A few theonomists read my blogs, so theonomy comes up in the comments on occasion. Last week, Mycroft Jones asked me why I wasn’t a theonomist. So, here’s a response.
First, for those who don’t know much about it, theonomy is the political idea held by Christian reconstructionists, an offshoot group of Reformed calvinist fundamentalists (not those calvinists) who believe in theocracy, that the Mosaic law should be observed by modern societies.
The main reason I’m not a theonomist is that it is made clear in the New Testament that the law has been fulfilled, we are under a new covenant and are not longer beholden to the rituals and laws of the Mosaic covenant.
The symbol of belonging to the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants was circumcision. The Mosaic covenant was memorialized through the ritual of passover and enacted through the blood of sacrifice. Those not of the covenant, ie. the uncircumcized, could not participate in passover and could not enter the temple to participate in sacrifice rituals. Jesus was the final, ultimate sacrifice and his death created a new covenant, the ritual of sacrifice was fulfilled in him and the ritual of passover was replaced by communion.
In the Jerusalem Council, Paul, Peter, Barnabas, and the other disciples, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit decided that circumcision was not required of Christians.
The Jerusalem Council
But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”
The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
…
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
…
Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”(Acts 15:1-29 ESV, selected)
From this it is clear that Christians are not under the Mosaic covenant. This reaffirms Peter’s earlier vision:
The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.
Now while Peter was inwardly perplexed as to what the vision that he had seen might mean, behold, the men who were sent by Cornelius, having made inquiry for Simon’s house, stood at the gate and called out to ask whether Simon who was called Peter was lodging there. And while Peter was pondering the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. Rise and go down and accompany them without hesitation, for I have sent them.” And Peter went down to the men and said, “I am the one you are looking for. What is the reason for your coming?” And they said, “Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, was directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and to hear what you have to say.” So he invited them in to be his guests.
The next day he rose and went away with them, and some of the brothers from Joppa accompanied him. And on the following day they entered Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man.” And as he talked with him, he went in and found many persons gathered. And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without objection. I ask then why you sent for me.”
Here is made clear that once was unclean was made clean. As Paul wrote in Galatians, we are no longer under the law:
For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
(Galatians 3:10-29 ESV)
http://www.esvbible.org/Galatians+3/
We are no longer under the law but under faith. He continues, specifically linking this to circumcision:
Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion is not from him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is. But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!
We are not under the law, we are under grace. We are no longer to be circumcised as we are no longer in the Mosaic covenant, so we are not under the Mosaic laws. Christ has fulfilled the law. Theonomists are trying to bring the whole of the law upon themselves, to be justified by law, which leads to a falling from grace.
We are to follow the commandments of the new Covenant, those that are (re-)affirmed in the New Testament. The civil laws of the Mosaic covenant are nowhere reaffirmed.
That being said, I’m not necessarily opposed to theocracy, if it were a Christian theocracy and not a Mosaic theocracy.
None of this is to say that Mosaic law is to be ignored. It can and should still be used as guide and reference, but we are not bound by it.
****
Also, Jacob asked:
When you say “your people”, do you mean God’s people (Christians), or whites?
Both are my people.
Well done.
I doubt a Mosaic theocracy is even possible today. God is no longer directly involved in human affairs and Gentiles are neither organized by tribe/clan nor bound to specific tracts of land. If the Almighty was okay with believers being Roman Empire citizens then there’s certainly no divine mandate for a theonomic gov’t model.
“That being said, I’m not necessarily opposed to theocracy, if it were a Christian theocracy and not a Mosaic theocracy.”
Even then, I dunno. That was more or less what the Vatican kept trying to do and it never worked out.
If Christian theocracy means a government limited to its God-given duties then okay but granting a centralized authority both secular and religious power is no protection from evil. America had good experience with the Church acting as a watchdog rather than a participant.
What if we had a secular gov’t that uses the Bible as its official moral anchor but not its official religion?
Sounds like they’re Judaizers.
Law is surprisingly similar among different civilizations. What is needed is not theocracy but freedom from the satanic theocracy that is corrupting the rational establishment and enforcement of the law.
A further question before I write a rebuttal. Did you seriously consider theonomy, or did you do your research with the point of view “I can debunk this”. Because every point you brought up is amply discussed and dealt with in theonomic literature. If it just isn’t your cup of tea, fine.
And a second follow up question: without the Law of Moses as the Law, what Law would a Christian theocracy follow? Canons of the church? Voice of the pope? When read closely, nothing in the New Testament is extraneous to the Law of Moses.
Whoa now. I think this is a really big mischaracterization of theonomy. None of the serious authors on this — North, Bahnsen, Rushdoony, etc — believe in being “under the law” or in being “justified by law”. They agree with the rest of Calvinist thought on this point: salvation under the Mosaic administration was also by grace, and the Old Testament does not teach another way of salvation or justification than the New; merely that the gospel was a mystery hidden to them and revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ. The theonomists’ point is that Jesus fulfilled the law rather than abolishing it. The biggest change in practice between the old covenant and new is a change in covenant signs, and no longer needing laws that symbolize and enforce the separation between Jew and Gentile, since salvation is now for the world instead of merely a single nation. But plenty of Biblical law dealt with other topics, and we should take it seriously.
The question the theonomists are trying to answer is “How should Christians reason about civil law?” In general their answer is “By accepting the civil laws of the Mosaic economy(that were not ritual/ceremonial requirements fulfilled in the work of Christ) as a basis”. So they don’t really go much beyond what you said about “guide and reference”.
There’s much to critique about the specific answers these authors give as to how Biblical law should be interpreted and applied in our present context — but anyone who thinks the Ten Commandments are still in force agrees with the basic principle, and I really wish we saw more people engaging with this stuff at the level of detail the theonomists did.
Thanks for answering my question. For those who were wondering, it was in relation to The Bible on Refugees post, in which FN tried to answer the evidently burning question of what to do with “hundreds of thousands of invading immigrants into your country”.
The obvious problem with taking a white view of the refugee crisis and positioning it alongside the Christian view is that the West is neither white nor Christian. The West, in fact, has never been truly white or truly Christian. One could certainly argue that Europe has been ruled mostly by white people, and ostensibly on Christian principles for the most part, but in reality the West is a conglomerate of cultures and an aggregate of the best and worst the world has to offer, which makes it mulatto and secular at best.
There has never been a time the Western world has adhered to Christian values, save perhaps in the early days of the Roman Emperor Constantine’s conversion and in certain places in the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation. For most of its history the West has had an intense hatred of foreigners and has sought to rob, steal or otherwise extort resources and IP from them under the presumption of a right to command and conquer. Cultural supremacy is not to be confused with a divine right to rule.
The truth is that Western culture, just like every other culture, is in Satan’s domain. Moreso if it insists on colour-coded nationalism. If one must give the West a complexion, it’s ruddy at best and pockmarked with the scars of disease.
Christians have never been defined by their race or colour or lands. If one believes there’s a biblical mandate to defend one’s borders on the basis of race or colour, one does not have a Christian view.
The error of the Israelites was to believe the Promised Land was a physical place and their racial and cultural identity has something to do with God’s future plan for the world. God, on the other hand, points at spiritual attitude, which for the Israelites, was oriented towards themselves. Jesus came to correct the cognitive dissonance that led to this superiority complex.
Feel free to correct me if I’ve misunderstood.
You’ve misunderstood. Lindsey Wheeler wrote a good article on God’s plan at the Tower of Babel; races and nations are the creation of God himself.
http://www.academia.edu/14904951/The_Tower_of_Babel_The_Philosophy_of_Race_and_the_Genocidal_Ideology_of_Social_Justice_Political_Correctness
Although Lindsey Wheeler doesn’t cover it, the Flood and Babel narratives are deeply tied into the findings of Calhoun in his “Rat Utopia” experiments. Understand Calhoun, and you will understand why separate races/nations are essential to the survival of all mankind. Every species is territorial.
“Law is surprisingly similar among different civilizations.”
Sharia really is not the same as western secular law. Trust me on that.
[quote]The main reason I’m not a theonomist is that it is made clear in the New Testament that the law has been fulfilled, we are under a new covenant and are not longer beholden to the rituals and laws of the Mosaic covenant.[/quote]
If this could be demonstratively proven to be a false assertion, would you want to know? I can prove it a lie that has been brought in to deceive all who follow it to put them on the path of a different G-d and not the one that their own Bible speaks of. Not with just a couple of “verses” taken out of context as you did here, but with weight of evidence historical, textual, linguistic, and archeological. The evidence is plain as day but as the book says people love their comfortable lies more. So the question is which are you? Do you want the evidence enough to search it out if pointed to it or are you comfortable in your traditions and should be left there? I’m ok with either option you pick but some how I doubt you prefer ignorance to evidence even when the outcome is a radical change of lifestyle. If I’m wrong about that then fair enough you’ll have your traditions no different than the Pharisees had theirs.
@Mycroft Jones
Thanks for the links. Regarding Wheeler, one of the problems with cherry-picking parts of Scripture to gain support for the idea one is trying to put forward is that it fails to take the whole of Scripture into account.
Cherry-picking like this is particularly risky with Old Testament stories. The OT is full of acts of God that could be interpreted as supporting pretty much anything one wants them to support – racism, genocide, mass murder, nuclear war, rape, feminism, hypergamy, male disposability etc. Taken as a whole, however, the Bible teaches that God’s singular purpose for Man is to return us to His garden. The entry ticket is not race (both Jew and Gentile can gain admission), but grace. In other words, eveyone has the opportunity to return to Eden, all they need to do is repent of their sins and follow Jesus.
For Christians, the Tower of Babel story (one of the cherry-picked items Wheeler uses to support his point) and indeed every other story in the OT, teaches how God’s laws for His people supernaturally selected and preserved His chosen people through the ages in order to produce the final solution Jesus. While these stories leave little doubt that racial selection of a certain Jewish tribe (the tribe of King David) was once part of God’s plan, there’s little doubt that race no longer plays a part now that Jesus Christ is in the world. Note that the Apostle Paul was specifically appointed by God to minister to the Gentiles – i.e. everyone else.
The early Christian churches (Ephesus, Corinth, Colossae, Galatia, Philippi etc) more than likely comprised African and Arab traders, slaves and travellers as much as Greeks and Romans, so more than likely had just as many browns and blacks in them as whites. In Asia too – Christianity has been preserved in India and China since the very first missionaries arrived there in early Christian days, long before ‘the West’ was even a coherent civilisation.
God’s kingdom is not Man’s kingdom. To presume Christianity has been, or ever will be, the domain of any particular race or worldly nation is to deny Jesus Christ. It’s basically saying He never died for all mankind and was never resurrected to the Holy Spirit. In other words, it isn’t Christian.
The assumption here is that Jesus was the Christ and sufficient to fulfill the Law.
I look at gentile culture today and see that the people have NOT been saved. I wonder if it is possible to save them.
I settle for accepting that the question of “salvation” is moot. I just want gentiles – and Jews – controlled. Kept down. Suppressed. Whatever gentiles and Jews require for the next world is up to the individual gentile and Jew. In this world, they all require a powerful monarch.
“Jesus was the final, ultimate sacrifice and his death created a new covenant, the ritual of sacrifice was fulfilled in him and the ritual of passover was replaced by communion.”
Read this
http://www.amazon.com/Twenty-Six-Reasons-Jews-Believe-Jesus/dp/0977193705
“If this could be demonstratively proven to be a false assertion, would you want to know?”
If he were to respond to you, I suspect his answer would be “no”.
If that is the case (and I suspect it is) then Nick Land has his answer, why Reconstructionists aren’t lining up at the NRx table. Why bother; they obdurately ignore the only solution that will work; they keep trotting out the same handful of verses that Christianity has mistranslated and misinterpreted from the time of Emperor Hadrian onward. The original teachings of Jesus were pro-Torah, more Karaite and Samaritan than anything else. Anyone raised in a non-Christian background, could read the Old Testament and New Testament and see that for themselves.
@ Gunner:
“Even then, I dunno. That was more or less what the Vatican kept trying to do and it never worked out.”
Christendom lasted for a millenia or so. While never fully united or perfect, it wasn’t a failure either.
@ Mycroft:
“A further question before I write a rebuttal. Did you seriously consider theonomy, or did you do your research with the point of view “I can debunk this”. Because every point you brought up is amply discussed and dealt with in theonomic literature. If it just isn’t your cup of tea, fine.”
Years ago, I had a friend who was a theonomist and a group of my friends liked theology, so we discussed theonomy some. I also read a decent amount of North’s blog way back when. I did not find theonomy particularly convincing, but neither have I seriously studied the topic. I’m sure that anybody writing seriously on theonomy would have had to have addressed those verses I posted, so I’m sure there’s arguments against.
@ ash v
“Whoa now. I think this is a really big mischaracterization of theonomy. None of the serious authors on this — North, Bahnsen, Rushdoony, etc — believe in being “under the law” or in being “justified by law”.”
You are likely right, from what I remember the would all be grace alone types.Being justified by law ould be an inadvertant side effect rather than a stated goal.
“So they don’t really go much beyond what you said about “guide and reference”.”
Really? It always seemed to me they went beyond a guides to a hard commandment.
“but anyone who thinks the Ten Commandments are still in force agrees with the basic principle,”
The Ten Commandments are all reinforced through the NT (except the Sabbath).
@ Jacob:
“The obvious problem with taking a white view of the refugee crisis and positioning it alongside the Christian view is that the West is neither white nor Christian.”
The West is white and always had been, unless you take a very strict nordicist view of white. The West was also Christian, more or less.
“For most of its history the West has had an intense hatred of foreigners and has sought to rob, steal or otherwise extort resources and IP from them under the presumption of a right to command and conquer.”
The West? More like everybody. In fact, the West has been the most merciful towards foreigners of any civilization.
“Christians have never been defined by their race or colour or lands.”
Paul identified with his fellow Jews. The entire Eastern Church has always been heavily nationalistic. The Western Church has had a history of protecting its lands.
“God’s kingdom is not Man’s kingdom. To presume Christianity has been, or ever will be, the domain of any particular race or worldly nation is to deny Jesus Christ. It’s basically saying He never died for all mankind and was never resurrected to the Holy Spirit. In other words, it isn’t Christian.”
Nobody is, or ate least I am not, claiming that. There’s a difference between ‘Christianity is particular to a single group’ and ‘Christians can be a part of groups other than just CHristians and can be particular about how they define and defend these groups’.
@ Vlad:
“If this could be demonstratively proven to be a false assertion, would you want to know?”
Yes, I will change my mind on anything if sufficient evidence and argumentation is presented. But no I am not going to go out of my way to look for evidence on why the Jewish God is real and not the same as the Christian God who is not real, and I have no plans to read Shlomo’s book.
“and I have no plans to read Shlomo’s book.”
Perhaps consider reading reason #8 (out of the 26 legitimate reasons enumerated in the book I cited) why Jews do not believe in Jesus. Should not take you very long to read.
http://www.26reasons.com/reason8.html
I tackled this issue here:
http://citadelfoundations.blogspot.com/2015/08/three-religious-strains.html
Your treatment of it us very clarifying and useful. The error of what has come to be known as ‘theonomy’ (though I have etymological complaints here) is not its disavowal of secularism, but its insistence on the Mosaic Law.
Free Northerner: [quote]Yes, I will change my mind on anything if sufficient evidence and argumentation is presented. But no I am not going to go out of my way to look for evidence on why the Jewish God is real and not the same as the Christian God who is not real, and I have no plans to read Shlomo’s book.[/quote]
I don’t know Shlomo, and hence cannot speak for him. I however can prove that “Christianity” has been corrupted and is NOT what was taught by the man you call “Christ”. Not that He isn’t who you have been told He is, only that everything you’ve been told that means is badly corrupted and not an accurate picture. This isn’t about saying that what Christianity THINKS it’s purpose is, is wrong rather that they’ve been intentionally and unintentionally mislead about what it all means.
Y’shua (Jesus as you call Him) is EXACTLY who you think He is, but most of what you think you know about Him doesn’t describe Him but rather older pagan “deities”. It would be like calling a pig a chicken for two thousand years and to the point that when people ask for chicken they expect pork. They eat that pork they now call chicken and get very angry when ever anyone points out that it isn’t chicken but pig and certainly not what someone 1900+/- years ago would have meant by a chicken dinner. This isn’t conjecture it is easily provable, it just take time and a willingness to double check the facts. Seek and you shall find, don’t seek and you probably won’t unless He wants you to trip over it as He did for Shaul (whom you call Paul).
I’m not here to proselytize, but you seem mostly sincere in your other dealings and as I said in another post you did me a good turn by giving me a way to talk to those who were secular about it. DOING teshuva (translated as repentance) which means not just being sorry but also making amends (to use the 12steppers lingo) turning from that which you did before, and turning toward obedience.
My whole point in all of this is to make an offer to return good for good. You helped me and I can help you in return. It is only an offer, and one you should feel free to refuse if you simply don’t care about it. You don’t seem to me to be one who will accept the comfortable lie he grew up with, at the expense of reality and fact. If I am wrong please reply and let me know and I’ll bother you no more about it.
FN, you have a terribly myopic view of the West. Perspective matters, I suppose. If you’re white and Christian, the West is those things. If you’re a Chinese Buddhist descended from the opium traders in Hong Kong, which made many of the eastern sea trade routes possible, it is those things too. If you’re the Hinduja family in London whose kinsmen’s vast ancestral wealth and blood was spent to build the government buildings along the Embankment then the West is those things also. If you’re a voodoo-practising Jamaican banker in Kingston whose great-great-great grandfather cut the sugar canes that funded the development of the Panama Canal, then the West is that too. The West is an aggregate and a conglomerate. Calling it white and Christian doesn’t make it so. I’d go on, but the distinguishing feature of the white man is his irrational self-regard. I don’t expect you to be any different.
Vlad ben Avorham: He already said he was willing. You can proceed directly.
Free Northerner: I’m busy, but I’ll jump in when Vlad lags. But I can tell you, this process took me years to get through, probably took Vlad time too. This isn’t something where you see a few proof texts and go on your merry way. We can cover ground a lot more quickly viva voce.
Vlad: if you want to kill peoples interest, just add that Sacred Namer and Ephraimite Tribes stuff in. It muddies the waters incredibly, and takes credibility away from us Covenanters. (ie, please don’t….)
For me, all the different statements and articles were conflicting until I did one simple thing: I started at Genesis 1:1, and read to the end of Revelation. Every day. In order. I didn’t skip around. It took a while to accomplish. And as I read, I just held the question in my mind; does anything here indicate the law is bad, imperfect, or about to be done away with? I also kept my eyes peeled for any indicators that the law was divisible into “moral” and “ceremonial” components. Short answer: no to both. A subsidiary question was: “if the law was done away with, WHEN was it done away with”. Short answer: Bible doesn’t say. The brief comment in the book of Hebrews of “about to vanish away” indicates something yet future. Shows that it didn’t vanish with the death of Christ.
When I got to Acts 21 and noticed that 20 years after Jesus death, Paul had to go to the Temple and sacrifice some sheep in order to be a Christian in good standing! Well… the Christian narrative is pretty different from the Bible!
Christianity borrows symbols and stories from the Bible, but it really isn’t in any way a religion of the Bible.
The Byzantine empire abolished usury, and did several other things found in the Law of Moses. That is why they are the only empire in history that broke the Glubb limit; and they only fell to an invading force that adhered even MORE closely to the Law than they did. Yes, Islam. Until the rest of the world gets their butts in gear and adopts Torah, Islam is going to keep growing, and will slaughter them.
Once I went through that process of reading the Bible beginning to end, the evidence and understanding kept accumulating, with no contradictions standing for long.
As I went through the Bible, I noticed there were a lot of statements that just didn’t make sense in context. Those, I marked. Then when I saw people using those statements to back up doctrines, I knew instantly they were full of shit. Over time, many of those incomprehensible statements started to make sense. But the foundation was letting the Law be what it is.
For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other. Unless you put them side by side, then you actually learn some interesting new details about Creation Week. And ALL contradictions in the two accounts vanish. http://loveandtruth.net/adam-third-day.html
Theonomy translates directly as God’s law, which is not specific to the Law of Moses, at least in the context of Neo-Reaction. Read the Neo-Reaction canon regarding the Trichotomy.
A.J.P.
This is not the right place for an exposition of theonomy but perhaps a few point will be helpful to understand it and to avoid making a false witness against it and it proponents.
Theonomy is often misrepresented as a system of soteriology, it is not! During the reformation there were three distinct uses of the law: 1) to show a sinners need for grace that they are guilty of breaking the laws of the King of all creation and in need of mercy (the Gospel of grace) 2) to be a restraint against evil. This is sometimes called the civic use as it’s application is mostly about government laws and deterrents against evil acts with societal implications 3) as a road map for the people of God on how to love their God according to His wishes and receive the blessings in this life for living a life pleasing to the Lord.
Theonomy is concerned almost entirely with the second use. The Westminster confession of faith divides the law into three types (not uses) of which most if not all theonomists concur. The relevant wording is ….
Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.
To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
Recap:
– Moral law for all people at all times
– Ceremonial law – if fulfilled or satisfied in Christ then abrogated
– Civic law – expired except what the general equity requires.
It is the general equity phrase that is the most debated. There are also many debates concerning if a law is moral or civic or perhaps both. for instance to not murder is both a moral law and one with a prescribed civic remedy, thus theonomists see it as still binding over the magistrates who are God’s ministers (Romans 13).
I hope that helps!
Mycroft, I think we’re probably just at different places on the spectrum of study. You have the “Churches” at one end and essentially Karaite Judaism with the addition of Messiah on the other. You sound to be a lot closer to my end of the spectrum and we’ll probably find much we agree on but still a lot we won’t until further study is done. I don’t claim to have all of the answers and if you can point out something that I haven’t seen I’m interested to look.
I like your statement that you read it “in order” rather than jumping from verse to verse and this caused you to understand it better. I don’t know that by itself though that is enough. There are still translational issues and Hebraic idiomatic expressions that make things so much more clear. I think it a good start though and certainly helps bring up the needed questions. The big problem in my mind was that the “Protestants” in their desire to purify “Christianity” were also mostly too anti-Semitic to go back to the TaNaKh and base their studies on obedience to Torah first and understand what Grace really is from that perspective. The dualistic Greek view of Grace vs. Law rather than Torah being a gift of Grace to lead us into righteous actions was too deeply set.
You also said [quote]He already said he was willing. You can proceed directly.[/quote], but that isn’t what he said. He said he was willing to see evidence presented but not willing to read in depth articles. As you said it took you a lot of time and me as well, I mean I had to get familiar with a whole new language. So if he doesn’t want to put that level of work into learning then there is no reason to spend the time trying to explain it. That’s nothing against him, it actually is a similar view he posted about the Neo-Pagans. If he wants something to use to test if it is worth his time then your point about animal sacrifices given by “Paul” to remain in good standing with “Peter” and “James” and the, at the time, main stream of what later became known as Christianity is a great place to start. It should raise enough questions in a reasonable person’s mind to find out what else have I been led astray about? From there it is a LONG journey but rewarding.
Reading the Bible in order, isn’t enough by itself. But it is certainly necessary! Without doing it, all other study is done on a foundation of sand. How many earnest Bible studiers don’t know the stories of Achan, Gideon, Ehud, and Jepthah! How many miss the point about trying to do God’s will prematurely, never having read about the Defeat At Hormah. (Numbers 14)
Years later I am still gaining insight. The important thing is to read through and be humble enough to say “this verse doesn’t make sense; I won’t build doctrine from it until I understand it”. Realizing how MUCH of the Bible doesn’t make sense at first reading, is humbling. And should cause us to treat our brothers of different opinion, with great kindness.
As for the God vs G-d, Jesus vs Yeshua, I have a background in linguistics, and the Tower of Babel not only ties in with the overpopulation studies of Calhoun, (Rat Utopia), but explains the evolution of all modern languages. Coles notes: God changed the pronunciation of words, including names. God is English for Elohim; tampering with this process is taking the power of God into your own hands. Which leads directly into Egyptian magic. The Egyptians believed if you knew the exact Name of God, you could make him do what you wanted. The Confucian idea of “Rectification of Names” is correct. Since God separated English speakers from non-English speakers, why should I tell them they must say Elohim, or “elokainu” or other such? If God wants us to use particular spelling or pronunciation, he would tell us. That Hebrew word “Shem”? Means “power/authority”, as well as “name”. Taking a handful of verses using the Hebrew word “shem” for a doctrine about “Y’shua” and “Elohim” etc, is not only weak on its own, it directly conflicts with the Tower of Babel narrative, and the reality of the ongoing need for separation of nations, and the ongoing evolution of languages.
With the rise of internet and cell phones, we are closer than ever before to that one world order. The entire world has turned to whoredom and wickedness at once; it was the purpose of the Babel confusion to prevent this. Expect this to explode more violently than anything you have seen in recorded history. God won’t let us go extinct; that means the alternative is a bloody conflict that sends humanity back into the stone age for the third time since the Great Flood.
When you know what to watch for, you can see the Babel confusion at work even today among people who officially speak the same language. God’s will hasn’t changed.
In fact, it was not language, but “tongues” that were confused. This is why nations have more than languages in common. They have characteristic singing/music, jokes, food, drink, and mythologies/religions. All these things involve the tongue, and speech also. Yes, most people acknowledge the different religions got their start at Babel. But they don’t accept that it was God that caused it. The purpose of different religions is to separate different nations. Just like speech and cuisine.
Just as one tree puts out many branches, and each branch puts out twigs and leaves, God intended man to separate into nations, tribes, clans, families, and households. Until the entire earth be filled. And lo, what does Calhoun say, but that the rats gathered in a behavioral sink, leaving the land abandoned. And what has happened to our countryside, with the massive machinery cultivating it, and everyone gathered in cities. And what did Isaiah say: woe to them that build house up against house (apartment buildings), until they be left all alone in the land? And look, our countryside is empty of people, seniors and machines till the ground for a pittance.
Some people commented on theonomy and animal sacrifice; they were incorrect. Rushdoony mentioned, and I have done interviews and seen evidence; outside the West, Christianity never stopped doing animal sacrifices. In Africa, South America, and the Orient, they will bring a sheep or a chicken to the church doors, and the priest will sacrifice it according to the Law. Acts 21 shows that followers of Jesus kept on doing sacrifices.
So, this whole distinction between moral and ceremonial law is moot. There is no distinction. I looked hard for such a distinction when I read the Bible through; there was none.
Since Man was given a Law that is good, guaranteed to be so by the Creator himself, why tamper with it? Why come up with Laws of our own devising? Rushdoony showed how any attempt to be holier than God causes less holiness, in the end. Read Rushdoony; there are NO holiness spirals to be found in theonomy. It is perfectly balanced to resist such.
Really, after reading the Bible through, I recommend reading Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law.
Mycroft, you’re not understanding the whole point of using the right names for people. This whole power of names stuff is completely different than simply calling things by their proper names. Hence Yaachov rather than “James” because King Jimmy paid for the translation. Also those names do have meanings and sometimes the meanings correlate to what they are doing. Hebrew text loves to use word puns. Understanding those puns can help you determine the context.
As to Tower of Babel and recreating that system, yes they are trying but it’s not something I tend to get into or dogmatic about because there is a LOT we just don’t know and only surmise. When wrong on something like that we damage credibility on things that do matter and of which there can be no doubt. Better to save that for those who’ve mastered the concept of no ham sandwich, Christmas, or Easter. There is plenty of time to show them things once we get them to at a minimum give up the paganism and agree that actually obeying G-d is important. BTW I don’t write G-d out because we’re not to erase His name. While I know it isn’t His actual name it is a respect issue and it’s easy enough to do and really costs me nothing but the occasional explanation. Everything online being erased every time it goes off the computer screen… Well you can see why it would be proper to be mindful.
As to sacrifices, sure as soon as the Temple is rebuilt we should be all over it, but until then you really can’t do it. Offering the wrong thing the wrong way is worse than not making an offering… A strange fire and all. Dividing the law up is just like all the other abominations, a way to pick what you want to obey and that which you choose not to obey. Some can be done and some we don’t have the tools to do now. That is different than saying not to do it.
Vlad ben Avorham,
“You have the “Churches” at one end and essentially Karaite Judaism with the addition of Messiah on the other. You sound to be a lot closer to my end of the spectrum and we’ll probably find much we agree on but still a lot we won’t until further study is done.”
And which side are you on?
Care to read the argument at this link? I’d be interested in your thoughts on the matter.
http://www.26reasons.com/reason8.html
Vlad, your rationale for G-d sounds very pious. Also very Chabadnik. Since it isn’t in the Bible, it adds an extra burden or step for Christians to receiving your words about Torah.
As for the “One World Order” interpretation of the Tower of Babel, this is not speculation. It is what the Word explicitly says. When you combine it with the findings of Calhoun, it is crystal clear that the Flood narrative is one with the Babel narrative. pre-Flood man had entered stage C4; the stage of no return. God didn’t kill off humanity; it was already as good as dead. He rescued humanity by saving Noah. The Babel phenomenon (it continues even today) of language evolution was designed to prevent another Global flood. When the gays say that the rainbow is the symbol of “diversity”, they are correct… By continuing to confuse languages, God ensures he won’t need to do another mass extinction event on the human race. Diversity of tribes tongues and peoples is what the rainbow represents.
Shlomo, we should take this off this list to discuss only because it will cause much greater confusion for those on the “Church” side of the spectrum who still need to leave the paganism that represents. One thing I will show you here just because they may find it useful as well is the genealogies issue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3bsAMyRwbw
As you can see there is no conflict there is only the “Churches” failing to know their own history well enough to answer it. The Rabbinate should have known Torah well enough to figure this out considering the word difference between begat and son of but it wasn’t in their best interests to understand.
The rest is also easily understandable if you accept that Moshaic ben Yoseph and Moshiac ben Dovid are the same man at two different times rather than two separate people or one person doing it all.
@Jacob
”Taken as a whole, however, the Bible teaches that God’s singular purpose for Man is to return us to His garden. ”
What’s interesting is that the New Jerusalem is a city an urban structure built by God while the Garden of Eden is more primitive and primordial.