# Let's start a Christian country



## Preach (Nov 11, 2005)

I am not sure if this is where to post or not.

The following is not an academic exercise or a fun "what if". I am really hoping that the brothers and sisters on the PB will give open and honest feedback on this idea. I don't have the intellect or foresight to answer the questions. I am just hoping to set forth the idea and perhaps facilitate the dialogue (on and off the PB). Here goes:

What if there was a country on the face of the earth that practiced Biblical law? This is to say, in addition to the regular laws of the land, the government had on the books and enforced Biblical law (think Calvin's Geneva, and the New England Puritans's Plymouth Bay Colony-but this country would strive to adhere to theonomy in the Bahnsenian sense). 

I'm not necessarily interested if you believe in theonomy or not, but would this type of country (by the way anyone could live there, as long as they adhered to the laws of the land) excite your curiosity to visit and perhaps live there?

What potential challenges do you see to starting a country like this? 


This is not an attempt to separate from society. There would be immigration and emmigration.

What if you were living at the start of the United States, and you had a say in setting up the founding documents, would you mention the words "Jesus Christ"? What types of laws would you introduce?

The reason I am asking this is that the likelihood of this happening (starting a new country) is quite possible. As a matter of fact, the wheels have already begun to turn. Sometime in this century (perhaps as soon as 5 years or as long as 90-this will probably occur).

It seems possible to buy a chain of islands from a government and purchase total autonomy. The buyers of these islands would not only own them but not be under the authority of the government that they purchased them from. In other words, the chain of islands are now a new country. When the maps are printed again, they would be on them. 

Do you think families would be interested in an experiment like this? Families pool there money, a few wealthy patrons, etc. take care of the finances, etc. There are a lot of details but I'm just throwing the idea in the public forum to see your initial thoughts.

I appreciate any feedback. Please do not be shy. This is a "live" idea that is presently on the table. It more than likely will happen. I will be involved in it and am quite excited and scared about the prospect. Please, any comments will be appreciated.

My plan is to host a meeting about this in 2006 here in Baltimore. So, any comments are welcome. Please keep this and me in prayer. I have no idea what the Lord will do with this. Thanks.
"In Christ",
Bobby


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 11, 2005)

It would seem like this country would not able to fulfill many things that Christians are called to do. The Great Commission would no longer be necessary, there would be no more persecution. In a sense it would be like trying to create heaven, without the Lord's 'presence'. 

God does not call us to make our own countries to be Christian and to separate ourselves from the world, i.e. not being amongst the world. He says to not be of the world but amongst it, so as to let His name be known. 

It just seems to me that this would create a huge 'Christian bubble,' and would turn to comfortableness and complacency. 

Again, it would be wholly against what the Church is supposed to be.

[Edited on 11-11-2005 by Romans922]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Preach_
> This is a "live" idea that is presently on the table. It more than likely will happen. I will be involved in it and am quite excited and scared about the prospect.



Where do you intend to found this country? Are you going to buy land within an existing country? If so, your "nation's" laws will always be subordinate to the laws of the nation which envelopes yours. Or are you looking for the UN to just give you some land?


----------



## gwine (Nov 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> It would seem like this country would not able to fulfill many things that Christians are called to do. The Great Commission would no longer be necessary, there would be no more persecution. In a sense it would be like trying to create heaven, without the Lord's 'presence'.
> 
> God does not call us to make our own countries to be Christian and to separate ourselves from the world, i.e. not being amongst the world. He says to not be of the world but amongst it, so as to let His name be known.
> ...



 brother. I wish I could have put it so well. The only thing I might add is what branch of Christianity would we pick that everyone would agree with? Pat Robertson? Joel Olsteen? Ian Paisley? 

Count me out.

[Edited on 11-11-2005 by gwine]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 11, 2005)

Ya'll are too late. RC jr. has already implemented the idea!


----------



## JohnV (Nov 11, 2005)

Here's a piece from the book To Be a Slave, by Julius Lester. He writes about the stories the black slaves in America told in remembrance of their ordeals, after freedom. It's a beautifully written piece that he quotes, and I think its fitting. Notice the third last sentence:


> Slaves prayed for freedom. When they got it they didn't know what to do with it. They was turned out with nowhere to go and nothing to live on. They had no experience in looking out for themselves and nothing to work with and no land. They made me think of the crowd one time who prayed for rain when it was dry in crop time. The rain fell in torrents and kept falling till it was about to flood. The rain frogs begin to holler and calling more rain and it rained and rained. Then the rain crow got up in a high tree and he hollered and asked the Lord for rain. It rained till every little rack of cloud than come over brought a big shower of large drops. The fields was so wet and miry you could not go in 'em, and water was standing in the fields, middle of every row, while the ditches in the fields looked like little rivers, they was so full of water. It begins to thunder again in the southwest, right where we call the "Chub Hole" of the sky, where so much rain comes from and the clouds grow blacker and blacker back there.
> 
> Then one of hte men who had been praying for rain looked up and said, "I tell you, brothers, if it don't quit raining everything going to be washed away." They all looked at the black rain cloud in the west with sorrowful faces as if they felt they didn't know what use they had for rain after they got it. Then one of the brothers said to the other brothers kind of easy and shameful-like, "Brothers, don't you think we overdone this thing?" That's what many a slave thought about praying for freedom. Slavery was a bad thing and freedom of the kind we got with nothing to live on was bad.
> _Patsy Mitchener, Library of Congress_



Sometimes we get what we pray for, only to ask afterward "Brothers, don't you think we overdone this thing?"

[Edited on 11-11-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## Peter (Nov 11, 2005)

There was a lengthy dialog in "Antithesis" or "The Christian Statesman" on the idea called "A modest proposal" or something like that.

I don't think the escapist argument against the concept is valid. The reason for a "christian country" wouldn't be to create paradise on earth, or to look beyond the better heavenly country, the city prepared by God. As the pilgrims endeavored to do, such a country would be founded to be a "city set on a hill" Mat 5. A model for the reconstruction of the world, and a platform for missions.


----------



## cupotea (Nov 11, 2005)

I don't believe the word "Christian" ought to be applied adjectivally to nouns like "nation" and "culture" and so on.

The Bible knows nothing of it short of Christ's return to establish His eschatological reign.


----------



## Peter (Nov 11, 2005)

> I don't believe the word "Christian" ought to be applied adjectivally to nouns like "nation" and "culture" and so on.
> 
> The Bible knows nothing of it short of Christ's return to establish His eschatological reign.



I am a postmillennialist, but, one criticism of the proposal, in the above referenced article, was that a nation is not defined by ideology but by its people. Thus the idea of a 'Christian' nation would,'t work but a separate American Christian nation would.


[Edited on 11-11-2005 by Peter]


----------



## Peter (Nov 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> I'm not saying I'm sold on this or anything, just pointing these things out.



I like the notion but there are many, many practical concerns which have to be worked through. 

One problem that was already brought up is determining which Christians. Obviously Reformed Christians in my opinion. However, having a functioning society & body politik w/in this diverse group would be difficult. I think it would have to be of a single denomination.


----------



## brymaes (Nov 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> I like the notion but there are many, many practical concerns which have to be worked through.
> 
> One problem that was already brought up is determining which Christians. Obviously Reformed Christians in my opinion. However, having a functioning society & body politik w/in this diverse group would be difficult. I think it would have to be of a single denomination.



One wonders if many non-theonomic people would be interested. Certainly no non-theocrats. So the diversity would be checked in that way.


----------



## AdamM (Nov 11, 2005)

It was sort of tried under Oliver Cromwell and it ended up that serious Christian folks proved to be rather lousy at running the government.


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 11, 2005)

Heya, speaking of history, let us look at the many years of the papacy. Any time the papacy attempted and succeeded at ruling the roman empire, it simply failed.


----------



## Herald (Nov 11, 2005)

Sounds like the TV series, "Lost." 

Let's glorify God in our present situation. To be honest, I think the original idea is absurd.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 11, 2005)

No matter how "christian" a nation becomes, you still can't escape sin. You will import it to whatever country people live in, no matter how noble the intentions. Every nation heavily influenced by Christianity ha snever escaped this reality. Whether is be Rome, Geneva, England, America... It's probably better to just stay put and be a witness where God has placed you unless you are called to be a missionary elsewhere.


----------



## pastorway (Nov 11, 2005)

it would be a very tiny nation and the few inhabitants that were there would all excommunicate one another for some silly reason within the first year.


----------



## Peter (Nov 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> it would be a very tiny nation and the few inhabitants that were there would all excommunicate one another for some silly reason within the first year.



Why would you curse the endeavor which such a horrible fate


----------



## pastorway (Nov 11, 2005)

because that is exactly what would happen.

because no one could agree on whose interpretation of God's Law would be the standard, because no one would allow for differences because the first person in the land to buy a Christmassssss tree, or eat an Easter egg, or violate the Sabbath, or disagree on baptism, or disagree eschatology, philosophy, apologetics, Bible versions, on any multitude of the thousands of nonessential matters would be put in jail for rehabilitation or removed as the "weakest link."

That is why we have all the denominations that we do. A Christian "Nation" just ain't happening. Sorry. Sad but true.


----------



## Robin (Nov 11, 2005)

(whistling) O, Bobby...... 

Nothing new to church history, we already have groups trying to do this. 

In our epoch, some are called: "Mormons" "Jehovah Witnesses"...some are called "Purpose Driven Change-Agents".....

Did you say Christian _country_, Bobby? How 'bout global?

http://www.purposedriven.com/en-US/International/Home.htm

Robin


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 11, 2005)

As I recall, last one of those broke her national covenant before the mediator even made it down the mountain with the treaty. Throughout her entire history She was incredibly disobedient, this despite the fact that God himself lived visibly in her midst and led her from place to place. Eventually she made treaties with other non-Christian nations, worshiped false gods, was sent into exile, had her temple destroyed. 

When the true, heavenly Mediator came, he introduced into history the penultimate state of an eternal kingdom to be administered in a thing called the church. To this entity he gave keys, officers, and spiritual authority. 

I don't recall the king or his authorized representatives instituting a temporal political entity. 

Let's see if we can Christianize his church. That would be quite a feat. 

rsc


----------



## cupotea (Nov 11, 2005)

Again...

Nations can't be Christian, because Christianity is not a system of law, ethics or a social contract though it may imply all three to people who are Christians, though you'd be hard pressed to find anything like a consensus on most things among anything like a majority.

Thus, all it can do is inform individuals who can, in turn, make up the state.

So then, why don't we make it necessary that all men who would govern be believers? Well, who gets to decide whether they are or not? The Church? Which Church? And what does this do to the idea that the Church ought not to legislate the State?

I believe that in order to have a "Christian State" we would have to have a clear biblical mandate to do so with promises from God that He would guide and protect such a state.

We don't have any such thing.

All we have is a promise that Jesus is coming back and that when He does He will judge the nations and rule them utterly.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Let's see if we can Christianize his church. That would be quite a feat.
> 
> rsc



 and


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Let's see if we can Christianize his church. That would be quite a feat.


----------



## gwine (Nov 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> it would be a very tiny nation and the few inhabitants that were there would all excommunicate one another for some silly reason within the first year.



I am surprised you give them a whole year, although you did say within a year.


----------



## pastorway (Nov 11, 2005)

I think I'll write a book about it!

*EXCOMMUNICATION: 365 Ways in 365 Days*

:bigsmile:

Seriously: AMEN to Dr. Clark!!


----------



## Craig (Nov 11, 2005)

I'll do some research...but I thought there was a country in Africa that has implemented theonomic law...ie they have stoned at least one homosexual.

Theonomic principles are making more sense to me lately. Perhaps we don't have a "Christian" church because we are compromising with the world and accept it's principles in regards to leaders and politics. Perhaps by being Christians and declaring ourselves conservatives, we are merely conserving the status quo which is quickly descending deeper into sin. Perhaps theonomy is the antidote.


----------



## Herald (Nov 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Craig_
> I'll do some research...but I thought there was a country in Africa that has implemented theonomic law...ie they have stoned at least one homosexual.
> 
> Theonomic principles are making more sense to me lately. Perhaps we don't have a "Christian" church because we are compromising with the world and accept it's principles in regards to leaders and politics. Perhaps by being Christians and declaring ourselves conservatives, we are merely conserving the status quo which is quickly descending deeper into sin. Perhaps theonomy is the antidote.



Theonomy is as practical as the mythical utopia. I understand the emotional desire to see this form of government, but I believe it fails on multiple counts. Some of these have been enumerated by others in this thread. Every time a Christian theonomic ideal has been espoused, it has either been stillborn or short-lived. At its core, a theonomy is rooted in selfishness. It is all about living according to one's interpretation of God's ideal here on earth. It is insular. It borrows the philosophy of the monastic movement. The gospel dies a slow death as it becomes a hidden truth. 

Instead of investing thought into a theonomic society, we should seek to glorify God in our current situation. Theonomies are not biblical. Paul never taught that we should seek to live communally. Paul wrote to the Philippians that his imprisonment for the cause of Christ had resulted in the furtherance of the gospel (Phil. 1:12-18). How would a theonomy result in the gospel being furthered? It wouldn't.





[Edited on 11-12-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## Peter (Nov 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> because that is exactly what would happen.
> 
> because no one could agree on whose interpretation of God's Law would be the standard, because no one would allow for differences because the first person in the land to buy a Christmassssss tree, or eat an Easter egg, or violate the Sabbath, or disagree on baptism, or disagree eschatology, philosophy, apologetics, Bible versions, on any multitude of the thousands of nonessential matters would be put in jail for rehabilitation or removed as the "weakest link."
> ...



And That's why I suggested limiting it to a single denomination. 
Should we abandon the Church because of these difficulties? I'm glad you think its sad, because it sounds like you are gloating.


----------



## satz (Nov 12, 2005)

I cannot think of anywhere in a bible that God asks NT christians to try to set up their own country or totally reform the government. As oppurunity allows, off course we should attempt to obtain the most practical righteousness in our own countries, but i don't see that as being a large priority for the new testament church.

Setting up a whole new country would i think, definitely involve overwhelming administrative and other problems. Economy, military, politics, trade etc. And that is not even considering the spiritual problems that others have been discussing.

And given we have no command from God or promise in the bible that he would bless such an effort, i fear that despite the very best of intentions it may turn out to be more hassle that it is worth?


just my thoughts...


----------



## Jie-Huli (Nov 12, 2005)

I do not have a set opinion on this topic, but I am just curious: do those who believe this would be a bad idea also believe that the English pilgrims who left England to set up a new nation in America were mistaken to do so?

I know that these are different situations, but it would seem that many of the arguments against this proposal would have held equally true for the pilgrims. Was it wrong for them to go to America rather than staying in England to continue to bear witness there?


----------



## Herald (Nov 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> I do not have a set opinion on this topic, but I am just curious: do those who believe this would be a bad idea also believe that the English pilgrims who left England to set up a new nation in America were mistaken to do so?
> 
> I know that these are different situations, but it would seem that many of the arguments against this proposal would have held equally true for the pilgrims. Was it wrong for them to go to America rather than staying in England to continue to bear witness there?



You're correct, the situations were different. America was "the new world." The pilgrims were an oppressed group. They had the opportunity to practice their faith in, what the considered to be, relative freedom. The pilgrims were not strict separtists. Those who advocate theonomy, are. The pilgrims knew that they were not going to be the only ones to settle in the new world.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 12, 2005)

Quite a few religious groups were oppressed.

I was listening to R.C. Sproul on this issue just yesterday. Can anyone tell me the Diet that followed Worms a number of years later that gave the State the right to decide its religion? It gave rise to States declaring an official religion and persecuting those "in the wrong religion".

Not only did Protestants flee from countries whose official religion was RC but even from those that didn't approve a specific denomination. RC's fled here to escape oppression from Protestant regimes as well.

The irony is that the genesis for our belief in keeping the state from establishing an official religion and allowing the free exercise thereof, eventually morphed into an American ideal that all religions are equally valid.


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 12, 2005)

Also, historically to develop or make a new state means the creation and establishment of a military.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 12, 2005)

Bobby (and those who like his idea) - 

I have a suggestion for how you could implement this plan... just do what they did in The Village!


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 12, 2005)

It seems that there is alot of "this is what WOULD happen" vs. "this is what SHOULD happen" on this thread. The latter is what we are to strive for. We are not called to predict the future.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> I do not have a set opinion on this topic, but I am just curious: do those who believe this would be a bad idea also believe that the English pilgrims who left England to set up a new nation in America were mistaken to do so?
> 
> I know that these are different situations, but it would seem that many of the arguments against this proposal would have held equally true for the pilgrims. Was it wrong for them to go to America rather than staying in England to continue to bear witness there?



Jie,

My answer is yes and no. To the degree the pilgrims wanted to establish a Christian _state_ (CS), yes, it was a mistake. No, to the degree they were _pilgrims_ seeking refuge to worship in freedom. The country was founded with internally competing impulses that were not resolved (and are still being resolved in certain ways) for a long time.

In my view, as a theological matter, a CS is an oxymoron. I understand that Christendom is our history, but it is not a biblical idea. It was deeply ingrained in every European and British Christian for more than a milennium. Christendom was like air, it's just there, it was the way things are. Few orthodox folk, before the 17th century, ever criticized it and those who did (e.g., Anabaptists - and they were not consistent and some of them were theocrats when the got the chance) were not credible and tended to bring the idea of non-theocratic society into disrepute.

There were theories developed in the 16th century which eventually helped to dissolve Christendom. Calvin's distinction between two (ecclesiastical and civil) kingdoms (which he inherited and revised in turns from Luther and Augustine) created a theoretical basis not for a purely secular state but for the end of Christendom. Institutes 4.20 helped (with many other Protestant resistance theorists) create a theoretical basis for resistance to tyrants. 

The two kingdoms theory did not begin to come into practice as we have known it in the New World until after the 30 Years War (1618-48) when Europe became widely and understandably disaffected with religious strife which flowed over into warfare. The problem is that the dissolution of Christendom also happened at the same time as the rise of Enlightenment rationalism/empiricism. Thus the rise of a "secular" (not necessarily a bad word if it only means non-ecclesiastical) state is tainted by association with anti-Christian rationalism. 

Another difficulty is that the mixed origins of our own country are part of a heated rhetorical war between the "Christian America" folks who overlook the profound influence of Enlightenment rationalism upon some (not all) of the 18th century founders of the Republic and the anti-Christian rationalist zealots (under whom I took my undergraduate degree in Political Science) who deny any Christian influence on the founding and who virtually ignore the colonial Puritan period. 

There is so much at stake in telling the story of what we were that it is hard to find serious, careful, dispassionate accounts of the religion and intent of the founders regarding the same. Thus we have heated, ill-informed screeds from both sides about "Christian" and "secular" (in the most wicked sense possible) America. George Washington was either a devout and orthodox Christian who could fill any PCA pulpit today or Masonic Deist or maybe he was a latitudinarian Anglican. 

Anyway, if one asks about the colonial migrants to the New World, it's a complex story. If one asks about the 18th century framers, it is an even more complicated story.

rsc

[Edited on 11-12-2005 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> It seems that there is alot of "this is what WOULD happen" vs. "this is what SHOULD happen" on this thread. The latter is what we are to strive for. We are not called to predict the future.



Huh?

This doesn't seem like anything remotely Scriptural.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



Of course it is.

We are commanded to be perfect, correct? Under the "what WOULD happen" scheme we might as well give up, because everyone is sinful, and being perfect will never happen in this world. But that does not change the fact that pefection is what we SHOULD strive to do. 

Providence = what WOULD happen. This is in God's hands.

Morality = what SHOULD happen. This is what God has given us to concern ourselves with.

How is this not even *remotely* Biblical?

[Edited on 11-12-2005 by Jeff_Bartel]


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Romans922_
> ...



You are missing the point, I think. I believe you were using (what would/should happen) in the context of making a new country. Not what we are commanded by God. We are definitly not commanded by God to make a new country.

Question: Are you putting morality above providence?

Further, yes God is above all things, yes we are commanded to be perfect (fulfilled through Christ's righteousness). Does this mean that we are commanded to start a new country to reach this perfection? Absolutely not! We are commanded to be amongst the world and not separate ourselves like the Amish. We are not to be of the world (morally). We must as the church spur on each other in love. We are to exercise church discipline. I don't see anywhere in Scripture, which commands us to flee a corrupt society. Rather we are to transform the people around us (world) through the proclamation of the gospel. The gospel is what will change people's morals. Because when a person is justified they are declared righteous. They will continue in good works, and become further and further sanctified, by the gospel. 

Repeated again, God in no way commands us to start a new country, move away to a secluded place, etc. to implement His law in a Christian community. The Christian community is the Church, not the state.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 12, 2005)

How are these two questions different?

1) What SHOULD we do as Christians?

2) What does God COMMAND us to do as Christians?

They are synonymous, and I was using them synonymously. It seems that we are talking past each other.

As for if God has commanded us to reform the government is another issue. I start with the WCF which seems to imply that God (while not explicitly commanding us to start a NEW nation) has specific rules for the civil government.



> Chapter XXIII.
> Of the Civil Magistrate.
> 
> I. God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, *hath ordained civil magistrates, to be, under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good: * and, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defence and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers.(a)
> ...


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 12, 2005)

I think you are not being relevant to the current posed 'new country'. 

It doesn't say in the WCF or Scripture to create a new country to escape the society that a person currently resides, in order to have better morals or to become perfect.


----------



## Peter (Nov 12, 2005)

Why does it have to? It doesnt day in scripture for ecclesiastical judicatures to create mission committees either. A lot of things aren't in scripture.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 12, 2005)

With all due respect to all, I think we are missing some things here. A theonomic regime is not necessarily a Christian one. Theonomists make them identical, but they're not. They have no warrant (read: Scriptural authority) from anywhere to impose their views. Wherever Theonomy is taught or expounded it is done so under the sole authority that it is the personal view of someone or some people, but not the church as a whole. Neither can they find necessity in Scripture; neither can they find inferential necessity. So they have no warrant, no Scriptural authority. It is just a point of view, nothing more.

But that doesn't make a truly theonomically-centred society wrong. God's law as just God's law, without having men's opinions imposed upon it, is not a bad thing at all. Whether we stay in our respective countries or form a new one, the goal is the same for both: rule by justice, and rule by equity. 

Forming a Christian society is not identical to forming a Theonomic society. Cody, Wyoming is a Christian town, and its not Theonomic. It may not be Reformed either, that's more than I know; but when my brother was in a road accident there, they treated him as Christians treat strangers in need. They were to him the brother I could not be at the time due to distance and expense. So the idea of an island nation under a Christian flag is not an ignoble idea at all; it is the Theonomy that most object to, not the Christian. 

The histories are different, as Dr. Clark pointed out. But the need is not altogether so different. We are at a loss to stop the bleeding that is going on. The blood is flowing in our streets just as much, if not more, than it did in Jerusalem for the time God punished them. We have nowhere to turn this time, for there is no free world to flee to anymore. We can't get away this time. No going to America, because America is now doing as the nations that our forefathers fled have done. America is not burning Christians yet, but the various reports from Boston and other places are very disturbing: we are being hunted to be burned in the press. 

On the other hand, to die for the faith is not a bad thing. "Must I be carried to the skies on flow'ry beds of ease, while others fight to win the prize and sail through bloody seas?" We are in a battle right now. Pastor Way is more right than he knows; it is actually happening. It is not just the paganized Americas that are waging the war against us; it is also from within our circles. 

I would really like it if I could take my family out of this offensive culture, and live with them in a place that can be built up socially, morally, and culturally. But if it is a nation set up as a church, set up under unwarranted principles, then I see it as no different than where I am now. I respect Theonomists, as long as they remember that their views do not trump others' views. When the need to listen to others who have faith too falls by the wayside, then you know that identification with Christ's Word is not there either.


----------



## Henry from Canada (Nov 12, 2005)

Maybe I have completely misinterpreted this entire thread. Therefore, if this post seems stupid, please forgive me. 

It seems that many of you think that a Christian nation is unworkable. I think there is some merit to this thought when you consider all the so-called 'Christian groups and churches' that have failed to create an utopia on earth - and become corrupt. Also, this concept has merit when you consider that Moses himself failed to establish a long-term Godly society in years gone back.

I guess what I find so shocking is the thought that even Christians seem to doubt their own ability to govern themselves. 

Question:
Are you all saying that secular government is more practical than overtly Christian government?

I am not trying to be smart here. If you answer the above answer 'yes', then maybe this shows just how humble and wise Christians can really be. At the same time however, it may show how deeply divided professing Christiandom has become.

A humourous aside:
A little while ago, I was discussing government with an other (Pentecostal) Christian. I said that the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. He said the best form of government is a dictatorship with him as the dictator. 

I think most people think that they would make great dictators, and because of this inherent arrogance found in man, no person or group can be trusted with too much power. 

Could it be that even Christians can not be trusted with too much power, and because of this, we need other non-Christian groups to keep us honest?

The implications of this are truly humbling.


----------



## CalsFarmer (Nov 12, 2005)

Oh yeah and like ancient Israel worked? 

Lets see theocratic laws and society + sinful humans=unfaithful Israel

Any parallels to todays society? If it did not work then why would it work now? 

BTW Pastor Way nails it too...it ain't happening.....


----------



## JohnV (Nov 12, 2005)

Good questions, Henry. I believe that God has granted each of us understanding of some things so that we may play them against each other, so that we may gain in wisdom and understanding. Adopting a particular philosophy is not the final answer, for we must always be facing the far-exceeding knowledge that we do not yet know. Our theories, good as some may seem to us, are just petty ideas in the end. But if we use them as springboards into the broader and wiser comprehension of God's truth, then we are using them wisely, no matter the level we are at in our comprehension. 

If we go about things in our churches with that kind of humility, that kind of willingness to be subject to truth where ever we may find it, that kind of determined submission and adherence to a God that is not just a belief, but is real, with His Word being truly authoritative, then it becomes "iron sharpening iron" for us. We throw off our presuppositions to adopt objective truth where ever it imposes itself ( read: necessitates itself ) upon us. We must accept the truth as it is, not as tainted by the "truth as it is for us"-ism of the world. If we are subject to the Word, and can be governed by it, then why can we not govern as Christ has committed governorship to men?

[Edited on 11-12-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## JohnV (Nov 12, 2005)

> _posted by Grace_
> theocratic laws and society + sinful humans=unfaithful Israel



Israel was not unfaithful *because* of theocracy, it was sinful *in spite of* theocracy. There's a difference. Neither was it because of God's laws that they sinned, but in spite of God's laws to instruct them as to justice and equity. 

What we are talking about here is both the separation of church and state to an extreme, and the imposition of a select few upon the many. We are not putting into suspicion Christ's authority through the agency of men, nor God providence, nor God's ordination and governance of history. Whether we stay put or form a free society under the Word, our aim is still the same, both for ourselves and for each other: to be guided by the Spirit through the Word. 

The idea of a Chrisian nation is our ideal in the society we live in, not a pagan nation. So to flee to a place of peace and safety is not wrong. To judge it as wrong because man will inevitably go wrong is defeating from the start. We will not even, then, transform our present society for fear that it may just come to pass. 

What I fear will come to pass is that a Theonomic regime will be just that, a Theonomic regime. And even Theonomists in the end will say, "Maybe we overdone this thing", to say the least. But a Christian nation: if that is not our aim now, then what is our aim for our country?


----------



## Craig (Nov 12, 2005)

With all due respect to everyone here...I would have agreed with all of you in regards to theonomy about 3 weeks ago...however, upon reflection of the Law and it's uses, and the fact it wasn't abrogated, how do we live out a life of obedience? Before I considered this, I began to give more ground to Postmillenialism, and the rest seems like a logical necessity.

I'm reading Bahnsen's Theonomy and Christian Ethics...his reference to Scripture and his arguments are powerful. To my knowledge, no one has responded to his arguments...the work is about 30 years old...and Bahnsen has been dead for a bit, so no one really has to fear defending their view against his publicly.


----------



## Swampguy (Nov 12, 2005)

Sorry, I would have to live else where. I need the lost and dying around to serve. Who would I serve, other Christians, that be like. . . well you get what I mean! Also, where would all the good music come from


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 12, 2005)

> To my knowledge, no one has responded to his arguments...the work is about 30 years old...and Bahnsen has been dead for a bit, so no one really has to fear defending their view against his publicly.



Craig,

Try these:

William S Barker and W. Robert Godfrey, eds, _Theonomy: A Reformed Critique_ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990).

The best history of the movement is David S. Watson, "œTheonomy: A History of the Movement and An Evaluation of Its Primary Text" (master's thesis, Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, MI), 1985.

See: http://www.upper-register.com/theonomy.html

http://www.the-highway.com/theonomy_Zorn.html

Gordon, T. David. "Critique of Theonomy: A Taxonomy." _Westminster Theological Journal _ 56 (1994): 23-43.

Meredith G. Kline, "Comments on an Old-New Error: A Review of Greg Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics," _Westminster Theological Journal _ 41 (1978-79): 172-89.

Vern Poythress, _The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses_ (Nashville: Wolgemuth and Hyatt, 1991), 311-61, 363-77

http://members.aol.com/RSICHURCH/expire1.html

http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/files/duncan_moses_law_for_modern_government.pdf

rsc


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Henry from Canada_
> Maybe I have completely misinterpreted this entire thread. Therefore, Question:
> Are you all saying that secular government is more practical than overtly Christian government?
> 
> I am not trying to be smart here. If you answer the above answer 'yes', then maybe this shows just how humble and wise Christians can really be. At the same time however, it may show how deeply divided professing Christiandom has become.



The thing is, there is no "Christian" form of government. The Bible does not prescribe one. And the church does not require a specific form of government to grow and flourish. Christ has brought her through many different types, oligarchies, repubics, monarchies, dictatorships, even communist regimes. Still the Church endures. Our citizen ship is in heaven. Our King rules us from there by His Spirit, through His representatives, His elders. The kingdoms of this world are set up and brought down, as a means of common grace, and to serve His purposes for the Church. So trying to form a Christian nation is not necessarily the issue. The issue is where we should be putting our focus. On "christian" nation building? Or preaching the gospel and letting God spread his kingdom His way?

[Edited on 11-13-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## Peter (Nov 13, 2005)

Some final notes:

1) The idea does not hinge on Reconstructionist Theonomy. I am not a Theonomist of the Bahnsen, Rusdooney variety. I dont believe OT civil penalties automatically carry over to the NT, I dont outright reject natural law and I don't believe covenantal continuity is any basis for holding to the judical Laws of Moses. However, I do share the basic pre-enlightenment, non anabaptist, presupposition that governments, nations and all society should hold to Christian principles and that the bible speakes authoratively on everything.

2) Obviously, the idea would find no favor with pluralists. I really wish such people would not even bother to post on these questions. When it is said that we desire nations to be Christian we mean they should confess Christ and hold his word as supreme, nothing more. True enough that God does not require a democracy over a dictatorship or a republic over a king however God does require the submission of the government whatever form. I know most of the people who've raised this objection are voters. If the government can be athiestical why do you bother trying to influence it by voting?

3) One objection has been to introduce a false dichotomy. "Christian nation building" and preaching are not mutually exclusive. No one has adovocated replacing gospel preaching, no one would dare equate separation with gospel preaching.

4) Pessimistic eschatology is another objection, but we should remember that though pychologically this would be adverse to the idea, logically it has no bearing. Anyway I am interested in discussing the idea within the frame work of an optimistic eschatology.

That being said, some one has brought to my attention that the internet would not be the best forum to discuss these matters. Besides, the thread has been taken over by those who do not share basic presuppositions about the authority of scripture in civil affairs and further discussion would be unfruitful.


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 13, 2005)

I don't think anyone here has a pessimistic eschatology. I don't anyway.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 13, 2005)

"Pessimistic eschatology" is a contradiction in terms. That's precisely Peter's point, I would think. It is a derogatory prejudice imposed upon the discussion. 

But just as much, I would say, it is a prejudice to impose any one particular millennial view upon theology in the first place. The Canons of Dordt speak with high disfavour of an "uncertain certainty", speaking in terms of casting one's hopes and assurance of salvation upon one's own insecurities. A millennial view can only be the result of an ill-informed conclusion, and thus cannot be the basis for the truths of theology, nor ought one place one's faith in such poorly grounded beliefs, beliefs that require the certainty of a doctrine for which there is no certainty until after the fact. It is just very poor theology, and certainly not Reformed theology. 

I am not pluralist, but I do believe that God gave various gifts to men, the people of His church, without distinction to their office. In fact, the calling to office is usually determined by the gifts given, not the other way around. And I do believe that God gave to some what He did not give to others. I must be willing to recognize those gifts in others, even though I may differ with them in some particulars of faith; we agree on what we may not disagree on, but differ on things that offer legitimate grounds for differences. I am in great respect of some Baptist friends who clearly display the gifts of God in their faith and calling, though we differ diametrically in matters concerning baptism. But we of both sides know how to use those differences and convictions without imposition upon each other, except to hold each other up to a standard which is higher than both our views. It is the upward call of God that we are serving together. 

That is not pluralism; that is unity in the church. We are individuals, each called by grace, and each given gifts to the measure God has allotted. And together we strive to serve God as church, for God has decreed to make His will known through the church. This is the clear teaching of Ephesians, especially chapters 3 and 4. Otherwise the call to be one means nothing, if there are not individual gifts that some are this and some are that. 1 Cor. 12 also comes to mind in that respect. 

But that is the church that Ephesians is talking about, not a nation. Even so, our ministry within the church is to bring the gospel to all nations; not just our own, but if other nations then that much more our own. And we know what has happened to those nations that were founded under the Christian flag, for we are it, One Nation Under God. Canada is just under the skirts of America, so it applies to us as much as to you. Now we want to flee to form yet another country, and that also under a flag that has the imprint of another flag barely visible upon it, just as the American flag has. 

If we can't hold up the Christian flag in our churches, clear of any other intrusion, then why do we think we can start a country with one? But as a place of refuge, a place where we may flee from the present influences that invade our very homes and minds, greeting us in every conceivable place, if we may find refuge for our families from this onslaught, then we seek not just a Christian nation, but a nation where we may freely be Christians. My question would be whether we have arrived at such a point where we must flee our nation to seek that freedom?

[Edited on 11-13-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 13, 2005)

or plainly, "have we already arrived?"


----------



## CalsFarmer (Nov 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> > _posted by Grace_
> ...



The point is: IT DID NOT WORK THEN IT WILL NOT WORK NOW. You can one up me all you want to with all the theological in spite ofs and what evers, but remember the Israelites were sinful humans too just like we are today.... 

Once again ...it will not happen. What our aim is: TO PREACH THE GOSPEL. We sit here and yap about society.... whats more important? 

Yes I see that the USA is pretty much going the route of secularism but the Church has always faced these things. Remember the christians in 1st century Rome? People today act like all this trouble is something NEW. Hello...IT IS NOT!


----------



## JohnV (Nov 13, 2005)

I don't disagree, Grace. I am trying to put distance between a "Christian nation" and a nation based upon points of view that claim Christian authority. And I am trying to do that for both sides of the debate. If Bobby had not mentioned Bahnsen or Theonomy, it would have been a different discussion. And then you would be quite right.


----------



## Craig (Nov 13, 2005)

Our perspective on Theonomy directly affects the way we live. 

We must pursue a more Christian culture if we are to convert souls. Are we going to make disciples of all nations?

This requires sanctification, mortification of sin, and living your faith out loud. Do you believe God can raise nations and lay them low? How do you speak to a culture based on Scripture? If you outright reject theonomy, you must remain silent in the public square. If you accept it, then you can actually move forward. This is why many will refer to other millenial perspectives as pessemistic...I would reject the term "pessemistic" and use instead: "apathetic".


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 13, 2005)

I agree with the theonomists that God's law _ should _ determine our nations laws. Our magistrates are held accountable to it. And the Church should prophetically demand repentance of any injustice by the magistrates (i.e like John the Baptist). But this would apply in any society, and any form of government. But it is not the job of the Church to set up governments or nations. The Church's call is to preach the gospel. This will have cultural consequences certainly. But political consequences are for politicians to decide, not the Church. God has divinely instituted the magistrate for political power, not the Church. And this has nothing to do with eschatology. I have yet to see anyone advocate a "pessimistic" eschatology here. So we can leave that strawman out. This is clearly a disagreement over the nature of the Kingdom.


----------



## Craig (Nov 13, 2005)

From what I've read, people like Bahnsen and Rushdoony argue for a separation of Church and state.

I know I don't advocate a society governed by the Church...so I agree with you, Patrick.

I hope the straw man comment wasn't directed toward me, I'm not settled on Postmillenialism...but as some comments suggest, some that come from an Amil perspective do think a Christian's goal is to "save souls" and when it comes to politics "let go and let God". If we believe that the Law has a place in our faith, as Christ taught on the Sermon on the Mount, we must do as you and I have said: speak to this culture from the biblical perspective. The Bible isn't silent.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 13, 2005)

I don't think that speaking to a culture from a Biblical perspective is good enough. It is still one view against another. But speaking the Bible to our culture, that's a different story.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Craig_
> From what I've read, people like Bahnsen and Rushdoony argue for a separation of Church and state.
> 
> I know I don't advocate a society governed by the Church...so I agree with you, Patrick.
> ...



I don't know of which Amil perspective you are thinking of, but I can give you my Amil perspective. I don't believe regarding the magistrate that it is "let go and let God." It's a matter of the role God has placed for the church and state. The magistrate is not an office in the covenant of grace. It is an ordinance of preservation in the covenant of common grace. Therefore, they do not answer to Christ as "King" in the same sense as the Church. Otherwise, according to Hebrews 8, we would have to then conclude that the world has been atoned for by Christ, since the boundaries of Christ's kingship and his preisthood are the same. Those for whom He has redeemed as preist, He rules as King. The magistrate is a temporary, preserving office, which is _suppose_ to protect the Church and allow her to do her mission without threat of violence from others. The magistrate as an office answers to God as Creator and Law giver. They do not fall under the Kingship of Christ in the covenant of grace. That aspect of Christ's kingdom is bound only to His Church, and His office bearers in her. If the Church wishes to transform society, then through the preaching of the gospel, more people are converted, and some of those will most likely by politicians, or some who eventually pursue that vocation, and they can work in the political realm that way, being salt and light. So, that is the angle I approach this from.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 13, 2005)

I was just thinking the other night about my Amillennial leaning. I would be what some Postmils would call a pessimistic Amillennialist. I think that the forces of evil will assert themselves again. But in my day-to-day walk, it would seem that my goal is a Postmillennial view, for I hold firmly that the gospel can overcome our present woes. I don't know that we are at the end yet; and I don't know if we have yet seen the extent to which the gospel can be victorious over cultures and principalities.


----------



## Peter (Nov 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> I agree with the theonomists that God's law _ should _ determine our nations laws. Our magistrates are held accountable to it. And the Church should prophetically demand repentance of any injustice by the magistrates (i.e like John the Baptist). But this would apply in any society, and any form of government. But it is not the job of the Church to set up governments or nations. The Church's call is to preach the gospel. This will have cultural consequences certainly. But political consequences are for politicians to decide, not the Church. God has divinely instituted the magistrate for political power, not the Church.



This is a red herring. No one has EVER even remotely suggested this. 



> And this has nothing to do with eschatology. I have yet to see anyone advocate a "pessimistic" eschatology here. So we can leave that strawman out.



Yes it has. Quite explicitly some one has said short of Christ's return there will be no Christian nation. Also through out the discussion the idea has been mocked as impossible because of Christian schism, disregarding the fact that there will be complete reconciliation of the Church.


----------



## Peter (Dec 1, 2005)

Hello, I am definiately in favor of civil fines for Sabbath desecration, as was the custom in most states of the U.s. until the last half of the previous century (and perhaps the death penalty in especially grevious cases Ex 31:14). I'm not aware of the circumstances of Conrad Grebel's case but I do subscribe to the Reformed view that the civil magistrate has a right and duty to exercise his power in matters _about_ religion (though not in), which means I accept coercion towards people violating the First Table of the Law. The distinction (about/in) means the gov't may remove impediments to the church's reform, remove the church's enemies, provide matterial necessities for the church, and things of that nature, however, he may not take the keys of the church by assuming to appoint ministers or using excommunication, or such.

This topic has actually been discussed at length on the PB and can be investigated further by using the search function. For an introduction you should read WCF 1646 XXIII, and Belgic Confession (original) Article 36.


----------



## Peter (Dec 1, 2005)

Paleo Protestants _do_ see a distinction between the ecclesiastical and civil sphere, but perhaps the gulf is not as big as you see it. Ecclesiastical officers may not assume the powers and privledges of the civil officers, and civil officers may not assume those of the ecclesiastical officers. Ministers may not take the sword and punish criminals, civil magistrates may not take the keys of heaven and preach, or excommunicate. However, church officers may preach on political issues, may excommunicate men in the gov't, etc. and the civil officers may, within his sphere, use his powers in religious matters, ie, enforcing commandments 1-4. 

I would agree that executing someone b/c of their views on baptism is definately too harsh. Its important to remember that the paleoprotestant view is presently entirely hypothetical. It is an ideal not an actuality. As a postmillennialist I believe one day it will be real but I also believe that it will be accomplished through gradual reform and so society won't have the rampant problems of divisions and heresy when it is.

The problem with the Salem trials was that the convicted were probably not guilty. Many of the participants in the trials confessed the proceedings were botched and repented.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> Conrad Grebel and some other anabaptists andgoodmen were also murdered by these Christian gov'ts.



FYI: Conrad Grebel was not murdered. Rather, he was sentenced to life in prison. Read this article for more info.


----------



## Peter (Dec 1, 2005)

"Most of this sounds very good...except the last sentence. " 

You'll have to be more specific.

"If different sects differ on what one can/cannot do on the Sabbath, who will enforce this? The stronger? How unlike Christ's Kingdom. This will invariably lead to persecution of minority sects/intperpretations, just like the anabpatists were killed by Zwingli, etc.

As a Baptist should I arm myself...not against Big Brother, but against the Theonomists for the day when they raid my home to punish me for working out on the Sabbath day?"

I will repeat what I said previously, Its important to remember that the paleoprotestant view is presently entirely hypothetical. It is an ideal not an actuality. As a postmillennialist I believe one day it will be real but I also believe that it will be accomplished through gradual reform and so society won't have the rampant problems of divisions and heresy when it is.

Additionally, I'm not in favor of such extreme measures against small sects with only slightly divergent beliefs. Perhaps fines, or even tolerance if they do not threaten the peace and unity of the larger church.

Technically, I'm not a Theonomist, I just share the beliefs of the reformers and puritans. But to answer your question about the Sabbath, I'm not sure. I believe that the magistrate is duty bound to enforce the entire moral law. He cannot just arbitrarily throw out the parts concerning God, which besides being arbitrary is a great sacriledge, ie to say our duty to man is more important then that to God. As for the exact penalty, the Word of God say death, and I am inclined to go without that. However, some say the penalty was ceremonial, execution being the Israelite form of excommunication. I dont think this view appreciates the separation of church & state that existed in Israel. Jogging and playing games are a violation of the Sabbath, but I think the Law allows for mitigation of the severity of the penalty depending on the severity of the breach.

[Edited on 12-2-2005 by Peter]


----------



## gwine (Dec 1, 2005)

> Jogging and playing games are a violation of the Sabbath,



And why would a jog in the woods or a board game with my children be a violation?



> but I think the Law allows for mitigation of the severity of the penalty depending on the severity of the breach.



If gathering wood under the Law called for the death penalty then how lightly would the offense have to be to stay alive?



> Numbers 15
> 
> 32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.


----------



## Peter (Dec 1, 2005)

Hi Gerry,

Isa 58:13,14

If thou turn thy foot away from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable; and shalt honor him not doing thine own was nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words, Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord and I will cause thee to ride on high places of the earth and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

The Sabbath is the LORD's Day. We are to consecrate all of our thoughts, words, and deeds completely to his worship, except so much as needed for works of necessity and mercy.

As for the criminal penalty of breaking it, I'm not exactly sure but the severity of the punishment for picking up sticks in the wilderness most certainly has to do with the act implicit in it, which was kindling fire to heat tools and metal for the work on the tabernacle. This has to be the meaning of it because warmth and cooking food are works of necessity.

[Edited on 12-2-2005 by Peter]


----------



## Peter (Dec 1, 2005)

Here's Westminister's thoughts on the Sabbath:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wlc_w_proofs/index.html
WLC:


> Q. 115. Which is the fourth commandment?
> 
> A. The fourth commandment is, Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested in the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath-day and hallowed it.[621].
> 
> ...



Good thoughts on the Sabbath. The Sabbath is definately a moral institution. As you said its in the decalogue, it was also instituted by God at creation. Gen 2. But there is a sense where it is ceremonial. It is a shadow of our rest in Christ, and our eternal rest in Heavenly Canaan Heb 4.

[Edited on 12-2-2005 by Peter]


----------

