we have difficulty explaining how unbelievers could have knowledge of right and wrong or support Christian laws. I understand your pessimism concerning whether Christian legislation could be implemented without people being Christians. But perhaps that is just a contingent feature of our present society, and not something that is universal, due to the widespread influence of secularism. Perhaps we can unite in overthrowing secularism, with people who are not Christians but have other perspectives.Well, in one sense we do have such common ground, and in another we don't. We don't in the sense that it's my view that unbelievers have no basis for genuine moral truth claims, whereas we do.

But there's a sense in which we do. As God's creatures who live in God's world, unbelievers experience morality, and reason, and many things that are dependent upon our creator. Given that they do experience such things, I think there is a strong trascendental argument available for the truth of their basis - namely God. In a way this is common ground, because it appeals to belief that unbelievers already hold: That there are moral truths, and that we can use reason to account for those truths (at least, some unbelievers will grant this). Of course, many unbelievers do not grant the conclusions.
Let me put it this way: if we allow that what is right and wrong is, in principle, rationally knowable by anyone, whether Christian or not, then we might be able to recruit other religions and cultures to our cause, at least on specific points. Perhaps other religions and cultures do not obscure true morality in the same way that secularism does.I definitely agree. We may not be able to persuade people that it really is Christianity that accounts for moral truths, but as long as they reach the same moral conclusions that we do, then sure, as a pragmatic move I'd happily make use of that agreement.
I understand that postmillennialists believe that the world will become increasingly faith-filled, but that seems to me unlikely (obviously we probably just have to disagree on that), which makes theonomy for me a kind of "pie in the sky" utopian theory, unless you can recruit unbelievers to the cause!
Well, Theonomy is an ethic. I think that we should make efforts to improve the world even if we think it won't happen.

[JonLanceBarker]

i would consider myself a theonomist in theory (it is undeniably the highest and best standard God has set for human law!), but i don't think it will be officially instituted by any national government in this world.

this is perhaps because i am amillennial and see the Church as ruling with Christ in the spiritual Kingdom of Heaven, rather than establishing a visible "kingdom" in His Name with all the trappings of a worldly regime.

but in any case, i completely agree with the concepts of theonomy.
i can see that the world could benefit greatly from its restoration.
and i think that the law of God should be foremost in our minds when we vote, or have anything at all to do with politics.
i simply don't believe we will see it officially in action, as a legal code based entirely on the NT interpretation of Leviticus. :teeth:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Well, I hold that God's kingdom is spiritual as well. My dominionist view is not that God's kingdom will be established as an earthly kingdom, but rather as people come into God's spiritual kingdom, it will make a difference in how they govern their earthly affairs. I would never say that God's kingdom will be an earthly regime. But that's another matter.

[JonLanceBarker]

Well, I hold that God's kingdom is spiritual as well. My dominionist view is not that God's kingdom will be established as an earthly kingdom, but rather as people come into God's spiritual kingdom, it will make a difference in how they govern their earthly affairs. I would never say that God's kingdom will be an earthly regime. But that's another matter.

ah. :huh: :hrm: :blush: :teeth:
i was under the impression that one thing Christian Reconstructionists all agreed upon (their goal, in fact) was the establishment of an earthly version of the Kingdom of God.
apparently this is not a universal, since you have pretty much said that you are CR.

out of curiosity, do you think other CR's would consider you a CR? :demure:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

ah. :huh: :hrm: :blush: :teeth:
i was under the impression that one thing Christian Reconstructionists all agreed upon (their goal, in fact) was the establishment of an earthly version of the Kingdom of God.
apparently this is not a universal, since you have pretty much said that you are CR.

out of curiosity, do you think other CR's would consider you a CR? :demure:
It's commonly claimed, in internet criticism of CR, that they think the Kingdom of God is/will be an earthly kingdom - as in, a literal world government. But I have yet to see a CR say that.

And yes, other CR would consider me to be one.

[JonLanceBarker]

i was actually thinking of a critical essay written by some professors on CR, in which they paid a lot of attention to the "venomous" language used by CR's in denunciation of secularists and dispensationalists alike.
the professors also seemed to think CR's believed in a physical restoration of a Christian nation under the "tough rule" of theonomy.

goes to show how deeply secular profs go in their research...:ahem: :hehe:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Well, insofar as a nation with biblical laws is a Christian one, then sure, CR wants Christian nations. But they would never suggest that the kingdom of God is or can be such an earthly nation/kingdom.

And I've seen profs say some ridiculous things about RC, crossing their fingers that RC is so unpopular nobody will notice or care. It happens here at TWeb too.

[Rupert Pupkin]

I guess my personal problem with the kind of intuitive basis for morality you argue for is that I can't see what reason we would have to trust our intuitions. Suppose that someone thinks, intuitively, that X is wrong. Perhaps their intuitions have led them astray, because (say) it was a survival advantage for us to think that X is wrong, and so natural selection has resulted in our having that belief intuitively, even though in fact, X is right.

Of course, if God existed and he created everything then we might have reason to trust intuition, but intuition is supposed to be the fallback option for unbelievers, not for believers. I think unbelievers would have valid reasons to doubt their moral intuitions.

Because of this, I can see only one possible basis for a common ground with unbelievers, and that is reason. But, while I think that reason, rightly construed, supports Christian morality, I don't think that it does so obviously or tranparently. So I do not think that it could serve by itself as a basis for popular support of Christian morality by unbelievers. There is, however, another possibility.

There are many religions besides Christianity that allow for a transcendent good that is the ground of morality. Now obviously, what they believe is right or wrong does not line up completely with Christian morality in all instances. However, I think that the intellectuals within those religious traditions can be influenced by reason to articulate a moral code supported by the force of their revealed theology, that is basically good. I think this could be the basis for agreement on most moral issues.

However, atheism cannot provide a suitable basis for agreement, because there is no transcendent good in atheism (at least, not in conventional versions of it). Hence, secularism is really a unique problem in my opinion.

Anyway, just some thoughts. I was a pacifist and held to non-involvement in politics, but for various reasons have changed my view on these matters recently, but I would not consider myself a theonomist (unless that term is construed extremely broadly). I think we must work with whatever religion predominates to try and harness it as a force for social good; and I think that atheism and secularism are not capable of being so harnessed, so we need some other kind of religious consensus. A Christian one would be great, but I think that when Christianity becomes the established religion, it becomes distorted anyway and the churches become filled with unbelievers, so in a sense it becomes a false religion anyway. So it does not particularly bother me what religion we work with; I just think we need to bring it into line with the natural law which is discoverable by reason.

I must confess that my political thought has been influenced considerably by Plato; I've just finished a study on the Laws and it had quite an impact on me.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I guess my personal problem with the kind of intuitive basis for morality you argue for is that I can't see what reason we would have to trust our intuitions. Suppose that someone thinks, intuitively, that X is wrong. Perhaps their intuitions have led them astray, because (say) it was a survival advantage for us to think that X is wrong, and so natural selection has resulted in our having that belief intuitively, even though in fact, X is right.

Of course, if God existed and he created everything then we might have reason to trust intuition, but intuition is supposed to be the fallback option for unbelievers, not for believers. I think unbelievers would have valid reasons to doubt their moral intuitions.Yes, and I think - in spite of the nay sayers - that Alvin Plantinga showed that very effectively. As a Christian theist I have reason for trusting intuitions, and so I don't mind letting people -believers or not- appeal to their moral intuitions, however. So it's a practical common ground.
There are many religions besides Christianity that allow for a transcendent good that is the ground of morality. Now obviously, what they believe is right or wrong does not line up completely with Christian morality in all instances. However, I think that the intellectuals within those religious traditions can be influenced by reason to articulate a moral code supported by the force of their revealed theology, that is basically good. I think this could be the basis for agreement on most moral issues.Yes, and as a method of gaining support for policies, I would have no problem with that.
However, atheism cannot provide a suitable basis for agreement, because there is no transcendent good in atheism (at least, not in conventional versions of it). Hence, secularism is really a unique problem in my opinion.I agree entirely. So all I would do then is let people appeal to their moral intuitions, and accept them when I have no problem with them, and challenge them for justification if I do have a problem with it.
Anyway, just some thoughts. I was a pacifist and held to non-involvement in politics, but for various reasons have changed my view on these matters recently,I've very pleased to hear that!
but I would not consider myself a theonomist (unless that term is construed extremely broadly). I think we must work with whatever religion predominates to try and harness it as a force for social good; and I think that atheism and secularism are not capable of being so harnessed, so we need some other kind of religious consensus. A Christian one would be great, but I think that when Christianity becomes the established religion, it becomes distorted anyway and the churches become filled with unbelievers, so in a sense it becomes a false religion anyway.I would never want an established church or anything like that.
So it does not particularly bother me what religion we work with; I just think we need to bring it into line with the natural law which is discoverable by reason.I'd prefer to bring it as close to a biblical standard, and if people use other sources to get to those conclusions, fine, it's just those conclusions I want.
I must confess that my political thought has been influenced considerably by Plato; I've just finished a study on the Laws and it had quite an impact on me.I'm a big Locke lover at the moment.

[Michelle]

More of a futurist premil... endless promises of "any day now!" :wink:Is this thread done? Or... are we in one of those big, huge gaps between weeks?

[JonLanceBarker]

:shrug: who knows? :b_dance:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Oh... yeah... this thread. OK, I'll post another installment in the next week.

[Muhd]

Or not...

[Michelle]

:frown:

[dizzle]

I guess theonomists can't keep their word. :evil:

:pot:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Dammit....

[JonLanceBarker]

:rofl:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

:bump:

[Sheepdog]

:hmph: I would have expected an FAQ on Theonomy to answer the question of why he has such crazy hair.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I'm sorry I haven't gotten around to adding more to this thread. There are things going on at the moment. :sad:

[Sheepdog]

:sad:

:gasp: There's no crying in eschatology!

No worries here. I already found this thread to be very educational. I like the Paul-ish Q&A style.

[dizzle]

Wow, Jack is crying. Again.

[Kelp]

I'm sorry I haven't gotten around to adding more to this thread. There are things going on at the moment. :sad:
Don't worry. I'll still subscribe to it. I hope everything goes allright for you.

[Michelle]

I'm sorry I haven't gotten around to adding more to this thread. There are things going on at the moment. :sad:Sorry. I'll keep waiting....

This topic has been very, very interesting to me.

[Michelle]

Now that you're all acceptable and everything, is there any way to get you to finish this?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Now that you're all acceptable and everything, is there any way to get you to finish this?
Theoretically yes!

[Michelle]

Theoretically yes!
In practice?

[zemmiphobiac]

Very useful post, thanks!

NEXT TIME: Dealing with misrepresentations of Theonomy.

If you get a chance to write it, I'd love to read this.

[Trout]

:bump:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Within 3 days (yes, even 72 hours, saith Jack), there will be another full length addition to the conversation between Libby and Theo.

[Michelle]

:joy:

[Kelp]

You ought to do the Libby and Theo show on the BerettaCast sometime, too. It'll be easier for some folks to absorb it.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

You ought to do the Libby and Theo show on the BerettaCast sometime, too. It'll be easier for some folks to absorb it.
There is zero chance in mythological Hades that I would ever contemplate doing that.

[Michelle]

Oh come on, I bet Libby would love to do it.

[Kelp]

There is zero chance in mythological Hades that I would ever contemplate doing that.
Why not? Have your darling wife do the voice of Libby. It'll be awesome.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Frequently asked questions on Theonomy, continued

Day 5: Misrepresentations, part 1.

Libby: Theo! Long time no see!

Theo: Yeah... sorry about that. I got involved in a thread with Amnouy, and I-

L: You poor soul! Say no more, say no more.

T: Thanks. So, how have things been since we last spoke? Have you though much about the issue of Theonomy?

L: Have I ever! It has totally transformed the way I think about biblical ethics! But...

*pause*

T: But what?

L: Well, I’ve been reading some stuff about Theonomy that has made me a bit nervous. I mean sure, I see the biblical reasons you’ve given that make it look great, but there are these books and articles about it that really paint it in a different light. I just don’t know if I want to be associated with this movement that I’ve been reading about.

T: Oh, I see. Well, a smart person like you don’t take thse things lightly. I mean, it’s not like you’d be swayed by the likes of Hal Lindsey or anything. So, what kind of weighty objections have you been reading?

L: Oh, well it was... ah, you see.... [very quickly muttering] Hal Lindsey.

T: Oh for the love of...

L: (interrupting) no, no wait! Listen, I know he’s a total nut on every other issue he writes about, especially end times, but this time he really made sense!

T: *sigh* OK, OK. What did he say about Theonomy?

L: He said that Theonomists want to kill all the Jews!

T: No he didn’t.

L: What” how do you know that? He totally said that!

T: No, he didn’t.

L: Yes he did! How can you say that?

T: Because even if – just if – Hal Lindsey was so stupid or dishonest that he would dream up such a crazy idea, no theological publisher would risk publishing that kind of drivel. It would be professional suicide.

L: You are so wrong! It was published alright, in Hal Lindsey, The Road to Holocaust (New York: Bantam Books, 1989).

T: You have to be kidding me. They published this claim?Who are these people.

L: Oh, they’re a company that sells mostly paperback novels. But they’ve never been sued, so surely this claim can’t be that far from the truth.

T: Oh man.... OK, OK. Let’s get this straight: Hal Lindsey says that Theonomists want to kill all the Jews?

L: Yep, that’s how it reads to me, anyway.

T: And which Theonomists does he cite as examples of people who want this?

L: Well, he... doesn’t exactly “cite” any examples... so to speak.. per se... that is.

T: Well, does he have any footnotes to any books that define or defend Theonomy?

L: No, it’s not like that. The Theonomist writers aren’t just going to come out and admit this horrible stuff are they?

T: So where the heck does he get this crazy information if it doesn’t come from Theonomists?

L: Logic.

T: Wwhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

L: Well it sounded logical the way he said it. Here’s how it goes. Hal’s friend's father's friends in Germany went on to lead the third Reich. They were Nazis. Nazis! But Hal’s friends father didn’t agree with them when it came to the final solution. That’s because he was a premillennialist. If he hadn’t been premil, he would have wanted to kill all the Jews too.

T: Would he?

L: Probably. Anyway, that’s how Hal started describing the difference between premils – like him – on the one hand, and “dominionists” on the other. A dominionist is someone who’s... well, who’s not a premil. And they want people to follow God’s law and stuff like that, and they don’t follow Hal’s literal view of prophecy. That’s why they don’t believe that the Jews will be God’s special covenant people again and that is why

T: *interrupting* That’s why the want to kill them?

L: Yes! That’s why they want to kill all the Jews! It’s just like Hal Lindsey said. As soon as anyone denies his literal futurist reading of biblical prophecy and bring in God’s law and stuff like that, the next logical step is to “promote another holocaust for the children of Israel.”Those are his words [The Road to Holocaust, 283] He also says that people who want to follow the law are just like the Pharisees, and it’s so ironic that Jew haters can be Pharisees too! The law blinded Israel to her need for the Messiah, he says, so in addition to wanting the Jews dead, Theonomists are also acting like them!

T: Well he’s right of course. I mean, the Old Testament Jewish law clearly teaches that we should kill all the Jews.

L: Oh don’t be silly. Of course it doesn’t! That would be...

T: Ironic?

L: Yes, that’s the word, ironic!

T: Exactly. Who in their right mind really thinks that following the law today would lead to killing the Jews?

L: Well Hal Lindsey said it wou- oh. Wait a minute. That doesn’t sound right at all!

T: I can’t believe you even brought this guy up! Anyone who says that the Old Testament is anti-Jewish is a freakin IDIOT! And he’s just not telling you everything if he says that his anti-law view fits with a literal interpretation of Scripture. I mean, what about Jeremiah 31:33, which literally says that in the New covenant God will write his law on people’s hearts and they will follow them. Or what about Micah 4:2, which is the same as Isaiah 2:2ff

It shall come to pass in the latter days
that the mountain of the house of the Lord
shall be established as the highest of the mountains,
and shall be lifted up above the hills;
and all the nations shall flow to it,
and many peoples shall come, and say:
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
to the house of the God of Jacob,
that he may teach us his ways
and that we may walk in his paths.”
For out of Zion shall go the law,
and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

See that? It says that even the gentiles will some to learn the law of the God of Israel! If Hal Lindsey has a view of prophecy where the law of God isn’t the standard of righteousness, he’s in no position to talk about taking prophecy “literally.”

Incidentally, and this isn’t quite on the subject of biblical ethics but eschatology and prophecy – do you see there where it says that mount Zion would be lifted up, and all men and not just Israelites, that is, “all the nations” would flow to it?

L: Yep, it’s right there in Isaiah 2.

T: Right, now look at John 12:32

And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.
Notice any similarities? Mount Zion would be lifted up and draw all men, and now Jesus says he would be lifted up and draw all men.

L: You’re right, I do see that! So what are you saying, that this is already happening, because people from all nations are now coming to Jesus?

T: You bet! Here’s another New Testament verse that’s relevant here:

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem...

L: Woah! Stop right there! You have already come to Mount Zion?

T: Exactly. And this is exactly what Isaiah foretold. I’m a Gentile, and yet I’ve come to Mount Zion. And what did Isaiah say that we’d learn when we got there?

L: The Law!

T: Yup. So, what else did Hal Lindsey have to say?

L: Hal who?


In the next session: More misrepresentations of Theonomy.

[cherrykool-aid]

I just came across this thread. Can I have some more please?

[Eru Ilúvatar]

Very, very nice!

[gharfish]

Dr. Jack Bauer; I would think that surely you are in rather strong agreement with Greg Bahnsen, in his beliefs expressed in, "Theonomy in Christian Ethics." Am I right ? Moving on...

I'm unclear on this: are you a Dominionist?...see yourself as a part of the Christian Reconstructionist Movement ? I ask because I understand that Theonomy is readily accepted by most Reconstructionists--is really of quite some importance. Do you think this is so ?

[gharfish]

What would Theonomy, if by a person it's held alone and purely apart from Reconstructionism, 'reject' or deem N/A in this statement about Christians taking dominion simply for not being *of their Theonomy ?




.

[jhaslitt]

I think this conversation is interesting. The idea of God ruling is the right thing to know. Christ sets leaders over mankind. The thought of all Governments being submitted to God is found in Isa. "And the governments shall be upon His shoulders". Let us look toward the Kingdom of God instead of arguing about the rulership of men. The Kingdom is not established until the Millennial reign of Christ anyway....Blessings!

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

What would Theonomy, if by a person it's held alone and purely apart from Reconstructionism, 'reject' or deem N/A in this statement about Christians taking dominion simply for not being *of their Theonomy ?




.gharfish, Theonomy is a view of what morality and law should look like.

What you have posted is a person talking about how ________________ should come about.

Anything can go in the black space. Anything. Theonomy is one of those things. If you think a view of social justice is the correct one, then you also believe that it should be the one that is actually implemented.

What I am sensing here is a sense of outrage that not only do Theonomists think their view of justice is correct, but they actually want to see it imposed. But this is what it means to believe in a view of justice. If you don't want to see it imposed, then you don't believe in it.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I think this conversation is interesting. The idea of God ruling is the right thing to know. Christ sets leaders over mankind. The thought of all Governments being submitted to God is found in Isa. "And the governments shall be upon His shoulders". Let us look toward the Kingdom of God instead of arguing about the rulership of men. The Kingdom is not established until the Millennial reign of Christ anyway....Blessings!
You must be referring to a different conversation.

[gharfish]

Dr. Jack Bauer,

Any personal input on the second paragraph of my post 83 ? (straight up, this page).

I do know now, beyond what I said then, that Theonomy is an integral part of the Christian Reconstructionism movement's Dominion theology.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

gharfish, I dislike the Reconstructionist movement and do not consider myself part of it. As a "movement" it is, in my view, too partisan doctrinally and it needlessly tries to create a "total package" as it were, demanding that if you want to be part of their club you've got to share so much of their theology, and not just their beliefs on Theonomy and eschatology.

I will say, however, that some of the best work on Theonomy that I have read has come from Greg Bahnsen and Gary North. Bahnsen, although happy to identify with the Reconstructionist movement (largely because he actually does hold all the ecclesiastically driven stuff that gos along with it), was also one of the most strident critic of its divisive elements.

I'm very comfortable with the label "Dominion Theology," as it is simply an expression of the believe that as eschatology unfolds the reign of Christ will continue to extend and hold sway over more and more aspects of life (as opposed to the entirely pessimistic view of, say, dispensationalism, teaching that things are certainly doomed to get worse and worse, until Jesus rescues his church from the mess that is the world).

[gharfish]

Dispensationalism again ? Rats.

Yes, and one page back you suddenly went after dispensationalism by illuminating some paranoid parts of an old book by Hal Lindsey easily traceable to his weakness to go wild at times with what's happening to Israel. He blew it there, badly. However, in fairness only this far: that book attacked Dominionism; 'your' Theonomy caught flak because it's of Dominionism, the movement. Dominionism came to us through the Christian Reconstructionists.

OK, the two underlined ism's are at odds, we know. Yes, many Dispensationalists; they're at odds with their view which is tied fast with postmillinialism/ Preterism and Theonomy, which the very same author/founders of the CR Movement; they taught [all of this] to America...literally.

Dispensationalist, Thomas Ice, followed Lindsey's The Road To Holocaust just a year or two later with his own effort: Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse ? Thank goodness; not crazy. He has the right view of that anti-Semitic potential aspect of the CRM that Lindsey just went absolutely ape with earlier. It ruined Lindsey's book; period. It's only a potential. Ice is formerly right straight out of the earliest days of the CRM and so knows well and first hand about it's Dominion Theololgy and it's Theonomy. He had and still has some big concerns about the wish to reconstruct the world with OT biblical law--dedicated nearly a third of that book to discussing it. Theonomy owes it's life to the CRM men. All of the creating authors of the CRM/Domonion Theology, from Theonomist Rushdoony's son-in-law, Gary North--Chilton, and up to the modern day's, like Gary DeMar, both attack dispensationalism's *eschatology (the thing that is of offense) and teach Preterism to replace it. This was their greatest popular, very public, push. While Preterism is taught in a book, the eschatology of dispensationalism is attacked hard on and off the record, in succession by these several men. They are Theonomists. They are Dominionists. They are postmillinialists/Preterists. This is why if you are a Theonomist then of course! you are a Dominionist too, and it's a given to be a Preterist and so be 180 degrees opposed to dispensationalism's premillinial and rapture event and overall view of end-times events.

Postmillinial Preterism is Reconstructionist eschatology. So is Theonomy the Reconstuctionists'. It's all the "Kingdom Now' thing." I think the people reading the Dispensational author, Lindsey, on your topic of Theonomy (previous page) ought to know this. Keep House's and Ice's simultaneous criticisms of Theonomy a "secret" :-)




>

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Dispensationalism again ? Rats.

Yes, and one page back you suddenly went after dispensationalism by illuminating some paranoid parts of an old book by Hal Lindsey easily traceable to his weakness to go wild at times with what's happening to Israel. He blew it there, badly. However, in fairness only this far: that book attacked Dominionism; 'your' Theonomy caught flak because it's of Dominionism, the movement. Dominionism came to us through the Christian Reconstructionists. I'm having a hard time following this. But one thing: "My" theonomy, or just theonomy in general, is not and does not demand dominionism. Many critics of Theonomy make the error of confusing the ethical stance that is Theonomy with the Postmillennial eschatology of its proponents.
OK, the two underlined ism's are at odds, we know. Yes, many Dispensationalists; they're at odds with their view which is tied fast with postmillinialism/ Preterism and Theonomy, which the very same author/founders of the CR Movement; they taught [all of this] to America...literally. Why the use of square brackets. Are you quoting someone?

And again, those ideas are not tied fast.
Dispensationalist, Thomas Ice, followed Lindsey's The Road To Holocaust just a year or two later with his own effort: Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse ?Ah yes, that work was a collasal failure. Just bad on every level. Bahnsen gave it a good thrashing, as have I, for that matter. Seriously, House and Ice's book should not have even reached the publisher's desk.
Thank goodness; not crazy. He has the right view of that anti-Semitic potential aspect of the CRM that Lindsey just went absolutely ape with earlier. It ruined Lindsey's book; period. It's only a potential. Ice is formerly right straight out of the earliest days of the CRM and so knows well and first hand about it's Dominion Theololgy and it's Theonomy. He had and still has some big concerns about the wish to reconstruct the world with OT biblical law--dedicated nearly a third of that book to discussing it. Theonomy owes it's life to the CRM men. All of the creating authors of the CRM/Domonion Theology, from Theonomist Rushdoony's son-in-law, Gary North--Chilton, and up to the modern day's, like Gary DeMar, both attack dispensationalism's *eschatology (the thing that is of offense) and teach Preterism to replace it. This was their greatest popular, very public, push. While Preterism is taught in a book, the eschatology of dispensationalism is attacked hard on and off the record, in succession by these several men. They are Theonomists. They are Dominionists. They are postmillinialists/Preterists.Yes, they combine all of those beliefs, and the combination of those beliefs is called reconstructionism. Neither of those beliefs entail the others - although I do want to fix some of your terminology.

Preterism is not postmillennialism. Dominionism is postmillennialism (at least, in the way that you're using that term, which is int he modern way).
This is why if you are a Theonomist then of course! you are a Dominionist too, and it's a given to be a Preterist and so be 180 degrees opposed to dispensationalism's premillinial and rapture event and overall view of end-times events. No, that's quite wrong. You could be a Theonomist and a futurist. There's zero incompatibility there. It just happens that futurism is wrong. :teeth:
Postmillinial Preterism is Reconstructionist eschatology. So is Theonomy the Reconstuctionists'. It's all the "Kingdom Now' thing." I think the people reading the Dispensational author, Lindsey, on your topic of Theonomy (previous page) ought to know this. Keep House's and Ice's simultaneous criticisms of Theonomy a "secret" :-)huh?

[gharfish]

The ethical stance of Theonomy ? Ethical stance (?!) Theonomy is a reconstruction of the world under God by/with OT law reinstated. Does it "require" Dominionism ? (What ?) It's of Dominionsm ! Dominate and godly control with Jewish OT law Gentiles worldwide (God willing).

I talked about who gave us Theonomy. Distance yourself, so to speak, from those who you learned it from; whatever. Separate it out from Dominionism ? You really can not. Oh, the Kingdom to be now "does not demand..." Come on. It is how, in part, dominionism is going to get done, hopefully.

"Critics of Theonomy confuse it's ethical stance'...'with eschatology ? Now, I'm the one having a hard time following that, of your's.

Where did you study about Theonomy ? ...and Preterism ? Who, by names, taught you Dominionism ? Who may have been convincing at one time for you, personally ? And you know what I mean when I said that they are all tied fast together. I mean, what men of what movement gave you these, to also taught (?) You are a Preterist who I have tangled with before. Passionate. The several men over some forty years (like their rivals, the dispys) who gave America, book-by-book, [all of this] are the same men who formed what is the CRM. It's a movement...it provided for itself. It reframed, "optimistically," amillinialism and called it post-.

These: Dominionism w/it's Theonomy, and Preterism; "those beliefs do not entail each other." Why point that out to me ? I didn't say that that meant that if one is weak so too must be the others; only that one movement (CRM) gave the world them in a single package. Must I name the biggest books or something ?

Where can I see your good thrashing of House's and Ice's book ?

"Preterism is not Postmillinialism, " you said. The same ? Alright. --> Postmillinialism 'always leads to' Preterism! ...nowhere else.

"You can be a Theonomist and a futurist." Futurist. Bold. OK, but try and be one and not a Dominionist.

I didn't say that Theonomy and Preterism were incompatible, Jack. It just may happen that way when people learn all these in compatible stand-out, ground-breaking books as interrelated & right things to believe; that's all. ...Several essential to the overall cause authors--yep, united in these, you understand.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I'm sorry gharfish. I meant to reply to your post, but I accidentally edited it. I'll try to fix that now.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The ethical stance of Theonomy ? Ethical stance (?!) Theonomy is a reconstruction of the world under God by/with OT law reinstated. Does it "require" Dominionism ? (What ?) It's of Dominionsm ! Dominate and godly control with Jewish OT law Gentiles worldwide (God willing). Wait - what did you just say?

Let's get this clear: You think that Theonomy involves living by (for example) laws about food and sacrifices today?
I talked about who gave us Theonomy. Distance yourself, so to speak, from those who you learned it from; whatever. Separate it out from Dominionism ? You really can not. Oh, the Kingdom to be now "does not demand..." Come on. It is how, in part, dominionism is going to get done, hopefully. I'm sorry, maybe you just have a really different style of language from me, but I really do not know what you are talking about in that paragraph.
"Critics of Theonomy confuse it's ethical stance'...'with eschatology ? Now, I'm the one having a hard time following that, of your's.OK, let me explain.

It's common for the critics of Theonomy to imagine that they are criticising Theonomy when what they are actually doing is offering a critique of a postmillennial eschatology (and usually not a very good one). This is because the would be critic knows that the authors he has read who believe in Theonomy also believe in a postmillennial eschatology, so they get the two muddled up and fire at one while declaring that they are attacking the other. It's much more common than it ought to be.

Where did you study about Theonomy ? ...and Preterism ? Who, by names, taught you Dominionism ? Who may have been convincing at one time for you, personally ? And you know what I mean when I said that they are all tied fast together. I mean, what men of what movement gave you these, to also taught (?) You are a Preterist who I have tangled with before. Passionate. The several men over some forty years (like their rivals, the dispys) who gave America, book-by-book, [all of this] are the same men who formed what is the CRM. It's a movement...it provided for itself. It reframed, "optimistically," amillinialism and called it post-.

These: Dominionism w/it's Theonomy, and Preterism; "those beliefs do not entail each other." Why point that out to me ? I didn't say that that meant that if one is weak so too must be the others; only that one movement (CRM) gave the world them in a single package. Must I name the biggest books or something ? I'm really sorry, but I just do not know what you're getting at in most of the above or what you are looking for. However, if you want to know where I first read about Theonomy, it was by reading Greg Bahnsen, who was not only a Theonomist but also a reconstructionist. When I first became a Theonomist I was not a dominionist, and it is very easy to see that they are not necessarily related. However, since then I have also adopted the optimistic outlook you refer to here (unfortunately labelled "postmillennialism" but that's another story). I didn't adopt that position by reading Bahnsen, but largely because of my own biblical studies and also from a couple of old school writers on the subject (e.g. Boettner).

That's where it started, and I've read most of the material on Theonomy since then, and, I like to think, made some improvements on Bahnsen's work on Theonomy by approaching it in a much more ecumenical way. In 2002-2003 I completed my Master's degree in Theology. My thesis was awarded distinction, and was entitled The Role of Biblical law in Contemporary Government: Theonomy in Evangelical Dialogue. I was encouraged that Walter kaiser, one of the examiner's of the thesis, essentially agreed with the position I advanced.
Where can I see your good thrashing of House's and Ice's book ? What do you mean? It hasn't been published, it's not on TV or anything. It just happens that I'[ve read the book by Hous and Ice and I cringed at how awful it was. I recall making some comments on parts of that book in my thesis. If you like I can invest some time and find that for you.
"Preterism is not Postmillinialism, " you said. The same ? Alright. --> Postmillinialism 'always leads to' Preterism! ...nowhere else. Not so. One could be a preterist and an amillennialist. Preterism is not an eschatology.
"You can be a Theonomist and a futurist." Futurist. Bold. OK, but try and be one and not a Dominionist. I was one! There's certainly no contradiction there, because dominionism is just another name for postmillennialism, and you need not be a postmil in order to be a theonomist. That's merely a common confusion that anti-dominionists have made in their publications.
I didn't say that Theonomy and Preterism were incompatible, Jack. It just may happen that way when people learn all these in compatible stand-out, ground-breaking books as interrelated & right things to believe; that's all. ...Several essential to the overall cause authors--yep, united in these, you understand.What? Again, we have incredibly different styles of language. What you are saying is barely intelligible to me (plus I'm fairly sure that you used at least one important term there that you never meant to) and I don't have the gift of the interpretation of other tongues. I'm sorry.

[dizzle]

Postmillinialism 'always leads to' Preterism! ...nowhere else.

I am tired of correcting you on this. When someone keeps repeatedly something repeatedly shown to be untrue, you know what you call that?

The Rushdoony camp are postmill and are not preterist but rather a mix of many different things, primarily idealism.

It is unfortunate that each time I see you posting on this topic you repeat the same things over and over as if no one ever said anything to you. Unfortunately you and Ty Rockwell share that characteristic.

[gharfish]

No, what that that make me ? Stubborn? to have the gall to think and act as if that someone (you) had not shown it to be true to me that *one time before ?

OK. Move just one man beyond Rushdoony: Gary North.

There. Satisfied ?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

No, what that that make me ? Stubborn? to have the gall to think and act as if that someone (you) had not shown it to be true to me that *one time before ?

OK. Move just one man beyond Rushdoony: Gary North.

There. Satisfied ?So you've shown that there is someone who's a preterist and a postmillennialist.

Amazing. So that proves that postmillennialism always leads to preterism?

What is this ridiculous nonsense? Do you now even realise that most postmillennialists in history have actually been idealists and historicists, and not futurists?

No offense, but I think you're just guessing. Why not actually read up on this before commenting?

[gharfish]

I've easily found two more here, haven't I ?

Post- will have nothing, never, ever, to do with futurism. Tell me that's amazingly not true.

All Dominionists, like you, who are all postmillinialists, have an eschatology and that eschatology is preterism and can be nothing else. Preterism and postmillinialism are hand-in-glove. Quit simply messing around; "no offense."



And you can talk about postmillinialists Rushdoony and Bahnsen until the cows come home to Tyler, but maybe you will confess the problems--division--the just as essential to the CRM founders: Chilton and North, have on eschatology and theonomy, instead of insulting me, Dr. big. Ridiculous nonsense, huh ? OK. For all I care go realize this ? --> With the free hand not holding your Beretta, Why not actually... go practice pulling switches for electric chairs.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Post- will have nothing, never, ever, to do with futurism. Tell me that's amazingly not true.That's hardly amazing. let me break it down a bit more for your benefit:

Futurism is compatible with multiple eschatologies: premillennialism and some versions of Amillennialism.

Idealism is compatible with multiple eschatologies: Some forms of premillennialism, postmillennialism and amillennialism.

Preterism is is compatible with multiple eschatologies: Amillennialism and Postmillennialism.
All Dominionists, like you, who are all postmillinialists, have an eschatology and that eschatology is preterism and can be nothing else.You're just confused onthis point. Saying that Preterism is an eschatology is like saying that pretribulationism is a pneumatology. You're getting your categories all jumbled up.
Preterism and postmillinialism are hand-in-glove. Quit simply messing around; "no offense."I am not messing around. I am correcting errors of fact.

And you can talk about postmillinialists Rushdoony and Bahnsen until the cows come home to Tyler, but maybe you will confess the problems--division--the just as essential to the CRM founders: Chilton and North, have on eschatology and theonomy, instead of insulting me, Dr. big. Ridiculous nonsense, huh ? OK. For all I care go realize this ? --> With the free hand not holding your Beretta, Why not actually... go practice pulling switches for electric chairs.And may the Lord bless you too. He even loves jackasses.

[gharfish]

No, categorically it is an eschatology that envisions the end in it's own way.

TODAY preterism gets rid of the vast majority of prophecy, putting it in the past - N/A anymore, so that the CRM postmillinialist can be helped to proceed with accomplishing their mission of world domination. Theonomy is absolutely key for them in getting the Kingdom now into place, so that Jesus can [then] return. Dominionists have the Lord's great commission wrong.

I'm not taking about futurism, Jack. You are though. Idealism is NOTHING. Spare me.

~ Come clean on the only *kind of "futurism" you care about, Dr. let me break it down for you (?) This confused jackass thanks you.

The facts I gave are correct.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

No, categorically it is an eschatology that envisions the end in it's own way. Listen, you are just in error. You are mistaken. What I am telling you is a matter of simple, brute, indisputable, love-it-or-hate-it fact. I do not know what source of definition you are using, but you are just wrong. Accept it.

The various millennial views are eschatologies. The following: preterism, futurism, hsitoricism and idealism, are not eschatologies but rather hermenutical approaches. This is fact. To reject it is to simply be mistaken.

TODAY preterism gets rid of the vast majority of prophecy, putting it in the past - N/A anymore, so that the CRM postmillinialist can be helped to proceed with accomplishing their mission of world domination. Theonomy is absolutely key for them in getting the Kingdom now into place, so that Jesus can [then] return. Dominionists have the Lord's great commission wrong. World domination? "So that" Jesus can return? You're - not to put too fine a point on it - talking a load of crap.

Worse still, you don't even realise that you are being helped when I correct the errors you put forward. Have you really reached a stage where the facts can be damned, and you simply must be correct? Why is it so unthinkable to receive correction?
I'm not taking about futurism, Jack. You are though. Idealism is NOTHING. Spare me.Spare you the facts? Never!

[gharfish]

I don't want there to be possibly made any more ill will between us. So, I will leave your FAQ thread. I don't--you probably don't either--need a fight... Not life enriching, for sure. ...I think not productive in this case.

I'm sorry for my insults, Glenn.
Vance

~ edit: I see that you have posted while I composed this. I used the dictionary to define "eschatology," so; that's my bad, I suppose.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I hope you are not leaving because you simply intend on maintaining your claims about preterism and do not wish to defend them.

I do not feel insulted in the least.

[gharfish]

Leaving for that reason ? No. I told you why.

Honestly, I am getting increasing ly agitated, ever since I reentered this thread (after a long time) and it has been too heavy on my mind as a weight for a couple of days straight. That is reason enough, personally, so...

[Kelp]

Vance this is an error of thinking I once had. Dominionists of the postmill variety are most definitely NOT trying to conquer so that Jesus can return, they are saying that Jesus chooses to use them to conquer before He returns. Get it? Jesus doesn't need Dominionists, He just sovereignly decides to do things this way.

ETA: When you talk about people who say Jesus needs them to return, you might be thinking about Manifest Sons of God, Later Rain, and other heretical movements and teachers (Earl Paulk and Cindy Jacobs being two examples) which more properly deserve the label, "Kingdom Now Theology". These folks may be theonomists and even domionists but they are hardly orthodox Christians and Rushdoony, North and others would not subscribe to their distinctive heretical doctrines.



Thanks Jack for explaining the difference between the mills (eschatology) and preterism, et al. I finally get what you mean by "preterism is not an eschatology".

[gharfish]

Jesus is sovereign. Of course. He doesn't "need" the Kingdom be established first by us, He does expect, then ? It can't and will not be done that way, no matter. The Christianization of the world's systems is not what Jesus had in mind in the--His, parting commands/great commission task. Jesus would not have it as a priority AT ALL for us--what we are to do; make disciples of all people, for their sake and salvation from God's punishment for sin, that we attempt somehow! to reestablish OT Jewish law over the entire Gentile earth, and back onto Israel too. That ?! Nuts to that as any part of obeying Christ's great commission. Let the Israelis establish that themselves, for themselves, if the majority (by vote) wish to so structure their judicial system. But, hey; they already have a biblical code of law, as do we.

God the Holy Spirit, with His salvation gospel plan shared man to man; there's the true hope of changing men's hearts...and so the world. That's the mission; God's will. The law of Moses has not a part in it.

Now, I must leave. I have my mental health to consider. I'm no moron; I have been banned twice already just this year.

[Kelp]

Ok. I was just trying to explain dominionism to you to prevent misrepresentations.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Jesus would not have it as a priority AT ALL for us--what we are to do; make disciples of all people, for their sake and salvation from God's punishment for sin, that we attempt somehow! to reestablish OT Jewish law over the entire Gentile earth, and back onto Israel too. That ?! Nuts to that as any part of obeying Christ's great commission.As this doesn't even seek to address the reasons that were given for Theonomy in the dialogue that I have presented in this thread (and which, I promise, I will add to in the future), it's not something that I really need to comment on.

That's just how I roll,

[gharfish]

Ok. I was just trying to explain dominionism to you to prevent misrepresentations.Hi Kelp,

OK, because Jesus is God, He is sovereign and all-powerful. Agreed; of course.

As for dominionism: Then it's believed that Jesus does not require but does expect that conditions be made right on earth in advance by His follwers for His return (?) Is that an error, you think ?

You thanked Dr. Jack Bauer for "explaining the difference....." I say that premill, amill, and postmill are three schools of eschatology; yes. Reconstructionists who are all Dominionists and are all postmill (naturally) neccessarily have preterism as their's, hand-to-glove. The men who are core, seminal...founders, [of] the CRM, from Gary North 'to' David Chilton and on (and on); each and all literally taught America preterism to it's popular status. They also are the men as 'big guns' that began trying to shoot down dispy('s) eschatology. Dogging dipsys and here's preterism; it's a "thanks to them" thing.

Do you think that is not accurate ?

Preterism does envision the end in it's own way. It fits the normal definition of eschatology. The concluding four chapters of prophecy which are the chief of all the chronological *endtimes kind* are not past tense. Isn't it so that it's truly eschatological, *categorically, as I have claimed ?



Did that--your, ETA, come a good bit later ? ...because I didn't see that last night before I signed off. I'll say that the "Kingdom now (current age is the Kingdom) thing" *term I used I used to descibe the same CRM postmillinial perceived obligation/responsibility to develop recapture and exercise rule over the world's peoples; every part of every society, individuals and institutions. Kingdom Now isn't heretical for being Kingdom Now, AFAIK! and is found in Charismatic churches, which I understand those same core seminal Dominionist Theonomist Preterist CRM founders brought into their [movement]. The Kingdom Now folks agreed with the goal and plan of Dominionism.




>

[Kelp]

Hi Kelp,

OK, because Jesus is God, He is sovereign and all-powerful. Agreed; of course.

As for dominionism: Then it's believed that Jesus does not require but does expect that conditions be made right on earth in advance by His follwers for His return (?) Is that an error, you think ? I wouldn't see it as making conditions right, it's just how He wants to change and subdue the earth. In Dominionism, Jesus uses the Spirit working through the Church to purify the earth. Now contrast that with Premill which sees Jesus coming down in the middle of a thoroughly lost world and changing it instantly. See the difference?

As for which one is Biblical, I don't know. I'm still a Premill right now though I'm not good at defending it and I'm still studying. My views could change in the future though.

You thanked Dr. Jack Bauer for "explaining the difference....." I say that premill, amill, and postmill are three schools of eschatology; yes. Reconstructionists who are all Dominionists and are all postmill (naturally) neccessarily have preterism as their's, hand-to-glove.No they don't. Rushdoony is an Idealist mixed with some other things, as dizzle pointed out. Yes, I know you think Idealism is crap but surely you can appreciate that it is not the same thing as Preterism.

The men who are core, seminal...founders, [of] the CRM, from Gary North 'to' David Chilton and on (and on); each and all literally taught America preterism to it's popular status. They also are the men as 'big guns' that began trying to shoot down dispy('s) eschatology. Dogging dipsys and here's preterism; it's a "thanks to them" thing.

Do you think that is not accurate ? No, as I understand it, North and the others are not preterists. Now, certainly they would be interested in trying to refute dispensationalism, but as pointed out they are not preterists. I don't know hardly anything about the history of preterism. I think it starts getting popular in the 70s with Gentry and France; which is a decade or two after the CRM crowd was already up and running but don't quote me on that.

Preterism does envision the end in it's own way. It fits the normal definition of eschatology. The concluding four chapters of prophecy which are the chief of all the chronological *endtimes kind* are not past tense. Isn't it so that it's truly eschatological, *categorically, as I have claimed ?Preterism, furturism, idealism, and historicism are all different ways of reading prophecy, they are methods or looking at the text. An eschatology on the other hand is a doctrine or theory of what the end times will be like. Your view of the last four chapters of Revelation will either be Amil, Premil, or Postmil (or perhaps some combination) and that is your eschatology.

Now, depending on how you see various arguments you can use the principles of preterism, futurism, idealism, and/or historicism to arrive at one of these 'mill views, these theories of how the end of time will play out. You're confusing the tool with what is being built with it. Preterism is a way of reading prophecy, an eschatological theory is what you arrive at using preterism (or futurism or whatever).

Am I right, Jack?


Did that--your, ETA, come a good bit later ? ...because I didn't see that last night before I signed off.It came a few minutes later when I remembered to add it. I'll say that the "Kingdom now (current age is the Kingdom) thing" *term I used I used to descibe the same CRM postmillinial perceived obligation/responsibility to develop recapture and exercise rule over the world's peoples; every part of every society, individuals and institutions. Kingdom Now isn't heretical for being Kingdom Now, AFAIK! and is found in Charismatic churches, which I understand those same core seminal Dominionist Theonomist Preterist CRM founders brought into their [movement]. The Kingdom Now folks agreed with the goal and plan of Dominionism.The Kingdom Now people I was talking about (which I think, the term Kingdom Now was specifically concocted to refer to) are heretical because they propose such Word Faith nonsense as the Deity or eventual Deity of the believer not because they are dominionists.


As for whether their dominionism came from the founders of CRM, I can't say. I've seen some remarks that connect Pat Robertson with them and he is definitely into Rushdoony but I can't say for sure. I do know that Word Faith is big on Old Testament blessings applying today and man needing to have control of the earth, so I'd think the ingredients for Kingdom Now Theology were already there in Word Faith without the need for any of Rushdoony, et al.'s arguments.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, although CRM and Dominionism may be seen to constitute a form of "Kingdom Now" applying the term "Kingdom Now Theology" to it is misleading and technically incorrect as far I can see.

[dizzle]

No, what that that make me ? Stubborn? to have the gall to think and act as if that someone (you) had not shown it to be true to me that *one time before ?

OK. Move just one man beyond Rushdoony: Gary North.

There. Satisfied ?

No, it makes you less than honest. You said:

All Dominionists, like you, who are all postmillinialists, have an eschatology and that eschatology is preterism and can be nothing else.

All I have to do is provide examples where that is not true, and your claim is falsified. You keep making this claim over and over; you are corrected; and then you keep repeating it.

[gharfish]

No, as I understand it, North and the others are not preterists. Now, certainly they would be interested in trying to refute dispensationalism, but as pointed out they are not preterists. I don't know hardly anything about the history of preterism. I think it starts getting popular in the 70s with Gentry and France; which is a decade or two after the CRM crowd was already up and running but don't quote me on that.After have two posts of mine deleted that insisted that Jack cannot use an abbreviation that classes me as someone who would have sex with his own mother, I am angry. Where is the big red moderation tag that any brother in the Christian faith would get in a New York minute for this, directed at his fellow [believer In Jesus] ?!


I am a nut to come back after THAT.

But one last post, for to be something like a stand-up kind of guy for Kelp, a stand-up & good guy who deserves some kind and extent of a response, I feel:

You aren't a preterst, I realize --> Just an FYI thing: Greg Bahnsen and Gary North and David Chilton and Kenneth Gentry and Gary DeMar are the very main men founders and upholder of the CRM Dominionists with it's built-in Theonomy and the big time authors all bully for preterism and bash it for "dispenSENSATIONALISM." All preterists. In fact, so much so that if you learned preterism, you learned it from the bigtime books of these men, or people who did so and retold what came from their pens.

If you feel someone's post crosses the line, use the report button. Carping on it in replies to other posters is only going to bring more moderation.

[Kelp]

Ok. Thanks.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

But one last post, for to be something like a stand-up kind of guy for Kelp, a stand-up & good guy who deserves some kind and extent of a response...
Gharfish, this will not wash. Let's recap (roughly):

- You made statements about eschatology (millennial views) and hermeneutics (i.e. preterism), asserting certain connections between them.
- I replied, correcting this claim and explaining the way that these two things work together.
- You challenged me, asking me where I learned about Theonomy etc.
- I replied and outlined my credentials. I also explained that contrary to your claims, important historic postmillennialists were not preterists at all and the two positions are not wedded to each other.
- Without rebutting the above, eventually you claimed that you were getting agitated and wished to withdraw from the discussion. However you did end with a parting assertion, making a claim with no evidence about preterism/postmillennialism/dominionism.
- I then noted that there was no evidence given for this claim so I didn't have to worry about it. I expressed this by using a pop culture reference that you took great umbrage at (whether genuine or merely for rhetorical purposes, I cannot tell).
- My comment, your outrage at it, and my explanation of myself were all removed. I had no hand in this.

You have now replied to a comment from Kelp, implying that unlike me, he uis a stand up guy who deserves a reply. Now, I'm sure he is, but your dishonesty has now slipped into the "completely blatant" category. A stand up guy? You mean someone who comes to the party with full explanations of his positiona nd gives reasons for changing your claims?

You mean like I was doing all along? Remember gharfish, you claimed that you wanted to withdraw from the discussion because of your own personal issues - you were getting agitated. It had nothing at all to do with my unwillingness to present reasons and discuss the issue. If anything, it was you who was choosing not to be a stand up guy, as it turns out. You've now tried to re-write history, pretending that the discussion ended because of my comment that you took offense at.

That's low and untruthful.

I'll tell you what gharfish: I would much rather have a reputation as a guy who sometimes makes inappropriate pop culture references than as a man who doesn't care about faithfully representing others or being a genuine "stand up" truth teller.

You can decide for yourself which is worse.

[dizzle]

I'm no moron; I have been banned twice already just this year.

O Rly? When? By whom? It is only March. If you were "banned" twice already, you would be on suspension for six months at this point. I don't remember you ever being banned, this year or any other year. I do remember you flouncing off (and remember I explained what that term means, so don't go all nuclear again claiming I am saying you are doing something dirty). A flounce is not a ban.

[Kelp]

He might mean the whole, "Don't post in Tektonics" debacle.

[gharfish]

I was banned for two weeks, for two times, dizzle. See for yourself. You can. And, yes, I deserved it, and I do not want it to happen again, you see ! Just *one point, like say for disruption, and I'm gone for another two weeks.

Jack, I really did try to get out of here for relief of stress. And why not?, for I truly believed and felt that I had had my say and substantiated it to a reasonable level of satisfation for any visitor's sake. My replies that followed, you will notice, were then only to Kelp, for he came and was a 'third party' at that kind of late point (after I said I was going, and for what reason).

Yes, Jack, I simply meant that I was breaking my word to leave because I knew that Kelp's corrections and questions were not anything I need get stressed over: I could answer them straightforwardly without freaking...and so I ought to be forthcoming with information and feedback. THAT is what I meant by stand-up. I wasn't going to ignore them when he ought to have some sort of a decent response to posts he made directly to me.

We had not been fighting--no interpersonal tension formed, and it was theology talk, on topic: Theonomy which is of Dominionism. That, and also of the Dominionism (it is a movement); the spreading of preterism knowledge along with the anti-dispensationalism.

I had said all that I had for you, Jack. My information IS factual....so for me it was/had became a matter of being 'end of story' anyhow. I could leave and in good conscience, sure that I had told the truth as best I knew it. I'm therefore not sorry to try to leave. Let it remained unwashed; you cursed badly at me. Get back to answering FAQ on Theonomy? and don't think you can call me that and not think I think you be treated in a special way, for being on staff.


>

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

*yawn* so you do, in fact, want to simply walk away from the cogent explanations I have given as to how, very specifically, it is incorrect to clumsily lump those different views together and insist that they are one (all the while asserting that your facts are correct), gharfish.

Don't think it wasn't noticed.

[gharfish]

Yes ! Hello ?!

"Good save" with the brand new banner, BTW.

[gharfish]

"..........You've now tried to re-write history, pretending that the discussion ended because of my comment that you took offense at.

That's low and untruthful.

I'll tell you what gharfish: I would much rather have a reputation as a guy who sometimes makes inappropriate pop culture references than as a man who doesn't care about faithfully representing others or being a genuine "stand up" truth teller.

You can decide for yourself which is worse.What ?! I missed this inbetween part (in blue) and shot that you concluded with.

No, not so. How can it be ?! Why ? Well, because you (and anybody) can see that my unified posts, 102 and 104, came *before your 108 one with your "innappropriate pop culture reference."

So, no rewriting of history. No pretending. Not low and untruthful of me !




>

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I'd reply, but I'm feeling agitated, so I'll just assert that whatever you said in your last post is false.

[gharfish]

I didn't call your material false. I do disagree with Theonomy and it's source: Dominionism. I said I believed and felt that I had shown my material to be factual and certainly reasonably trustworthy to any visitor's standards. Do you realize how many hits your thread has gotten in the past few days ? I seriously doubt I have harmed your cause; 400+ people have come to see your presentation; a half a dozen pages of your own "assertions." And you've enjoyed agreement. I can debate and disagree, can't I ? No ? Only ask questions ?




>

[gharfish]

I'd reply, but I'm feeling agitated.....

Numbers don't lie: my posts 102/4; then your 108. So, not guilty as you charged me.

And mocking me looks like:




>

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I didn't call your material false. I do disagree with Theonomy and it's source: Dominionism. I said I believed and felt that I had shown my material to be factual and certainly reasonably trustworthy to any visitor's standards.ANy visitor's standards? Our disagreement concerned your unsunstantiated assertions about the relationship between preterism, dominionism and postmillennialism.

I taught you a lesson in eschatology, and now I am going to teach you a lesson in logic. You were ungrateful for the former, and I doubt you will like the latter. Inf act you did call my claims false, because it is a necessary truth that if you make claims that contradict mine and declare them true, then you are calling my claims false. Two contrary claims cannot both be true.
Do you realize how many hits your thread has gotten in the past few days ? I seriously doubt I have harmed your cause;I doubt it too, simply because when I have offered a claim about the subject at hanbd, I have supplied reasons for accepting the claim. I have also shown that your claims about the positions I hold are incorrect.
400+ people have come to see your presentation; a half a dozen pages of your own "assertions." And you've enjoyed agreement. I can debate and disagree, can't I ? No ? Only ask questions ?What does this have to do with what you are allowed to do? You're allowed to make baseless assertions about theology and eschatology, just as I am allowed to call you on it.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Numbers don't lie: my posts 102/4; then your 108. So, not guilty as you charged me. Your posts about wishing to leave the thread came after I had given you reasons that you had not rebutted.

100% guilty as charged. I say that you were leaving the thread because you were not willing to be teachable and that was irritating you, but you gladly "returned" to talk to Kelp because you didn't think he knew better than you.

[gharfish]

>