[dungscooperdave]

Okay, so what is this theonomy thing I've heard about? Furthermore, is there any Biblical basis for it? And what does Gary North have to do with it? If he really believes what that Wikipedia article says he believes, I hope he remembers what the punishment in the OT for a false prophet was.

Originally Posted by Deutoronomy 18

20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.'
21 And if you say in your heart, `How may we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?'--
22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.

[Mike Graham]

If you are refering to his Y2K predictions, you are grossly misinterpreting Deut 18. He never presumed to be speaking as a prophet, merely making an (incorrect) educated guess.

Do I detect a hostile attitude going into this? I doubt any of us will learn and grow much if that is the case.

[dungscooperdave]

Originally Posted by ¤

If you are refering to his Y2K predictions, you are grossly misinterpreting Deut 18. He never presumed to be speaking as a prophet, merely making an (incorrect) educated guess.

I was mostly just joking, though after reading the article linked to in Wikipedia I was under the impression that he was making some sort spiritual or apocalyptic predictions.

Do I detect a hostile attitude going into this?

You tell me . If you do, then you are under a false impression. I am not really concerned with Gary North. I am mostly concerned with theonomy. It just so happened that when I did a search on theonomy, the Gary North article on Wikipedia came up, and since I've heard his name before I just thought I'd ask about him, especially since it seemed like he was a major advocate of theonomy.

I doubt any of us will learn and grow much if that is the case.

I agree with your conclusion, but that doesn't matter much since the condition is false.

[Travis]

I've posted this before:
-------------------------
In determining which Old Testament laws are binding and in what way we must presume continuation between the testaments. That is to say, we must presume a commandment is kept unless we are taught otherwise in the New Testament.

Matthew 5:17-20
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes 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 does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Christ said that not an iota, not a dot, will pass away from the law until heaven and earth have passed away. Obviously the civil laws of the Old Testament are included in that. Christ has made it clear that those laws are still binding today and that teaching otherwise is a grievous error.

There are, of course, many laws, the outward manifestations of which we do not keep today. However, these laws were specifically changed in their outward expressions by the New Testament. I speak of laws such as animal sacrifice, the jubilee year—basically all laws that pointed to the redemption of Christ and are now kept in Him. Laws regarding separation of fibers and the dietary laws and such are also modified because the chasm between Jew and Gentile has been bridged--that wall has been torn down. These laws were kept in Old Testament Israel because the Messiah had yet to come and they were looking forward to His sacrifice in these laws. However, the Mosaic civil laws certainly didn’t point toward redemption in any way. They are moral standards and the statues thereof, which continue to be binding today.

The Apostle Paul further illustrated the carrying-over of the law when he applied civil law to a New Testament situation:

1 Corinthians 9:1-11
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

This is my defense to those who would examine me. Do we not have the right to eat and drink? Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?

Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? For it is written in the Law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain."* Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop.

* The verse quoted and applied here is a civil law found in Deuteronomy 25:4.

One of the attempted reductio ad absurdum arguments made against the continuing binding validity of the Old Testament law is one that says, “But how can we do all these horrible things? The Mosaic Law set capital punishment as the penalty for disobedient and incorrigible children? You don’t want to keep that law, do you?” Well, what do the Scriptures say? Our Lord Jesus Christ made it clear that the law regarding capital punishment for disobedient children is still in effect. Even if we held to the fallacious idea that laws have to be repeated in the New Testament to be valid we would still have to follow it:

Matthew 15:1-9
Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat." He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Who ever reviles father or mother must surely die.' But you say, 'If anyone tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father.' So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

" 'This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' "

Also, let it be noted that this form of argumentation is invalid anyway. All that matters is whether Scripture teaches something, not whether it goes along with our preconceived notions about what is just and what is unjust. God is sovereign and whatever He says is the law, whether we like it or not. The Psalmist, through divine inspiration, made it clear that the Mosaic Law is perfect:

Psalm 19:7
The law of the Lord is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the testimony of the Lord is sure,
making wise the simple;

If the Mosaic Law is perfect, must not any deviation from it at any point logically be imperfect and thus unjust? Does God want us to be unjust in our civil judgments? No He does not. In fact, it is an abomination into The Lord for a civil magistrate to be unjust:

Proverbs 17:15
He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous
are both alike an abomination to the Lord.

Proverbs 18:5
It is not good to be partial to the wicked
or to deprive the righteous of justice.

One of the recurring arguments against Theonomy is the idea that the Old Testament civil laws were binding upon Israel as a covenantal nation only. However, the evidence of this is simply lacking. Instead we see that the law was and continues to be binding upon all men, not just covenantal Israel:

Romans 2:14-16
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Psalm 2:10-12
Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
be warned, O rulers of the earth.
Serve the Lord with fear,
and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son,
lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

Furthermore, if, as some maintain, the law was for Israel alone, by what standard were the pagan nations around Israel judged? By what standard was Sodom deemed immoral and thusly destroyed? By what standard were the Canaanite nations deemed wicked and therefore wiped out? Does God have a double-standard of righteousness, one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles? No, our God is a just and fair God whose law reflect His own character—He is not a God of double standards.

Finally the civil magistrates today, even if they are professedly secular, are required to uphold the law of the Triune Christian God, and therefore the Mosaic civil law, in its general validity, since we have already seen that it has carried over into the New Covenant era:

Psalm 2:10-12
Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
be warned, O rulers of the earth.
Serve the Lord with fear,
and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son,
lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

Romans 13:1-4
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. (emphasis mine)

So there you have it. The civil law carries over and is binding for everyone in every facet of life, even civil magistrates today. That, in a nutshell, is Theonomy.
-------------------------

Regarding Gary North: North made no "thus saith The Lord" prediction and has never claimed to receive any relveation from God other than reading The Scriptures. Moreover, no one has claimed that they received Theonomy through direct revelation, only that they believe that is what Scripture teaches. Thus even if North did prophesy falsely (he did not) it wouldn't make Theonomy wrong, it would just mean that a false prophet held a good doctrine, which has happened before. The fact that someone is a false prophet doesn't mean everything they say is necessarily wrong, only that we cannot trust them personally.

[OliveShoot90]

Originally Posted by ¤

If you are refering to his Y2K predictions, you are grossly misinterpreting Deut 18. He never presumed to be speaking as a prophet, merely making an (incorrect) educated guess.

Do I detect a hostile attitude going into this? I doubt any of us will learn and grow much if that is the case.

who is this????

[SoccerAaron]

Originally Posted by OliveShoot90

who is this????

The artist formerly known as gethedge.

[Amanda]

That's Mike Graham, AKA "the artist formerly known as gethedge". And theonomy...is a bad idea. I would say my piece, but Issac Bradshaw (Ridley's Own) has an excellent post somewhere in his blog that I'll link to shortly that pretty much sums up my view.

*EDIT* Here is the promised article, and mad props to the talented Mr. Ridley.

[dungscooperdave]

Travis, I tend to agree pretty much with what you've posted, but I'm concerned a bit on some of the day-to-day applications of this. Suppose that, in such a theocratic society, a brother fell into adultery. Should he still be stoned even though Christ's sacrifice is supposed to atone for his sin? What if he repents before his execution? Should we still execute him? Also, what about heretics? Should we just go around executing heretics? How should we go about instituting a theocratic state? Should we just revolt and overthrow the current government because we feel that this is what God commands us to do? Is it not better to obey God than men?

[dungscooperdave]

Originally Posted by Amanda

That's Mike Graham, AKA "the artist formerly known as gethedge". And theonomy...is a bad idea. I would say my piece, but Issac Bradshaw (Ridley's Own) has an excellent post somewhere in his blog that I'll link to shortly that pretty much sums up my view.

*EDIT* Here is the promised article, and mad props to the talented Mr. Ridley.

Okay... but he mostly just says, "Theonomy is a dumb idea because it's absurd and contrary to current feelings about what a government and justice should be like." He also failed to propose a good alternative. I'd like to see some verses that support his view.

[shakeybill]

Originally Posted by Travis

I've posted this before:
-------------------------
In determining which Old Testament laws are binding and in what way we must presume continuation between the testaments. That is to say, we must presume a commandment is kept unless we are taught otherwise in the New Testament.

With that standard the only laws I see as not binding today would be the dietary laws and sacrificial system. Would you concur?

In Christ, Bill

[Travis]

Originally Posted by shakeybill

With that standard the only laws I see as not binding today would be the dietary laws and sacrificial system. Would you concur?

No. Also seperation laws which symbolized the seperation of the Jews and Gentiles (e.g., seperation of fibers in clothing).

[Travis]

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

Travis, I tend to agree pretty much with what you've posted, but I'm concerned a bit on some of the day-to-day applications of this. Suppose that, in such a theocratic society, a brother fell into adultery. Should he still be stoned even though Christ's sacrifice is supposed to atone for his sin?

Yes. Christ's sacrifice atoned for his sin before God, ransoming him from eternal punishment. It has nothing to do with his punishmet at the hands of men, which God instituted.

If it was the case that Christ's sacrifice covered civil punishment as well, then it would be wrong to punish ANY believer in ANY way, including prisons or fines. Not only that, but it would basically prevent any punishment of anyone as long as that person just claimed to be a believer (which everyone would if they knew that would allow them to avoid all punishment).

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

What if he repents before his execution?

Executed anyway. Numbers 35:31. Also the alternative would be absurd since anyone could merely claim conversion and avoid punishment.

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

Also, what about heretics? Should we just go around executing heretics?

Depends on whether their heresy is bad enough to be blasphemy or whether they make false prophecies.

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

How should we go about instituting a theocratic state? Should we just revolt and overthrow the current government because we feel that this is what God commands us to do? Is it not better to obey God than men?

Through legal means. Even poor rulers still have jurisdiction, and we are not to bring about God's kingdom via the sword.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Amanda

That's Mike Graham, AKA "the artist formerly known as gethedge". And theonomy...is a bad idea. I would say my piece, but Issac Bradshaw (Ridley's Own) has an excellent post somewhere in his blog that I'll link to shortly that pretty much sums up my view.

*EDIT* Here is the promised article, and mad props to the talented Mr. Ridley.

I wonder why Isaac never made me aware of this article to allow me a chance at refutation. I also wonder why this was never mentioned in the lengthy debate we had on the issue here on CGR. It seems to me that someone didn't want me to respond. Expect a refutation in a few days.

[Travis]

I will be writing a refutation of this article by Isaac. I haven't decided on what format I will use yet, however. I might use a point-by-point format response with quotes to make it eaiser to follow. While that will be a pain I think it will help to show that I address every one of his arguments, and to show that he isn't giving an answer.

In the meantime, if anyone would like to see Isaac try to answer the tough questions regarding punishment justification in the absence of theonomy, just go here and read a debate between the two of us (with some other posters posting here and there). The debate starts on page two where I make theonomic claims (starting in post #23) and Isaac tries to offer alternatives (starting in post #30). From there on we debate the subject. See for yourself--he has no answer to a presuppositional defense of theonomy. Ultimately his standards are arbitrary and unfounded biblically as they are proven to rest upon his own personal preference and/or feelings or on an appeal to the majority. The last two posts in the thread (which are two of my responses to him) are extremely revealing.

[Mike Graham]

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

You tell me . If you do, then you are under a false impression. I am not really concerned with Gary North. I am mostly concerned with theonomy. It just so happened that when I did a search on theonomy, the Gary North article on Wikipedia came up, and since I've heard his name before I just thought I'd ask about him, especially since it seemed like he was a major advocate of theonomy.

I apologize for my misjudgement. I'd be honored to be included in the discussion.