# One for the Theonomists...



## kalawine (Feb 14, 2009)

OK… this one is (not exclusively of course) for my Theonomist Brothers and Sisters.

I have been looking into Theonomy lately and I do seem to be leaning that way. Of course (like most of you I’m certain) I’m trying to see how one is to “tweak” the system. That is, I see where the Law (and all the Old Testament) is still to be kept except where the New Testament nullifies certain things. (Mark 7:19b comes to mind… _"this he said,_ making all meats clean") I understand that things like animal sacrifices and such were pointing to Christ as shadows and types and we are no longer to observe or practice them.

Ever since we revived the “Civil War” through a thread this week  I’ve been giving some real thought to government and how it should operate. I’ve particularly been wondering when (or if) a people have the right to rise up against their governmental authorities. This would include the American Revolution as well as the Civil War. (So please, I’m not trying to revive the Civil War debate ) I was (in the CW thread) trying to show my understanding of why the South (and the original colonies) had a _constitutional_ right to rebel. But truly what we should concern ourselves with is when (or if) it is _biblically_ right to rebel. (This was mentioned by some of you in the earlier thread) 

So…

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are some notes I typed while listening to a Joe Morecraft sermon:



_John Knox believed in a Covenantal approach to politics.

He believed that you must have a civil government that is based on four covenants:

(1) A covenant that the civil magistrate makes with God is terms with his law 
(2) A covenant that the civil magistrate makes with the people promising to protect them in terms with God’s law 
(3) A covenant that the people make with the civil magistrate that they will be submissive to them as long as they are faithful to their covenants
(4) A covenant that the people make with God that they will be his faithful people 

Another word for “covenantal” is “federal.” The very fact that we call our government “federal” shows the influence of John Knox. 

The reason people put their hand on the Bible to be sworn in, is because of John Knox.

The Scotch-Irish understood that we are only obligated to submit to the powers that be until they break their covenants._
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are some questions that have been running through my mind:

When the early Christians were persecuted and martyred by the Jews and later the Roman Empire and still later people like “Bloody Mary” etc. how did they understand submission to the government?

Would the difference between the earlier Christians and the "Knox brand" of Christian be that the earlier Christians were persecuted by a government that was already in authority before Christ established the Church? (Yes, I know that Israel was/is the “Church” and that we were grafted in but you know what I mean)

Could it be that Knox believed that we are only obligated to submit to the powers that be until they break their covenants only when a government has been set up with these covenantal agreements?

Whew! I hope that last question made sense to you!


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 14, 2009)

Kevin, that made perfect sense to me, and I appreciate this post. As I mentioned somewhere in one of these discussions about government that I am wrestling with this same issue. It seems the more I look into this, the more I believe that Knox was right. 

The US government was set up based on those principles. As far as I know this is unlike any other government that has been established thus far. When leaders take an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, they are, in fact, saying that they are held accountable to the people who were the ones who formed the constitution in the first place. 

This is at the heart of the struggle that a lot of us have with what is going on today. We believe with all of our hearts, that we are to submit to the authority God and has placed over us, and at the same time, we see this responsibility to hold our leadership accountable for their actions. 

This is my opinion. I am going to sit back and listen to what everyone else has to say now.


----------



## timmopussycat (Feb 14, 2009)

This issue will apply beyond those who identify themselves as Theonomists.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Feb 14, 2009)

kalawine said:


> When the early Christians were persecuted and martyred by the Jews and later the Roman Empire and still later people like “Bloody Mary” etc. how did they understand submission to the government?
> 
> Would the difference between the earlier Christians and the "Knox brand" of Christian be that the earlier Christians were persecuted by a government that was already in authority before Christ established the Church? (Yes, I know that Israel was/is the “Church” and that we were grafted in but you know what I mean)
> 
> ...



1. The Christians submitted to the government in those things which were lawful for them to submit, and in those things that were not lawful they disobeyed the government. It is in those things that they disobeyed the government that they were persecuted for. The Christians did not offer incense to Caesar, and they acknowledged that only Jesus is Lord not Caesar, and the proudly preached the word and obeyed the word.

2. There is no difference between the brand of Christians of the early church and that of Knox. When I say no difference, I mean it in terms of fundamental difference. Both were persecuted for disobeying unlawful government that encroached upon their religious freedoms. The Knox brand of Christians had the ability to not only resist with disobedience but also with flight and with arms a la King David in the Old Testament. 

3. Everyone does not keep a covenant perfectly, hence it will be frivolous for any party to willingly wait until the other party mess up and say, "Gotcha" you messed up I don't have to obey you. A Covenant of people who are of the same blood and community is much more deeper and richer. Because of this each party forbears with the non presumptuous shortcomings of each other. When these shortcomings become presumptuous, intentionally and incorrigible when recourse is sought and admonition is given, this is when the Knoxian principle is effected. (I wouldn't say Knoxian principle since the principle was found in Jeroboam, David, Moses, Jael, Gideon, Jephthah, Judas Maccabee etc). This is why the American Revolution was just, as well as the Southern States Secession


----------



## TimV (Feb 14, 2009)

> This issue will apply beyond those who identify themselves as Theonomists.



Good point, and it won't apply to some who call themselves Theonomists.

As an aside, I thought that




> A Covenant of people who are of the same blood and community is much more deeper and richer. Because of this each party forbears with the non presumptuous shortcomings of each other.



may seem off topic, but I don't think it is.


----------



## kalawine (Feb 14, 2009)

timmopussycat said:


> This issue will apply beyond those who identify themselves as Theonomists.



I didn't mean for it to be exclusive to Theonomists. But I know that it is imperative to Theonomy.


----------



## Theognome (Feb 15, 2009)

Theonomy, like any other theological construct, can lead to error when taken in exclusivity. However, the issue you have presented (as mentioned by other brethren in the thread) is not exclusive to Theonomy.

The early church refused to obey the government requirement that once a year, every Roman citizen must bow down and worship Caesar, declaring, "Salvation is found in no one else, There is no other name (Caesar) in heaven or earth by which we can be saved." Peter most likely had this edict in mind when he spoke the same phrase in reference to Christ in Acts 4:12. Also, Paul in Romans 13 used a similar caveat, declaring that we should do what is good. 

What is unfortunate is that many folks interpret Paul as saying that whatever the civil authorities demand _must_ be good and thus obeyed. However, Paul made it clear that goodness is referenced to God, and that it is His word, and not civil authorities, that is the standard for civil obedience. God is the measure of good and evil, not man.

To put it simply- if the government requires the citizenry to sin against the Lord in order to be right with them, they must be disobeyed, for it is they who are in rebellion to God, and a Christian is not to rebel against the will of the Lord in Christ. To sin is to do evil, which in Romans 13 is reason to fear. But do what is right before the Lord, and you have no reason to fear- for God is the armor of the faithful, even in the face of a wicked civil magistrate.

Theognome


----------



## kalawine (Feb 15, 2009)

Theognome said:


> Theonomy, like any other theological construct, can lead to error when taken in exclusivity. However, the issue you have presented (as mentioned by other brethren in the thread) is not exclusive to Theonomy.
> 
> The early church refused to obey the government requirement that once a year, every Roman citizen must bow down and worship Caesar, declaring, "Salvation is found in no one else, There is no other name (Caesar) in heaven or earth by which we can be saved." Peter most likely had this edict in mind when he spoke the same phrase in reference to Christ in Acts 4:12. Also, Paul in Romans 13 used a similar caveat, declaring that we should do what is good.
> 
> ...



I understand all that. But when does a people take up arms against it's government as opposed to being martyrs?


----------



## Theognome (Feb 15, 2009)

kalawine said:


> I understand all that. But when does a people take up arms against it's government as opposed to being martyrs?




When they invade. Defensive war for righteousness sake is easily defensible from biblical standards. When it comes to particular (in the philosophical sense) blessings, God's Word connects such to the land very strongly. When a civil magistrate, without good cause before the Lord takes or invades your land, it is time to bust out the artillery. My avatar should indicate my advocacy of artillery.

Theognome


----------



## kalawine (Feb 15, 2009)

Theognome said:


> kalawine said:
> 
> 
> > I understand all that. But when does a people take up arms against it's government as opposed to being martyrs?
> ...



Good answer.

-----Added 2/15/2009 at 12:38:33 EST-----



Anton Bruckner said:


> kalawine said:
> 
> 
> > When the early Christians were persecuted and martyred by the Jews and later the Roman Empire and still later people like “Bloody Mary” etc. how did they understand submission to the government?
> ...



I also appreciate this reply to my questions.

-----Added 2/15/2009 at 12:45:23 EST-----



JBaldwin said:


> Kevin, that made perfect sense to me, and I appreciate this post. As I mentioned somewhere in one of these discussions about government that I am wrestling with this same issue. It seems the more I look into this, the more I believe that Knox was right.
> 
> The US government was set up based on those principles. As far as I know this is unlike any other government that has been established thus far. When leaders take an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, they are, in fact, saying that they are held accountable to the people who were the ones who formed the constitution in the first place.
> 
> ...



I agree with you that "Knox was right." And I'm glad you appreciate this thread. BTW I appreciate your blog. I've been checking it out.


----------



## Jan Ziska (Feb 15, 2009)

Anton Bruckner said:


> kalawine said:
> 
> 
> > This is why the American Revolution was just, as well as the Southern States Secession
> ...


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 15, 2009)

kalawine said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > This issue will apply beyond those who identify themselves as Theonomists.
> ...



I am a former theonomist and have published in one theonomic periodical and I can say that this issue is not imperative to theonomy. Rushdoony and North, to be sure, would identify with this, but not Bahnsen. 

The fact that the general equity of the Mosaic law applies today does not mean that we need to "rise up agin 's gubmnt." Now, theonomists have done decent work in this area and have exposed some really bad thinking by some two-kingdom guys, but theonomy does not demand this.


----------



## kalawine (Feb 15, 2009)

Ivanhoe said:


> kalawine said:
> 
> 
> > timmopussycat said:
> ...



You do realize that I didn't mean that rising against the government is imperative? I believe the issue (whatever conclusions you come to afterward) should be examined.

-----Added 2/15/2009 at 03:05:23 EST-----



Ivanhoe said:


> I am a former theonomist and have published in one theonomic periodical and I can say that this issue is not imperative to theonomy.



BTW Why are you a former theonomist? Just curious.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 15, 2009)

kalawine said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > kalawine said:
> ...



I don't believe the Mosaic law can be consistently tri-partited (yes, I realize that forces me to take an exception to the Confession on that point).
Apropos of the above, I don't believe that theonomists (and many of their critics) can consistently and non-arbitrarily differentiate between ceremonial/civic/and moral laws. For example, is the bird's nest law in Deut. 22:6-7 ceremonial or moral or both? How do you know? I also deny that the sacrificial laws were not also political in nature. Jacob Milgrom's commentary on Leviticus discusses this.

My socio-ethical position can be summed up accordingly:
Amazon.com: The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theology: Oliver O'Donovan: Books

Sorry, didn't mean to derail the thread.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Feb 15, 2009)

Jan Ziska said:


> I disagree. What sin was being forced on the American Colonists, or the citizens of the Southern States? I would argue that unless some sin was being violently forced upon a people by the government magistrate, they have no cause to rebel.
> 
> Ie, forcing a people to convert to X (where x = false religion) on pain of death would be cause to rebel. Forcing them to use a erroneous prayer book, forbidding them to raise their children in the ways of the LORD & requiring church appointments to be cleared by the State likewise.
> 
> But unjust taxes (ie the tax Sharia requires of non-Muslims), unjust property restrictions (ie, not allowing believers to own certain businesses, or live outside a certain area etc), unjust civic practices (ie, denying Christians the vote) are all wrong and to be contested peacefully, but not cause for rebellion against God's anointed authority.


Let me say that the American Revolution in my opinion was just. It wasn't an emotional outburst of anarchy brought on by anger in lieu of taxes. Kinda like a kid not getting a playstation 3 for Christmas and wrecking the whole house.

Let me comment and say that many Christians do err in believing that if the state does not prevent the preaching of the word that it necessarily follows that they have immunity to pass laws regarding taxes, education and housing as they see fit. This is wrong. Preaching of the word is directly tied to the obedience of a person which manifests itself in the tangible things as it regards to taxes, education and housing. An example is, what if the government allows the preaching of the word and demands a 100% tax rate? According to some reading of romans 13, the gov't is just. Another example, what if the government allows for the preaching of the word and demands that parents teach their children that homosexuality is normal?

This is why submission to the government must be vetted to ensure that it is not in anyway infringing upon the obedience of a Christian towards his God in all respects.

In the Old Testament we see something similar. 

1. Pharaoh did not prevent the Hebrews from preaching the word. All he demanded was the killing of their first born son and for them to remain in slavery.

2. Rehoboam did not demand that Jerboam and Israel not preach the word. All he demanded was for them to shut up and be compliant with the unjust taxation that his father Solomon implemented.

3. We have similar examples with Gideon. The Ishmaelites did not seek to prevent the preaching of the word, they only wanted the hebrews to be compliant slaves.

4. My favorite example is Rahab the harlot. She lied. She was not prevented from preaching the word to her family but she disobeyed the orders of the Jerichoites when they demanded the truth.

Now using these examples, the justness of the American revolution is made manifest or so I think.

The American colonists complained about the taxes and the hindrance it caused by selecting a lower magistrate and using the honorable protocols to seek redress to King George. The declaration of Independence shows this.



> He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
> 
> He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
> 
> ...


 It wasn't merely taxes, it was about the stubborn tyranny of a king did not condescend to the just petition of his people and was not negotiating in good faith. The colonists considered themselves English, and sought to preserve this above all else. The very fact that the colonists followed the just protocols to seek redress undergirds the justness of their cause.


----------



## Jan Ziska (Feb 16, 2009)

You'll note I hope that nowhere did I say that as long as the government does not interfere with the spreading of the word they are ok. I would say we are to obey our lawful government in all things not requiring sin.

We are not required to obey an invading or occupying force, but we are called to submit to the lawful government put above us.

I ask again, *what sin* was being required of the American colonists & the citizens of the Southern States?

Not what injustices were being imposed on them, not what indignities. Not the lengths (reasonable or otherwise) they went to redress them before rebelling. What sin?


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Feb 16, 2009)

Jan Ziska said:


> You'll note I hope that nowhere did I say that as long as the government does not interfere with the spreading of the word they are ok. I would say we are to obey our lawful government in all things not requiring sin.
> 
> We are not required to obey an invading or occupying force, but we are called to submit to the lawful government put above us.
> 
> ...



1. We have a right to obey our lawful government in all things not requiring sin, likewise we are also given the right to redress via the lower civil magistrate. The principle is found in scripture with reference to Moses, Gideon and Jeroboam. The Romans recognized this hence the office of Tribune was enacted. Even Cyrus the Great came to power over the oppressive Medes because of this principle.

2. The British army became an occupying force when instead of protecting the freedom of the colonists they tried to subjugate them on behalf of king George. 

3. The Southern States had the right to secede. The Union was and is a voluntary compact and covenant between the states. A state had the right at anytime to break the unity and become independent. The states were all equal. It wasn't to be misinterpreted as the Federal Government being Superior and the States being Inferior. The Southern States were exercising this right that they bleed and died for during the Revolutionary War and Lincoln arbitrarily denied them the full exercise of this right by his attack on Forth Sumter. 

4. I don't think I follow your differentiation between injustice and indignity.


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 16, 2009)

Jan Ziska said:


> You'll note I hope that nowhere did I say that as long as the government does not interfere with the spreading of the word they are ok. I would say we are to obey our lawful government in all things not requiring sin.
> 
> We are not required to obey an invading or occupying force, but we are called to submit to the lawful government put above us.
> 
> ...



The British soldiers were guilty of burning down places of worship, burning people's crops, raping their wives and daughters, murdering their children and setting the natives on them to do the same things. 

One incident that sticks out in my mind that happened in South Carolina, the British cornered most of the population of a town into a church and burned the church down with everyone inside. How can you say that was not a sin?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Feb 16, 2009)

Anton Bruckner said:


> Jan Ziska said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree. What sin was being forced on the American Colonists, or the citizens of the Southern States? I would argue that unless some sin was being violently forced upon a people by the government magistrate, they have no cause to rebel.
> ...



I agree, Keon. As I pointed out in the Civil War thread, many of the offenses listed in the Declaration of Independence are non-Biblical reasons for the revolution. But repeated murder and "waging war" are clear grounds for war and self-defense by any measure. Were the colonists perfect? No, but they acted in good faith - they were saddened by the Declaration, rather than looking for an excuse to enact it. The "heart" of the colonists was for reconciliation, but the King (or more accurately, Parliament) rebuffed their efforts. 

The Civil War is a different story altogether, in my opinion, but I'll say nothing more about it in this thread...


----------



## Brother John (Feb 16, 2009)

But is it not more accurate to refer to the two wars as:

The American War of Independnce

The War Between the States or The War of Northern Aggression


----------



## LawrenceU (Feb 16, 2009)

Blev3rd said:


> But is it not more accurate to refer to the two wars as:
> 
> The American War of Independnce
> 
> The War Between the States or The War of Northern Aggression



Exactly. Well, other than it should be the The American War of Independence


----------

