A Handmaids Tale

[Aquila]

I believe that a vibrant, spiritual, Spirit-filled church will effect the society around it. But not by protests, pushing a political agenda, pushing for legislation, or by launching any form of inquisition against sinners. But rather, the church will impact society by her love, her mere presence, her convictions, her Holy Spirit power, miracles, and witness.

The desire to reform society through revolutionary, military, or legislative force is symptomatic of a church that has lost the reality and power of the Holy Spirit, has grown cold in its love, and has turned to the ways of the world to impost worldly, carnal, reforms in the name of God/Christianity on the masses. Because revolution, war, and politics are all carnal responses to spiritual problems.

This is a spiritual Kingdom that transcends all national boundaries, earthly politics, race, gender, age, social class, or language. It will experience times of great freedom and revival, and times of great persecution, trial, and apostacy as history ebbs and flows on earth. Those who remain grounded in the Holy Spirit will remain steadfast no matter what the church is going through historically at that time. Every single saint of God is a holy ambassador with a direct connection to God through Christ. There isn't any religio-political body through which the saints must function. The Kingdom cannot be overruled by any court, nor can it be restructured by any body politics, because it is a Kingdom that exists within the very spirit of redeemed men and women. We do have a Kingdom Message. That message is a warning to every human kingdom on earth...Christ will return and this spiritual Kingdom will become an earthly Kingdom with every nation, people, kindred, and tongue made subject to the rule of Christ Jesus, the Lord. And that the continued existence of these earthly nations is the result of God's mercy and desire to give them time to repent. And repentance isn't a political agenda. It is actually a turning from sin and the world to walk and serve in the spiritual Kingdom of God. In a nation wherein Spirit filled Christian flourish, all the social ills we see become diminished. There is less crime, fewer abortions, fewer gay marriages, and greater liberty and human love and respect. We change the fabric of a society by changing hearts. And a sincere change of heart is only possible where there is no coercion, therefore the truest expression and advancement of the Kingdom of God is seen most clearly in a free society that values and holds human liberty as sacred in and of itself, though many might choose to sin in said liberty. And this is why it is absolutely essential for the church to support the cause of human liberty for all people.

[n david]

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Jesus said he did not come to abolish but fulfill the law

He even added a stricter interpretation of the law

So I cant argue that the OT is not applicable. And many crimes are justly punished by a death sentence, murder, Rape, Incest, and others.

You are right. Christ didn't abolish the law. He fulfilled it for the sake of His church. We who are born again of the water and of the Spirit are not under the Law. We are called to a sinless holiness that transcends anything the Law could ever produce. We are dead to the Law, buried with Christ, hidden in Christ. So, the letter of the Law as most know it doesn't apply to us. Yet it wasn't abolished, it still stands. However, when Christ returns the Law will stand to condemn the sin and wickedness of the unbeliever. The unbeliever will be judged and condemned by the Law, while the believer will be judged according to the Law of Christ.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Amanah

are you a Christian Reconstructionist along the lines of Gary Demar?

I've never heard of him, and I don't claim to subscribe to any such position. But I will say this: the entire purpose of evangelism is to bring people under the saving influence of the Son of God, the Lawful One. When a person receives the Holy Spirit, they receive the Law of God written upon their heart so that they may freely live out the commandments of God as contained in His Word.

If we desire all people to be saved in the same way and for the same reasons as God does, then whether we admit to anything openly, or however we might argue against something otherwise, deep down, anyone trying to be a light to their world and bring souls to Jesus is automatically theonomically inclined, or else there is no purpose in evangelizing anyone.

[votivesoul]

Something else to consider:

Whatever rights or concerns for rights we might think we have, go out the window the moment Jesus returns. He comes with a rod of iron and we are either with Him or against Him, and if with Him when He tramples the winepress of God's wrath and soaks His holy garments in the blood of the nations, we, if we want to be found in Him, had better prepare ourselves to do the same thing.

Otherwise, it's being shattered into shivers like potsherds.

So, if we will willingly relinquish whatever rights we think we have when Jesus comes, what makes us think we have any rights now, since Jesus has already come, and has made His abode in us, the Body?

We are guaranteed eternal life and salvation from the wrath to come. Otherwise, there are no other rights or privileges.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Something else to consider:

Whatever rights or concerns for rights we might think we have, go out the window the moment Jesus returns. He comes with a rod of iron and we are either with Him or against Him, and if with Him when He tramples the winepress of God's wrath and soaks His holy garments in the blood of the nations, we, if we want to be found in Him, had better prepare ourselves to do the same thing.

Otherwise, it's being shattered into shivers like potsherds.

So, if we will willingly relinquish whatever rights we think we have when Jesus comes, what makes us think we have any rights now, since Jesus has already come, and has made His abode in us, the Body?

We are guaranteed eternal life and salvation from the wrath to come. Otherwise, there are no other rights or privileges.

The very concept of a "right" comes from the idea of authorisation. And further, a "right" is simply authorisation to do what is righteous. If it's not righteous, it isn't right, and nobody can claim to have a right to do what isn't right. The very idea of "what's right" implies moral obligation. That which is unjust, or unrighteous, or "wrong", is that which we are morally obligated to abstain from. If we are morally obligated to abstain from something we have no "right" to do anything except abstain from it.

Rights come from two sources: either from God, or from man. Yet, one cannot grant what they do not have. You cannot give authority to someone to do something if you do not have that authority in the first place to give. So then, if God has forbidden certain actions, man has no authority to grant anyone a "right" to do what God has forbidden. If God hasn't given you the right to do something, then you have no authority to grant anyone else the right do that thing.

And thus, the whole concept of "rights" is placed in it's proper perspective: We have rights, that is, we have authorisation to do what God commands us to do. Any rights man grants, via so called "civil rights", are simply delegations of authority. But those delegations of authority must be within the context of the authority granted by God to begin with.

At one time, Americans and Christians in general had a basic grasp of this concept. But as humanism has subverted everyone's thinking, we now imagine we have all sorts of "rights" that in reality simply do not and never did exist. We have rebelled against God and made ourselves "sovereign". That of course, is the point of humanism - that man is God. And we call this rebellion "liberty", although in reality it is slavery to corruption.

Liberty comes from God. And what liberty does He give?

Luke 1:68-75
(68) Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
(69) And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
(70) As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
(71) That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
(72) To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
(73) The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
(74) That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
(75) In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

[Amanah]

I have agreed with most of what you have said Brother Esaias.

I don't disagree in principle, my concern is the human implementation.

I think you fulfill 2 Timothy 2:24, and I appreciate that.

[Aquila]

I'd like to offer my thoughts, and perhaps a couple friendly counterpoints.

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I've never heard of him, and I don't claim to subscribe to any such position. But I will say this: the entire purpose of evangelism is to bring people under the saving influence of the Son of God, the Lawful One. When a person receives the Holy Spirit, they receive the Law of God written upon their heart so that they may freely live out the commandments of God as contained in His Word.

Amen. I have no real disagreement with your statement above. However, I think many Christians disagree on what "law" is written upon the heart. Some will argue that it is the Ten Commandments, some will argue that it is the entire Law of Moses. I contend that it is the Law of Christ, the Law of Love. This law teaches us to love God with all our being, and to demonstrate that love by loving others as ourselves. A law that leads us to manifest agape in our lives. A law that transcends the legalistic stipulations of the OT law, and calls us to a deeper and more authentic holiness. The single impulse of divine love is perfectly fitting for being a law written upon the heart.

If we desire all people to be saved in the same way and for the same reasons as God does, then whether we admit to anything openly, or however we might argue against something otherwise, deep down, anyone trying to be a light to their world and bring souls to Jesus is automatically theonomically inclined, or else there is no purpose in evangelizing anyone.

Here is where some disagreement might come in.

The term "Theonomic" is a loaded term. Let's define "Theonomy". According to American Vision, a leading theonomist thinktank, "Theonomy" is defined as:

"The biblical teaching that Mosaic Law contains perpetual moral standards for living, including some civil laws, which remain obligatory for today."

- First, theonomy isn't about salvation or personal holiness. It is about social reconstruction. It is a political theory that proposes that some civil laws under the Mosaic Law remain obligatory today.

- Second, this theonomic source states that only "some" civil laws from the Mosaic Law are obligatory today, not all.

I'd like to make a few observations.

As stated above, Theonomy isn't about salvation or personal holiness. It is about social reconstruction and reform. So one's rejection of Theonomy is not a disregard for Scripture, salvation, holiness, or the Gospel. It is the rejection of a political theory. Attempts are often made by Theonomists to corner tender hearted believers into thinking that if they don't support Theonomy, they don't believe in the Bible or the Gospel itself. Such is a blatant distortion of truth and is the first indicator that one is not dealing with an honest Theonomist, but rather a manipulator who uses one's own convictions to bring them under the spell of accepting theonomy.

Also, as stated above, Theonomy teaches that "some civil laws" are obligatory for today. This statement is often used to soften the impact of such thinking, for most would reject Theonomy outright if it didn't have this caveat. However, one should note that Theonomists differ greatly on this. Some actually do advocate adherence to the entire Mosaic Law. Those who don't are often in disagreement with one another as to what Mosaic Laws do apply. So, when evaluated, discussed, or debated, while each Theonomist has a comprehensive view, as a group, they do not.

Various theonomic authors have stated such goals as "the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics" (Chilton, David, Paradise Restored: A Biblical Theology of Dominion, Appendix A), exclusion of non-Christians from voting and citizenship (North, Gary, Political Polytheism, p. 87), and the application of Biblical law by the state (Bahnsen, Greg, By This Standard: The Authority Of God's Law Today, pp. 346-347). Under such a system of Biblical law, homosexual acts (DeMar, Gary, Ruler of the Nations, p. 212), adultery, witchcraft, and blasphemy (North, Gary, Unconditional Surrender: God's Program for Victory, p. 118) would be punishable by death. Propagation of idolatry or "false religions" would be illegal(An Interview with Greg L. Bahnsen) and could also be punished by the death penalty (Rushdoony, R.J., The Institutes of Biblical Law, (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), pp. 38–39, Schwertley, Brian M., "Political Polytheism). More recent theonomic writers such as Joel McDurmon, President of American Vision, have moved away from this position, stating that these death penalties are no longer binding in the new covenant (Joel McDurmon, The Bounds of Love). Polemicist and Theonomy critic, JD Hall, who debated McDurmon in 2015, has argued that abandoning Mosaic penologies such as the death penalty means that McDurmon and others who hold similar positions cannot be said to hold to theonomy in any meaningful way (Hall, J.D., "On Joel McDurmon’s Abandonment of Theonomy").

As one can see, the classical, and consistent theonomist must embrace the whole of Mosaic Law or, as JD Hall stated, one doesn't hold to theonomy in any meaningful way.

I present a different perspective that I've found to be true. First, Theonomy is a stumbling block for evangelism. Most recoil at the notion that Jesus wishes to save them to set up a Christian theocracy. Second, such a theocracy would use social pressure to convert individuals, meaning their conversions are coerced and not genuine. It's a race to the bottom to create a society full of fake and superficial legalistic religionists, with millions who "convert" to escape civil penalties. It also leads to the deepest corruption in that sinners will go even deeper into the darkness to hide their sin for fear. Making open confession and dialogue about sin nearly impossible. If you think people hide behind a fake and superficial righteousness now... imagine how it would be in a Theonomic society.

Conversion or righteousness by coercion isn't true conversion nor true righteousness. This is why I contend that the pure Christian faith can only flourish in a free and just society. Yes, men and women will sin. However, their sin will not be buried at all costs for fear of death or sanction.

The true Christian understands the difference between the spiritual Kingdom of Christ and the earthly kingdoms of this world. And so, the true Christian understands that the only righteous and just society is one in which all men are free, and love for God and one's fellow man governs the actions of Christians.

We live in a world that is seeing increasing religious extremism. Islamic theonomists, Christian theonomists, and every other extreme branch of religion are becoming more and more prominent. This is an increasing danger to mankind. Because rather it be Christian or Muslim, Theonomy is the religious extremism behind all religious wars and terrorism. It is also the foundation of the tyranny true Christians have resisted under the authority of the Roman Catholic Church for over 1,200 years.

Theonomy isn't the answer... going all the way back to Rome... it is the problem.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

. . .

Here is where some disagreement might come in.

The term "Theonomic" is a loaded term. Let's define "Theonomy". According to American Vision, a leading theonomist thinktank, "Theonomy" is defined as:

"The biblical teaching that Mosaic Law contains perpetual moral standards for living, including some civil laws, which remain obligatory for today."

- First, theonomy isn't about salvation or personal holiness. It is about social reconstruction. It is a political theory that proposes that some civil laws under the Mosaic Law remain obligatory today.

- Second, this theonomic source states that only "some" civil laws from the Mosaic Law are obligatory today, not all.

I'd like to make a few observations.

As stated above, Theonomy isn't about salvation or personal holiness. It is about social reconstruction and reform. So one's rejection of Theonomy is not a disregard for Scripture, salvation, holiness, or the Gospel. It is the rejection of a political theory. Attempts are often made by Theonomists to corner tender hearted believers into thinking that if they don't support Theonomy, they don't believe in the Bible or the Gospel itself. Such is a blatant distortion of truth and is the first indicator that one is not dealing with an honest Theonomist, but rather a manipulator who uses one's own convictions to bring them under the spell of accepting theonomy.

Also, as stated above, Theonomy teaches that "some civil laws" are obligatory for today. This statement is often used to soften the impact of such thinking, for most would reject Theonomy outright if it didn't have this caveat. However, one should note that Theonomists differ greatly on this. Some actually do advocate adherence to the entire Mosaic Law. Those who don't are often in disagreement with one another as to what Mosaic Laws do apply. So, when evaluated, discussed, or debated, while each Theonomist has a comprehensive view, as a group, they do not.

Various theonomic authors have stated such goals as "the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics" (Chilton, David, Paradise Restored: A Biblical Theology of Dominion, Appendix A), exclusion of non-Christians from voting and citizenship (North, Gary, Political Polytheism, p. 87), and the application of Biblical law by the state (Bahnsen, Greg, By This Standard: The Authority Of God's Law Today, pp. 346-347). Under such a system of Biblical law, homosexual acts (DeMar, Gary, Ruler of the Nations, p. 212), adultery, witchcraft, and blasphemy (North, Gary, Unconditional Surrender: God's Program for Victory, p. 118) would be punishable by death. Propagation of idolatry or "false religions" would be illegal(An Interview with Greg L. Bahnsen) and could also be punished by the death penalty (Rushdoony, R.J., The Institutes of Biblical Law, (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), pp. 38–39, Schwertley, Brian M., "Political Polytheism). More recent theonomic writers such as Joel McDurmon, President of American Vision, have moved away from this position, stating that these death penalties are no longer binding in the new covenant (Joel McDurmon, The Bounds of Love). Polemicist and Theonomy critic, JD Hall, who debated McDurmon in 2015, has argued that abandoning Mosaic penologies such as the death penalty means that McDurmon and others who hold similar positions cannot be said to hold to theonomy in any meaningful way (Hall, J.D., "On Joel McDurmon’s Abandonment of Theonomy").

As one can see, the classical, and consistent theonomist must embrace the whole of Mosaic Law or, as JD Hall stated, one doesn't hold to theonomy in any meaningful way.

I present a different perspective that I've found to be true. First, Theonomy is a stumbling block for evangelism. Most recoil at the notion that Jesus wishes to save them to set up a Christian theocracy. Second, such a theocracy would use social pressure to convert individuals, meaning their conversions are coerced and not genuine. It's a race to the bottom to create a society full of fake and superficial legalistic religionists, with millions who "convert" to escape civil penalties. It also leads to the deepest corruption in that sinners will go even deeper into the darkness to hide their sin for fear. Making open confession and dialogue about sin nearly impossible. If you think people hide behind a fake and superficial righteousness now... imagine how it would be in a Theonomic society.

Conversion or righteousness by coercion isn't true conversion nor true righteousness. This is why I contend that the pure Christian faith can only flourish in a free and just society. Yes, men and women will sin. However, their sin will not be buried at all costs for fear of death or sanction.

The true Christian understands the difference between the spiritual Kingdom of Christ and the earthly kingdoms of this world. And so, the true Christian understands that the only righteous and just society is one in which all men are free, and love for God and one's fellow man governs the actions of Christians.

We live in a world that is seeing increasing religious extremism. Islamic theonomists, Christian theonomists, and every other extreme branch of religion are becoming more and more prominent. This is an increasing danger to mankind. Because rather it be Christian or Muslim, Theonomy is the religious extremism behind all religious wars and terrorism. It is also the foundation of the tyranny true Christians have resisted under the authority of the Roman Catholic Church for over 1,200 years.

Theonomy isn't the answer... going all the way back to Rome... it is the problem.

This expresses some of my concerns very well.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The very concept of a "right" comes from the idea of authorisation. And further, a "right" is simply authorisation to do what is righteous. If it's not righteous, it isn't right, and nobody can claim to have a right to do what isn't right.

According to this logic, if Theonomy is false religio-political doctrine, you have no right to believe it, teach it, or even mention it again.