What do you all think about theonomy?

[Bartato]

I know this is a little outside the subject area here, but I'm curious.

What do you guys think about the theonomy movement? Do you consider it a step in the right direction (which should be followed up with proper Torah observance)? Do you rejoice that some Christians are attempting to take the Torah more seriously?

Do you instead think it is a misdirection that distracts from Torah observance?

Something else?

You all know I'm more of the "Reformed" persuasion than the "Hebrew roots" view. That said, this Theonomy stuff is causing me to more seriously consider the Torah.

Thanks all

 

[Mark C]

I gotta admit, when I see a word with the prefix "theo" (obviously, meaning 'god,' but the problem with the Greek word, like "theology," is - ANY god or gods will do...) I start off a bit suspicious.

"Divine Law." Great. But is it REALLY 'His'? And do we know which YHVH we are talking about? That has been a subject of great contention, not just here, but for millennia.

History shows no shortage of people who want to decide for others what He SHOULD have Written, if He was actually as smart as many of them know they are. (And that goes for BOTH whoring houses!)

But, if it moves you in the right direction, fine...


PS> Here's a merely vaguely related point, but it might be illustrative: I saw a USSC case today (did some analysis on the news show) called "Counterman v Colorado," that ostensibly had to do with the First Amendment. It was encouraging to see (7-2) that some justices still seem to think that bit of the Bill of Rights might still apply - sometime, somewhere. But, 'the Devil is in the details."

Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett dissented, so I took a closer look. They made some good points. Color me 'suspicious' that this one will ultimately move the concept of "free speech" back away from something outright Orwellian.

Sometimes 'movement' can be shifted in the wrong direction.

 

[MeganC]

I gotta admit, when I see a word with the prefix "theo" (obviously, meaning 'god,' but the problem with the Greek word, like "theology," is - ANY god or gods will do...) I start off a bit suspicious.

x2

 

[Bartato]

x2

Good point Megan and Mark

Specific comments detailing an understanding of the subject beyond the etymology of the word "theonomy" are also appreciated.

 

[MeganC]

Theonomy (from Greek theos "God" and nomos "law") is a hypothetical Christian form of government in which society is ruled by divine law. Theonomists hold that divine law, particularly the judicial laws of the Old Testament, should be observed by modern societies.

First off, no thank you. I prefer a republic populated by Christians rather than a theocracy which will end up being a dictatorship of pinheads enforcing outdated rules that have diddly to do with salvation.

By the way, I'm making BBQ pulled pork for Fourth of July.

 

[Bartato]

First off, no thank you. I prefer a republic populated by Christians rather than a theocracy which will end up being a dictatorship of pinheads enforcing outdated rules that have diddly to do with salvation.

By the way, I'm making BBQ pulled pork for Fourth of July.

There you go Megan
I'll probably also bbq some pork.

On the other hand, every form of government is basically a theocracy. It's just a matter of which god will rule.

Modern secular "neutrality" isn't real. It was just a scam to replace Christendom with satanic globohomo marxism.

We live in a theocracy right now, it is just an evil theocracy that serves false gods instead of the True God of the Bible.

We don't want an ecclesiocracy (rule by churchians rulers), but we do want Christ Himself to rule everything.

He is the Prince of Peace, His rule will have no end, every knee will bow, and the government will be upon His shoulders.

 

[Mark C]

On the other hand, every form of government is basically a theocracy. It's just a matter of which god will rule.

Absolutely. (I did a 'Come out of her' Show a couple of months back with a legal expert on the common law and history who made the point that there are ultimately only two forms of government in world history, the one we USED to have, and every other...ultimately, "Babylon".)

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident..." begins the most important statement for the basis of law and a government of men ever written originally in the English language.

 

[PeteR]

There you go Megan
I'll probably also bbq some pork.

On the other hand, every form of government is basically a theocracy. It's just a matter of which god will rule.

Modern secular "neutrality" isn't real. It was just a scam to replace Christendom with satanic globohomo marxism.

We live in a theocracy right now, it is just an evil theocracy that serves false gods instead of the True God of the Bible.

We don't want an ecclesiocracy (rule by churchians rulers), but we do want Christ Himself to rule everything.

He is the Prince of Peace, His rule will have no end, every knee will bow, and the government will be upon His shoulders.

I came to this forum w verses on my clipboard to start a new thread encouraging those who pursue God's Torah... they'll fit here in just a sec..

Good question and good points, but the above quote should answer... Isaiah 2:1-5 and Micah 4:... tell us that a time is coming when the Torah will go forth from Jerusalem. Psalm 2 says He'll rule with a rod of iron. His commandments are everlasting, forever and ever. See these verses on my clip from Ps 111

7The works of his hands are faithful and just;
all his precepts/commandments are trustworthy;
8they are established forever and ever,
to be performed with faithfulness and uprightness.

I was pointed to that by a very short video, 2 min, that I highly recommend to those who think we keep Torah for salvation...

Blessings this Shabbat from beit Rambo

 

[Bartato]

I came to this forum w verses on my clipboard to start a new thread encouraging those who pursue God's Torah... they'll fit here in just a sec..

Good question and good points, but the above quote should answer... Isaiah 2:1-5 and Micah 4:... tell us that a time is coming when the Torah will go forth from Jerusalem. Psalm 2 says He'll rule with a rod of iron. His commandments are everlasting, forever and ever. See these verses on my clip from Ps 111

7The works of his hands are faithful and just;
all his precepts/commandments are trustworthy;
8they are established forever and ever,
to be performed with faithfulness and uprightness.

I was pointed to that by a very short video, 2 min, that I highly recommend to those who think we keep Torah for salvation...

Blessings this Shabbat from beit Rambo

So, regarding theonomy (Rushdoony, Greg Bahnsen, Gary North, etc)...

Do you think it is a step in the right direction, or a mistep, moving the wrong way?

 

[MemeFan]

For us, it is simple. Christ is King.

What is more interesting is relationships between men. Can one man rule another? That is key question in Christian political science. Can we have another king except one in heaven? Or is democracy better form?

 

[Mark C]

Or is democracy better form?

NOWHERE in Scripture is anything that looks like a 'vote' (much less 'demonocracy') seen as anything other than antithetical to YHVH. (I give the "Three primary examples" often, starting with the 10-2 vote that Joshua and Caleb LOST, through I Samuel and Saul, to a voice vote for a fellow named 'Barabbas'. I challenge anyone to find a vote that didn't turn out BADLY in the Book...)

America's Founders called it things like "the devil's own government," and "two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner" - to the even less complimentary.

As to this:

So, regarding theonomy (Rushdoony, Greg Bahnsen, Gary North, etc)...

Do you think it is a step in the right direction, or a mistep, moving the wrong way?

It DEPENDS. (So, maybe: 'orthogonal'.)

Rushdoony was often right on-track; North often, but certainly not always. (ie, marriage...)

But this is the key:

...it is simple. Christ is King.

Not nearly so simple. Because if we don't even know which 'christos' we're talking about, it begs the question: Just Who is He really, and did He mean what He Wrote?

I note that North didn't even agree with his father-in-law on some things.

 

[PeteR]

For us, it is simple. Christ is King.

I agree, but I also make the case the He is the One who spoke with Moshe 'mouth to mouth' on Mt. Sinai and is the Giver of the Torah.... 'if you love Me....'

 

[Bartato]

I agree, but I also make the case the He is the One who spoke with Moshe 'mouth to mouth' on Mt. Sinai and is the Giver of the Torah.... 'if you love Me....'

Very true! He is Indeed! Praise be to God!
He is also the One who spoke to Peter through the vision in Acts 10, and instructs His Church through the teaching of the Apostles in the rest of the New Testament.

 

[PeteR]

Very true! He is Indeed! Praise be to God!
He is also the One who spoke to Peter through the vision in Acts 10, and instructs His Church through the teaching of the Apostles in the rest of the New Testament.

If you believe He overturned His own commandments in those places, then you above all people should fear theonomy's because you're dealing with a schizophrenic god that can't make up His mind...

Again, if you believe that Jesus is the One who spoke to Moshe on Mt Sinai, you are without excuse.

7The works of his hands are faithful and just;
all his precepts/commandments are trustworthy;
8they are established forever and ever,
to be performed with faithfulness and uprightness

 

[Bartato]

If you believe He overturned His own commandments in those places, then you above all people should fear theonomy's because you're dealing with a schizophrenic god that can't make up His mind...

Again, if you believe that Jesus is the One who spoke to Moshe on Mt Sinai, you are without excuse.

7The works of his hands are faithful and just;
all his precepts/commandments are trustworthy;
8they are established forever and ever,
to be performed with faithfulness and uprightness

We've all gone round and round about this and probably won't persuade each other.

It is undeniable that God sometimes gives different laws to different people at different times. One obvious example of this pertains to dietary law. He gave Adam only plants to eat. He gave Noah animals as well.

We don't know exactly why He did that, but Genesis says He did. Maybe the conditions of the post flood world were significantly different than the uncorrupted garden of Eden.

This does not make the Creator of Heaven and Earth schizophrenic.

 

[paterfamilias]

I know this is a little outside the subject area here, but I'm curious.

What do you guys think about the theonomy movement?

Mostly debunked hucksterism other than the cranial volume thing, but nevertheless the reproduction busts of what was used to read your head bumps, especially when accompanied with some sort of palmistry hand map are necessary staples for a cool guys library/study decorating scheme.

 

[Mark C]

It is undeniable that God sometimes gives different laws to different people at different times. One obvious example of this pertains to dietary law. He gave Adam only plants to eat.

That's why it's "instruction," rather than 'law'. One obvious REASON is that Adam's body was, without question, DIFFERENT than those who came after the time of Noach. (He lasted longer, and almost certainly didn't have the disease issues that came later...)

Maybe the conditions of the post flood world were significantly different than the uncorrupted garden of Eden.

There ya go...although I don't think the "maybe" is necessary.

But Pete's point stands. Either His character really IS 'unchanging,' (you know, "the same, yesterday, today, and always") or He is not just 'schizophrenic,' like the gods of THIS world, but a liar, too. Hardly.

The problem with 'theonomy' is inherent in the word used to describe it, based on a Greek concept of "theos." They "had a million of 'em." The question is, WHICH 'theos"? I contend there is only One, and He Wrote it out for us, "from The Beginning." Men's bodies may have changed (arguably for the worse,) but, sadly, their character in general hasn't.