A Handmaids Tale

[Esaias]

Do you know where the Western idea that kings/governments do not have unlimited power comes from? The idea that kings and governors are LIMITED in their authority is a Biblical, theonomic idea. The idea being that even the king is a SUBJECT of the Word of God, that government is limited by the Word of God.

Now, suppose we reject a theonomic and Biblical worldview. What then will limit government? Constitutions? Constitutions are written by men, interpreted by men, amended by men, re-written by men, abolished by men... In other words, without a Divine Standard, ultimately anything goes. If men are to be responsible for coming up for the boundaries of their powers, then there will in the end be no limit to their power. They will legislate on whatever suits their fancy, in whatever way they think they can get away with.

It is in fact preposterous to think that men can be trusted to set the boundaries of their own powers. Men are evil, wicked sinners. They therefore cannot be trusted to legislate out of their own hearts. They must therefore be limited to enforcing God's Law, for He is the Lawgiver, not men.

"Kings then have not an absolute power, to do in their government what pleases them, but their power is limited by God's word; so that if they strike where God has not commanded, they are but murderers; and if they spare where God has commanded to strike, they and their throne are criminal and guilty of the wickedness which abounds upon the face of the earth, for lack of punishment." - John Knox, a Sermon on Isaiah 26 -
http://biblehub.com/library/knox/the...saiah_xxvi.htm

[votivesoul]

I have no problem legislating national or even local laws from the Old Covenant, and neither should anyone else, because guess what? It's what we have right now.

My theonomic views don't extend much past "Love God with all your heart, soul, and strength" and "Love your neighbor as yourself", what Paul called the "royal law" and upon which Jesus said the entirety of the law hung. I even lean toward believing the phrase "sin is the transgression of the law" is about the royal law of loving God and our neighbors, and not about anything specifically codified in the OT.

But note that even Jesus in giving us the 1st and 2nd commandments, quotes directly from the OT to do so.

So, the 2 greatest commandments in the entire cosmos come from Mosaic Law, and upon them, everything else hangs. They are the divinely inspired bedrock of all morality. But somehow we are supposed to be against the idea of pulling from the OT to establish laws to govern us morally and civically?

That's backwards.

Here's a description of the Welsh revival:

Whole communities were turned upside down, and were radically changed from depravity to glorious goodness. The crime rate dropped, often to nothing. The police force reported that they had little more to do than supervise the coming and going of the people to the chapel prayer meetings, while magistrates turned up at courts to discover no cases to try. The alcohol trade was decimated, as people were caught up more by what happened in the local chapels than the local public houses and bars. Families experienced amazing renewal, where the money earning husband and father, the bread winner, had wasted away the income and sowed discord, but now under the moving power of the Holy Spirit, following the conversion to be a follower of Jesus Christ, he not only provided correctly for family needs, but was now with the family, rather than wasting his time, and wages, in the public houses of the village or town. Souls were saved, individual lives were changed and Society itself was changed. Countless numbers were converted to Christ.

Now, how much truth was being preached, I cannot say. But imagine a truth-based revival on such a level, that taverns started losing business and the police had nothing to do?

Who would object? Who in their right minds, if they were a believer in Jesus, would have anything negative at all to say anything bad about such a revival?

Well, guess what? Such a revival is theonomy in action. As God's law is written upon the heart, God frees the person from the bondage of sin and gives them the ability through the Holy Spirit to live a morally righteous life that pleases Him, and if they submit to the process, they will become law-abiding citizens of the highest order.

They will embrace their right to do what is right, as Esaias so ably showed a few pages ago.

Even a local church is a theonomy, in case anyone didn't realize it. The Holy Scriptures govern everything, there are leaders, decisions are made, rules of conduct and expectations of morality are in place, and consequence and punishments are doled out for violations, and we all say "amen", but taking that very same thing out of the church and desiring to see it in the world is somehow "un-amen"?

Christian families are theonomies, too.

Listen, don't go trying to make the nation a theonomy just for the sake of Deus Vult. Keeping God's Law without the Holy Spirit is a bad idea. Rather, evangelize and keep on evangelizing and win as many souls as you can, start with your own family and friends and close associates who need Jesus, and in your efforts, watch Jesus build His church and establish a greater level of theonomy with each and every soul He saves.

Thy kingdom come, the will be done, on earth as it is in heaven means what, otherwise? Do you want God's will done on earth the same way it is done in heaven? Do you want His kingdom here on earth the way it exists in heaven? Then you are going to have to accept that God's kingdom on earth and His will getting done on earth is going to be according to His Law. And it is the church, not just some potentially still far off second coming, which is supposed to be that which helps bring about the kingdom and will of God on earth as it is in heaven; that is, we are the vessels through which God does His work. That's what a temple is: the place where heaven and earth meet and intersect.

And we are to be a nation of priests, making use of that meeting place and intersection to make use of the Gospel to continually create Godly, God-Law abiding citizens. So this idea it's only for the in-church saved is absurd. Or, if it is, just stop evangelizing.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I have no problem legislating national or even local laws from the Old Covenant, and neither should anyone else, because guess what? It's what we have right now.

My theonomic views don't extend much past "Love God with all your heart, soul, and strength" and "Love your neighbor as yourself", what Paul called the "royal law" and upon which Jesus said the entirety of the law hung. I even lean toward believing the phrase "sin is the transgression of the law" is about the royal law of loving God and our neighbors, and not about anything specifically codified in the OT.

But note that even Jesus in giving us the 1st and 2nd commandments, quotes directly from the OT to do so.

So, the 2 greatest commandments in the entire cosmos come from Mosaic Law, and upon them, everything else hangs. They are the divinely inspired bedrock of all morality. But somehow we are supposed to be against the idea of pulling from the OT to establish laws to govern us morally and civically?

That's backwards.

Here's a description of the Welsh revival:



Now, how much truth was being preached, I cannot say. But imagine a truth-based revival on such a level, that taverns started losing business and the police had nothing to do?

Who would object? Who in their right minds, if they were a believer in Jesus, would have anything negative at all to say anything bad about such a revival?

Well, guess what? Such a revival is theonomy in action. As God's law is written upon the heart, God frees the person from the bondage of sin and gives them the ability through the Holy Spirit to live a morally righteous life that pleases Him, and if they submit to the process, they will become law-abiding citizens of the highest order.

They will embrace their right to do what is right, as Esaias so ably showed a few pages ago.

Even a local church is a theonomy, in case anyone didn't realize it. The Holy Scriptures govern everything, there are leaders, decisions are made, rules of conduct and expectations of morality are in place, and consequence and punishments are doled out for violations, and we all say "amen", but taking that very same thing out of the church and desiring to see it in the world is somehow "un-amen"?

Christian families are theonomies, too.

Listen, don't go trying to make the nation a theonomy just for the sake of Deus Vult. Keeping God's Law without the Holy Spirit is a bad idea. Rather, evangelize and keep on evangelizing and win as many souls as you can, start with your own family and friends and close associates who need Jesus, and in your efforts, watch Jesus build His church and establish a greater level of theonomy with each and every soul He saves.

Thy kingdom come, the will be done, on earth as it is in heaven means what, otherwise? Do you want God's will done on earth the same way it is done in heaven? Do you want His kingdom here on earth the way it exists in heaven? Then you are going to have to accept that God's kingdom on earth and His will getting done on earth is going to be according to His Law. And it is the church, not just some potentially still far off second coming, which is supposed to be that which helps bring about the kingdom and will of God on earth as it is in heaven; that is, we are the vessels through which God does His work. That's what a temple is: the place where heaven and earth meet and intersect.

And we are to be a nation of priests, making use of that meeting place and intersection to make use of the Gospel to continually create Godly, God-Law abiding citizens. So this idea it's only for the in-church saved is absurd. Or, if it is, just stop evangelizing.

This is why I keep saying: "Revival before reformation". "Reconstruction" is simply the reformation of society to being more conformed to the revealed Will of God. It isn't a top down process. Society is to be influenced by the church, exactly like we see in Acts, and in the account you posted of the Welsh revival.

[Amanah]

I just remembered Antigone:

Antigone tells the story of a young woman who openly defies the king’s edict not to bury her recently fallen brother. The young woman is Antigone. The king she defies is Creon. Complicating matters, Creon is also her uncle who has just ascended to the throne of Thebes.

Tragedy precedes his ascension to the throne. Antigone’s father, King Oedipus, has died. Her brothers, Eteocles and Polyneices, fight over control of Thebes, with Polyneices taking up arms against Eteocles to rule in the wake of their father’s death. Both brothers die in combat against each other. In the aftermath, Creon orders that Eteocles shall be buried according to religious custom because he, according to Creon, was the rightful protector of the city. But Polyneices shall be denied proper burial and left exposed to be “chewed up by birds and dogs and violated.”
Anyone who defies Creon’s decree will be punished by death.

Antigone defies Creon. She claims that his law violates the law of the Gods and, therefore, cannot be respected. Creon counters that he alone is the legitimate authority of Thebes: his law must be obeyed.

The unfolding drama compels us to examine two vital jurisprudential issues: (1) law’s foundation and (2) our duty to obey law.

Antigone marks a turning point in western thought when we began to see a conflict between the law of nature/God and the law of humankind.
This strikes at the heart of the legal divide in Antigone. The divide is known historically as natural law vs. positive law.
Natural law claims that morality is necessary for valid law. Law and morality are inseparable. For much of history, natural law meant divine law. But modern natural law theories now maintain secular underpinnings.

Positive law rejects natural law in both its religious and secular manifestations. Positive law requires only that the constituted legal authority issue the law. Morality should be kept separate, say the positivists.

Aquinas famously said in favor of natural law that, “an unjust law is not law.” By this he means laws that conflict with natural law lose their power to bind us morally. Thus a government that enacts an unjust law (unreasonable, immoral or against the common good) forfeits its right to be obeyed because it lacks moral authority. Morality, under this view, is a condition of valid law.
Blackstone in 18th century England gave natural law his stamp of approval. English law derived its authority from natural law. One could invoke natural or “divine” source to nullify man-made law.
Our own Declaration of Independence did just that—“We hold these truths to be self-evident . . . all are created equal . . . endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.” Hobbes, Locke, and Rosseau premised much of their social contractarian theories of government on natural law.

A leading twentieth century American political philosopher, John Rawls, subscribed to modern versions of natural law-social contract theory, but with little or no reliance on explicitly religious foundations. Nonetheless, even a secularized form of natural law theory—premised on reason’s ability to ground law in morality—forms the basis for much of our liberal democratic institutions. Moreover, the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Nuremberg trials following WWII both recognized that enacted or positive law are hardly the only determinants of what constitutes valid law.

Natural law’s chief rival is positive law—the sovereign issues a command and we’re obliged to obey. The notion of law as command is at the root of positivism. Modern theories make more subtle justifications. But positivists deny the necessary connection between law and morality advocated by natural law. Law does not consist of a series of propositions correctly derived from nature through reason.
Instead, law is a social artifact that derives its validity from an objectively verifiable source. That source is the legally constituted authority, such as the legislature or the court. Law simply does not exist independent from these human forms of enactment. Furthermore, law should be kept separate from morals. A clear distinction must be drawn between law as it “is” and law as it “ought” to be.
Positivists are not indifferent to morality. They too challenge laws on moral grounds. They too attempt to reform. But they say the best way to understand law is to suspend moral judgments until we know what it is we seek to elucidate. Nor do positivists say that we always follow unjust laws simply because they are laid down on the books. Disobedience is permitted if it will promote social good.
One further point about theories of law and our duty to obey: there is no simple correspondence between our theories of law and theories of obligation to obey. For instance, we can certainly think of fine moral reasons not to break contracts, commit fraud, and violence. But does the mere unlawfulness of the act provide justification for obedience? This is the key question. In other words, does the fact of “legality” create an obligation beyond our moral obligation that we already feel?

Do we have to respect the law “as law”? (1) Is it self-evident? The law is the law which means by definition it must be obeyed? (2) Must we obey because law is essential for ordered, civilized society? Pretty dangerous social consequences may follow if we don’t follow law. A consequentialist says so, at least. (3) Have we formed an implicit contract between rulers and ruled? Both sides must honor the agreement, but consent is implicit?

In any event, we must be careful not to divide natural law theorists as those who say we can disobey unjust laws while positivists say we must follow law because the legislature enacted it.
These notes borrow from Raymond Wacks’s Philosophy of Law, A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press 2006). A better 100-or-so page intro doesn’t exist.


https://literarylawyers.org/antigone/

[Amanah]

Acts 5:29 29Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than human beings!

sadly, our laws are being rewritten to legislate sin, making the law of the land immoral.

When the law of the land becomes immoral, then it can no longer be obeyed.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Funny, you post you can't say either way, but then you say anyway.

That's because I wasn't there. I can't say if there was demonic influence one way or another. But nearly 400 years after the fact, the details of what happened clearly demonstrate that after the hysteria at least 20 people were killed in accordance to Mosaic law.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I think I already addressed the issue about imperfect people attempting to govern theonomically. In short, those who say imperfect people cannot be trusted to govern theonomically are in fact being hypocritical (though they are likely not aware of it). If people cannot be trusted to govern theonomically, then they cannot be trusted to govern period.

If we say society should not seek to follow God's Word because bad people will do bad things with it, then why do we think people should seek to follow man's philosophy, as if they will do better?

Upon what basis can it ever be reasonable that bad people will govern better when following man's philosophy than when seeking to follow God's Word? If the objection were valid, then no church and no family should seek to follow God's Word as the ruling standard by which to make decisions.

Christ's philosophy was that we are to love God and love others as ourselves. That would imply that for those of us who love God, we should wish the same liberties and freedoms for others that we'd desire for ourselves, would it not?

For example, the freedom of religion. Shouldn't every man be allowed to worship in accordance to his or her conscience?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The article is wrong. Roman Catholicism is not and never has been theonomic. The doctrines of Magisterium and Holy tradition preclude theonomy. According to the article, the Reformers were not theonomists, yet the detractors of theonomy also claim the Reformers set up a theonomy in Geneva, and that the Puritans (highly Reformed) also set up theonomies (such as in Salem, Massachusetts). Simply put, one cannot have their cake and eat it too. One cannot claim the Reformers were theonomists, and yet simultaneously opposed to theonomy.

In any event, it doesn't matter one whit whether the Reformers were or were not theonomists. It only matters "What does the BIBLE say?"

The RCC was not theonomic. Their doctrine and practices were and are not based strictly upon the Bible, they did not demand that nations submit to the Bible as the final authority in legislation or jurisprudence, etc. They instead claimed THEY were the final authority on everything. The Roman Catholic system is the height of humanism. Just as Pharisaism was. Just as modern "secular humanism" is. None of them are theonomic.

There will be law. The question is and always has been WHOSE LAW? God's? Or man's?

But don't they believe it is the Bible that gives the church the final authority over cannon, tradition, and interpretation? Therefore, isn't it simply a Catholic version of theonomy?

[Aquila]

What about a Christ centered "theonomy" that is focused on the Law of Christ over the Law of Moses?