Reforned/non-dispensational Calvinists... why aren't you theonomists?

[jmdrake]

First of all, most likely nobody drags the blatant homosexual adulterer witch out of her bed, because in most cases there aren't going to be two witnesses. If there were two witnesses they would take it to whoever is in charge, whether it be town elders or a county administrator or whoever (the structure of government isn't a moral issues so there is some freedom there, I'm not sure precisely what I'd personally support but that isn't central to theonomy) and they would deal with it.

Okay. I guess I'm not sure what you have against police as a concept then because under any set up someone will have to play the policing role. Or maybe you aren't against police conceptually but just against them in our current system?

I'm not suggesting I know the OT law exhaustively, nor does it particularly matter if I do.

Fair enough.

But at least I got the lol

Touche'!

Well, it took more than being an "unruly kid" to justify being stoned under OT law. It required being incorrigible to the point where parents could not get their children to repent and so with no other options they would take the son to the civil magistrate, who would then execute them. Based on the description given, the "kid" would at the least be a teenager. We aren't talking about stoning every 8 year old who talks back. It would have to be at the point where parents did everything they could (including warning the child of potential capital punishment) and still being unable to get even outward repentence.

But regarding "defecation on the sidewalk", yeah, I don't think that would be a punishable crime, although if the sidewalks were privately owned (as they should be) it could be a violation of property rights.

Okay. Well I'm pretty sure Moses didn't sit back and say "Property rights! Let's wait and see if Caleb objects." Incidentally lack of sanitation is what caused the black death to decimate Europe. Jews were spared because they practiced the sanitation laws.

Murder does not have a non-moral component. Nothing does. Saying that murder should be punishable is a moral argument. Saying that murder is wrong is a moral argument.

Sure it does. Even murder that you might think is "moral" can and is punished by the state. (If any theonomists try to use capital punishment as a deterrent for adultery, they will find that out.) Murder is a violation of NAP.

Well, not really. The fact that I don't know the answer to every single one of your questions (and in some cases there are gray areas) doesn't mean the laws will be unclear. And, ex post facto punishments aren't Biblical anyway.

It's not simply that you don't know the answer to all my questions but that there is no consensus on much of this.

Its not that I think God "needs my help" anymore than a Christian libertarian who thinks murder should be a crime think God "needs their help." Its about what God commands for civil society.

No evidence of this command for civil enforcement of moral law before Moses or post Christ.

This is a fair point. I assumed it was ceremonial due to the reference to uncleanliness (which is typically a ceremonial thing.) But even if you're right that the reason was health, than we can say that it no longer applies due to the lack of health risk. To clarify, theonomists do not advocate turning your brain off and blindly doing things if the reasons for them are no longer applicable. I do not believe you are sinning if you don't put a fence around your roof.

Okay.

This is definitely ceremonial, similar to the Sabbath. SUre, letting the land go fallow may be good for it, and taking a day off work each week may be good for oyu, but that is no longer a moral requirement.

Actually the Sabbath is moral and defined in the 10 commandments. But anyway.

Because its a variation of rape. You are forcing a child to expose themselves in an unnatural way.

The child could volunteer. And there is no age of consent anywhere in the Bible. (Most believe Mary to have been 12 at the time she was espoused to Joseph). And ultimately I've never heard of anyone call child porn a "variation of rape" except you. Do you have any Biblical, legal or cultural reference to support that idea?

[Christian Liberty]

Okay. I guess I'm not sure what you have against police as a concept then because under any set up someone will have to play the policing role. Or maybe you aren't against police conceptually but just against them in our current system?

I believe I said something along the lines of "not necessarily." In other words, there could be, but there don't have to be. This is a structural issue that's morally neutral. Whether police were needed would probably depend on how urbanized the community is. I don't think this is a problem that is unique to theonomy, this would be the case with most forms of libertarianism as well.

I want to clarify something though. I do not believe police should be spying in people's windows or anything like that. The surveilance state is unbiblical. The only time anything should be investigated is if it is reported (and per Biblical law, reports that are proven to be false would be punished with the same punishment that was desired for the "criminal"). So if you're talking about police in the way they are done today, who actively go around looking for crimes to prosecute (doubly so when the laws are humanistic, but even if not), that is completely unbiblical.

Okay. Well I'm pretty sure Moses didn't sit back and say "Property rights! Let's wait and see if Caleb objects."

Its not something that ever came up. But, I'm pretty sure whoever owned the property would object to people defecating on it. In which case that would be a form of theft because you are directly devaluing someone else's property. I don't see why this is an issue. Now, could you defecate on your own property? Yeah, I'd say you could, even though that wouldn't be moral if it presented a health risk.

Incidentally lack of sanitation is what caused the black death to decimate Europe. Jews were spared because they practiced the sanitation laws.

Saying that something shouldn't be enforced doesn't mean people shouldn't do it.

Sure it does. Even murder that you might think is "moral" can and is punished by the state. (If any theonomists try to use capital punishment as a deterrent for adultery, they will find that out.)

That wouldn't even be moral. Its not the job of random theonomists to execute adulterers, it is the government's job.

Murder is a violation of NAP.

.
The NAP is a nebulous concept that you presupposed and imposed onto the discussion. While I have a lot of things in common with people who believe in the NAP (including opposition to preemptive war, big government, quasi-big government, collateral damage, drug laws, etc.) I don't believe in the NAP.

It's not simply that you don't know the answer to all my questions but that there is no consensus on much of this.

That's true. Much like libertarians debate over the NAP and how exactly it applies to certain situations, theonomists debate over how exactly Biblical law applies to certain situations. The particular question you were asking about adultery was one I hadn't encountered before, so I want to look into it. So, I'm not really sure if any theonomist theorists have dealt with it. I'm guessing they have, but I'm not aware of it.

That said, the fact that there are disagreements amongst theonomists in certain cases where the Bible isn't 100% clear doesn't prove theonomy wrong, any more than disagreements among libertarians proves libertarianism wrong.

Heck, libertarians can't even agree on abortion. Some libertarians believe our society is committing genocide against the unborn (these are the libertarians I respect), while others believe abortion is perfectly fine. Theonomists don't have any divisions nearly that big. Now, I'm not saying this proves me right, only that you can't really use that as an argument.

No evidence of this command for civil enforcement of moral law before Moses or post Christ.

This is hermaneutical in nature. The assumption is covenental continuity except where specifically stated otherwise.

Actually the Sabbath is moral and defined in the 10 commandments. But anyway.

Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14:5 would disagree with you, but then, a lot of theonomists would disagree with me. Probably most.

The child could volunteer. And there is no age of consent anywhere in the Bible. (Most believe Mary to have been 12 at the time she was espoused to Joseph). And ultimately I've never heard of anyone call child porn a "variation of rape" except you. Do you have any Biblical, legal or cultural reference to support that idea?

There may not have been an exact age of consent*, but there are principles you can use. Can a 16 year old consent? Maybe. Can a 6 year old? Certainly not.

*I've seen some theonomists argue for 20, but I'm not sure how strong that argument is. Males 20 and older were counted in the census in Numbers, and were able to participate in combat. IIRC they were also the ones who had to appear before God during festivals, though I am not certain of this. It was also males 20 and older that were punished in the wilderness. I'm not sure that that's conclusive, but its one view.

[Christian Liberty]

Could a mod edit the thread title so it matches the subtitle? I'm not sure if anyone other than me cares, but I misspelled "Reformed". Thank you

[jmdrake]

I believe I said something along the lines of "not necessarily." In other words, there could be, but there don't have to be. This is a structural issue that's morally neutral. Whether police were needed would probably depend on how urbanized the community is. I don't think this is a problem that is unique to theonomy, this would be the case with most forms of libertarianism as well.

I want to clarify something though. I do not believe police should be spying in people's windows or anything like that. The surveilance state is unbiblical. The only time anything should be investigated is if it is reported (and per Biblical law, reports that are proven to be false would be punished with the same punishment that was desired for the "criminal"). So if you're talking about police in the way they are done today, who actively go around looking for crimes to prosecute (doubly so when the laws are humanistic, but even if not), that is completely unbiblical.

Okay. I'm asking this for clarification. So in modern real society, not some theoretical theonomist society, you are at this juncture not opposed to police per se but you are opposed to modern policing methods? Because that's not the impression I got from you in the past. Again just asking for clarification.

Its not something that ever came up. But, I'm pretty sure whoever owned the property would object to people defecating on it. In which case that would be a form of theft because you are directly devaluing someone else's property. I don't see why this is an issue. Now, could you defecate on your own property? Yeah, I'd say you could, even though that wouldn't be moral if it presented a health risk.

Actually in the context of when the command was given none of the property was "owned." God gave the command regarding the camp. The Israelites were mobile. I assume once they settled down in Canaan they were allowed to have outhouses. And in a camp there is always a common area. Some libertarians believe that there should be no common areas in society as a whole, but that's not a practical solution for what Moses was dealing with. So "property rights" doesn't solve the problem. And while you might say you could, God specifically said you couldn't.

Saying that something shouldn't be enforced doesn't mean people shouldn't do it.

I think you tripped over your double negatives. Did you mean say "Saying that something shouldn't be enforced doesn't mean people should do it?" Anyway here's your dilemma. The reason you give for the civil enforcement of OT adultery laws is because of the harm it does to society. But that same reason exists more so for certain acts where no punishment was explicitly mentioned. Again think the black death. That killed far more people that HIV on its worst day. And the black death killed "innocent" people. It didn't care if you were someone that always pooped in the right place. Your neighbor's filth could literally kill you. Once effective blood screening was in place, HIV pretty much only killed people engaging in risky behavior. Okay, there are the babies born with HIV, but even that is typically prevented in first world countries.

That said, I agree with your overall assertion that just because something isn't punished doesn't mean that people should do it. New Testament Christians weren't going around wantonly committing adultery just because the church didn't have control of the levers of power of the state in order to kill them. The correct "punishment" was (and is) expulsion from the church. Theonomy goes against Christianity because it seeks something that Christ never sought and taught His disciples not to seek which is earthly power.

That wouldn't even be moral. Its not the job of random theonomists to execute adulterers, it is the government's job.

It's nobody's job.

The NAP is a nebulous concept that you presupposed and imposed onto the discussion. While I have a lot of things in common with people who believe in the NAP (including opposition to preemptive war, big government, quasi-big government, collateral damage, drug laws, etc.) I don't believe in the NAP.

ROTFLMAO. So you've gone from being a proponent of NAP to now thinking it is a "nebulous concept?" You're like SF claiming the parables of Jesus are a "mystery." No, the nap is not at all nebulous. In it's simplest form it is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And to that the principle of "Not returning evil for evil" and you have NAP at an even higher level. Theonomy is the "eye for an eye" principal that Moses taught. Jesus came and taught they we can do better. Theonomy goes against Jesus.

That's true. Much like libertarians debate over the NAP and how exactly it applies to certain situations, theonomists debate over how exactly Biblical law applies to certain situations. The particular question you were asking about adultery was one I hadn't encountered before, so I want to look into it. So, I'm not really sure if any theonomist theorists have dealt with it. I'm guessing they have, but I'm not aware of it.

That said, the fact that there are disagreements amongst theonomists in certain cases where the Bible isn't 100% clear doesn't prove theonomy wrong, any more than disagreements among libertarians proves libertarianism wrong.

Except libertarianism isn't claiming to be ordained by God. (Though I believe Jesus to be closer to a libertarian than a theonomist). Just look at the mental gymnastics you have to go through to believe that adultery is somehow more damaging to society that something that caused the death of half of Europe. At the end of the day the libertarians are falling back on "Okay sure this makes no sense but we'll do it anyway because we think God said so." Also since you are the one that started the thread questioning why other Christians aren't theonomists, the onus is on you to have thought this all the way through. I have a friend who is a global warming zealot but doesn't know that CO2 is the main gas being blamed for global warming and frankly this conversation reminds me of that one. If you haven't thought theonomy all the way through, and you haven't then it behooves you to do that before trying to convince other people that your way is the "right" one. Now if you just want to ask others what they think about theonomy and have a discussion that's a different matter altogether.

Heck, libertarians can't even agree on abortion. Some libertarians believe our society is committing genocide against the unborn (these are the libertarians I respect), while others believe abortion is perfectly fine. Theonomists don't have any divisions nearly that big. Now, I'm not saying this proves me right, only that you can't really use that as an argument.

And libertarians have a framework for having the discussion. And most libertarians who are asking other people "Why aren't you libertarian" have at least thought through the problems of libertarianism. For the record I don't consider myself libertarian, but libertarianism is at least sane.

This is hermaneutical in nature. The assumption is covenental continuity except where specifically stated otherwise.

That's a rather stupid assumption. Regardless it has been specifically stated otherwise. Jesus said His kingdom is not of this world. Theonomists are going directly against His teachings on the subject.

Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14:5 would disagree with you, but then, a lot of theonomists would disagree with me. Probably most.

No they don't. For one thing you realize that all of the feast days were called sabbaths. And yes, the feast "sabbaths" were ceremonial. They were not part of the 10 commandment moral law. They pointed to Jesus coming and dying for us on the cross. They did not exist before sin. The seventh day Sabbath was part of the 10 commandment moral law. It pointed to creation. It existed prior to sin. Now you can claim the the moral law itself is no longer binding on the Christian and some Christians make that claim. But it's incorrect to claim the Sabbath was a ceremonial law.

There may not have been an exact age of consent*, but there are principles you can use. Can a 16 year old consent? Maybe. Can a 6 year old? Certainly not.

A 6 year old can consent to certain things. Or would you punish a 6 year old who played doctor with another 6 year old the same as you would a 6 year old that forced another 6 year old to have sex? Further most believe that Mary was around 12. So as long as the child has gone through puberty its okay? That's what the Muslims believe. And the whole idea of "consent" is murky in the old testament anyway. A man could sell off his daughter to be someone's bride without her consent. (See Exodus 21:7-9.) So if the daughter's consent is not needed then why does it matter if she's reached the age of consent? She can be married off as young as 6 or even younger. And if it's legal under the OT to marry a child off without the child's consent, then why would it be illegal to take pictures? Presumably if cameras had existed in Moses' day those buying sex slave brides would prefer to see what the girls looked like first.

*I've seen some theonomists argue for 20, but I'm not sure how strong that argument is. Males 20 and older were counted in the census in Numbers, and were able to participate in combat. IIRC they were also the ones who had to appear before God during festivals, though I am not certain of this. It was also males 20 and older that were punished in the wilderness. I'm not sure that that's conclusive, but its one view.

LOL. Seriously? During the 1800s the age of consent in the U.S. varied from 10 to 16. And that's about the age it was biblically. For a theonomist to argue for 20 and older shows they aren't really serious about following the Bible but instead want to impose what they believe to be "right." It's a joke of a philosophy.

[jmdrake]

Could a mod edit the thread title so it matches the subtitle? I'm not sure if anyone other than me cares, but I misspelled "Reformed". Thank you

LOL. I didn't notice. Have you tried using "advanced edit?"

[jmdrake]

Anyway, I have to sign off for the rest of today as I have real work t do. I may get on this evening. But I did want to come back to my overall point that I think is getting missed in the back and forth. The big "advantage" that keeps getting cited by advocates of theonomy is "Well there is at least a limit on the number of laws that can be passed." But that's not necessarily the case. Just like Calvin banned dancing without any actual Biblical basis to do so, modern theonomists are tempted to ban child pornography or marriage of people under 20 without a biblical basis. And true, that's not "all" theonomists, but that's besides the point. The philosophy itself allows for the growth of government based on what people think should be banned under the law of Moses rather than restricting itself to what actually is banned under the law of Moses. And some things that are actually banned are allow because of loopholes. (There was no explicit penalty for it for example). So the theonomist claim of small government superiority is dubious at best.

[Christian Liberty]

I was going to give a longer answer, I typed it, and my computer glitched. So, I'm going to shorten, but still try to hit the main points.

Okay. I'm asking this for clarification. So in modern real society, not some theoretical theonomist society, you are at this juncture not opposed to police per se but you are opposed to modern policing methods? Because that's not the impression I got from you in the past. Again just asking for clarification.

I'm opposed to any police that currently exist, because I don't view our current government as legitimate.

In terms of theory, a theonomist state may or may not have any police. That's a structural question, and legitimate theonomists can disagree on it. My personal answer would probably be that they are more needed the more urbanized an area is.

Actually in the context of when the command was given none of the property was "owned." God gave the command regarding the camp. The Israelites were mobile. I assume once they settled down in Canaan they were allowed to have outhouses. And in a camp there is always a common area. Some libertarians believe that there should be no common areas in society as a whole, but that's not a practical solution for what Moses was dealing with. So "property rights" doesn't solve the problem. And while you might say you could, God specifically said you couldn't.

Not sure what this has to do with anything.

I think you tripped over your double negatives. Did you mean say "Saying that something shouldn't be enforced doesn't mean people should do it?" Anyway here's your dilemma. The reason you give for the civil enforcement of OT adultery laws is because of the harm it does to society. But that same reason exists more so for certain acts where no punishment was explicitly mentioned. Again think the black death. That killed far more people that HIV on its worst day. And the black death killed "innocent" people. It didn't care if you were someone that always pooped in the right place. Your neighbor's filth could literally kill you. Once effective blood screening was in place, HIV pretty much only killed people engaging in risky behavior. Okay, there are the babies born with HIV, but even that is typically prevented in first world countries.

That's not really my argument though. I gave circumstantial reasons for why it might be banned, but my reason for supporting a ban is because God says so. There also is a very real victim.

That said, I agree with your overall assertion that just because something isn't punished doesn't mean that people should do it. New Testament Christians weren't going around wantonly committing adultery just because the church didn't have control of the levers of power of the state in order to kill them. The correct "punishment" was (and is) expulsion from the church. Theonomy goes against Christianity because it seeks something that Christ never sought and taught His disciples not to seek which is earthly power.

I agree that Christians reject sin for reasons other than civil magistrates. 1 Timothy 1 makes clear that the law is for the lawless. Christians who would follow the moral law without the civil sanctions need not worry about the civil sanctions.

That said, theonomy isn't really about "seeking political power." I support tiny, local government, with the governors chosen by those they are supposed to serve. I don't support imposing theonomy on non-Christian societies. But I believe its the right system of government. If you believe ANYTHING should be punished for moral reasons, even murder, you are inconsistent.

It's nobody's job.

Yes, that's your opinion. I disagree because I am convinced the Bible teaches it is the civil government's job.

ROTFLMAO. So you've gone from being a proponent of NAP to now thinking it is a "nebulous concept?" You're like SF claiming the parables of Jesus are a "mystery." No, the nap is not at all nebulous. In it's simplest form it is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And to that the principle of "Not returning evil for evil" and you have NAP at an even higher level. Theonomy is the "eye for an eye" principal that Moses taught. Jesus came and taught they we can do better. Theonomy goes against Jesus.

This would be more consistent as a pacifist argument than a libertarian one. Nowhere is "NAP" in those verses. You are implying that the Law God gave Moses somehow contradicts this principle. But since loving your neighbor as yourself is actually in the OT Law (albeit without a penalty) I would assert the impossibility of this.

Except libertarianism isn't claiming to be ordained by God. (Though I believe Jesus to be closer to a libertarian than a theonomist). Just look at the mental gymnastics you have to go through to believe that adultery is somehow more damaging to society that something that caused the death of half of Europe. At the end of the day the libertarians are falling back on "Okay sure this makes no sense but we'll do it anyway because we think God said so." Also since you are the one that started the thread questioning why other Christians aren't theonomists, the onus is on you to have thought this all the way through. I have a friend who is a global warming zealot but doesn't know that CO2 is the main gas being blamed for global warming and frankly this conversation reminds me of that one. If you haven't thought theonomy all the way through, and you haven't then it behooves you to do that before trying to convince other people that your way is the "right" one. Now if you just want to ask others what they think about theonomy and have a discussion that's a different matter altogether.

I just started this thread to have a discussion, not so much to convince other people. I am convinced at this point, and I was not convinced when I started the thread. But, I'm not necessarily trying to convince you guys. I am OK with that if it happens, but that's not necessarily my goal. I'm still new to this myself.

And libertarians have a framework for having the discussion. And most libertarians who are asking other people "Why aren't you libertarian" have at least thought through the problems of libertarianism. For the record I don't consider myself libertarian, but libertarianism is at least sane.

I've thought through the problems, first of all. Second of all, the two systems are not as diametrically opposed as you think. Not precisely the same, but with many similarities.

That's a rather stupid assumption. Regardless it has been specifically stated otherwise. Jesus said His kingdom is not of this world. Theonomists are going directly against His teachings on the subject.

Jesus' kingdom not being of this world means that Jesus didn't come to overthrow Rome. He came to die for people's sins. That doesn't change the fact that civil governments should pursue justice and that God tells them how to do that.

No they don't. For one thing you realize that all of the feast days were called sabbaths. And yes, the feast "sabbaths" were ceremonial. They were not part of the 10 commandment moral law. They pointed to Jesus coming and dying for us on the cross. They did not exist before sin. The seventh day Sabbath was part of the 10 commandment moral law. It pointed to creation. It existed prior to sin. Now you can claim the the moral law itself is no longer binding on the Christian and some Christians make that claim. But it's incorrect to claim the Sabbath was a ceremonial law.

OK, we just disagree on this. Fair enough. For what its worth, most theonomists agree with you.

A 6 year old can consent to certain things. Or would you punish a 6 year old who played doctor with another 6 year old the same as you would a 6 year old that forced another 6 year old to have sex?

No. But then, I think there's a difference between 6 year olds "playing doctor" and an adult "playing doctor" with a 6 year old. That seems pretty obvious to me.

Further most believe that Mary was around 12. So as long as the child has gone through puberty its okay? That's what the Muslims believe. And the whole idea of "consent" is murky in the old testament anyway. A man could sell off his daughter to be someone's bride without her consent. (See Exodus 21:7-9.) So if the daughter's consent is not needed then why does it matter if she's reached the age of consent? She can be married off as young as 6 or even younger. And if it's legal under the OT to marry a child off without the child's consent, then why would it be illegal to take pictures? Presumably if cameras had existed in Moses' day those buying sex slave brides would prefer to see what the girls looked like first.

To quote my ESV commentary (which isn't theonomic BTW):

(On Exodus 21:7-9) If a poor family could not afford a normal wedding, the father might "sell" his daughter to a rich man as his "slave", that is, as a secondary wife like Zilpah and Billhah. These laws aim to prevent any mistreatment that the daughter might face."

Therefore, this seems more for the purpose of protecting the girl than for the purpose of allowing parents to enslave their kids. That said, we don't know how old she was either.

LOL. Seriously? During the 1800s the age of consent in the U.S. varied from 10 to 16. And that's about the age it was biblically. For a theonomist to argue for 20 and older shows they aren't really serious about following the Bible but instead want to impose what they believe to be "right." It's a joke of a philosophy.

Well, I don't know if I'd go that far, but I think I would agree with you that the argument regarding age 20 is incorrect.

Anyway, I have to sign off for the rest of today as I have real work t do. I may get on this evening. But I did want to come back to my overall point that I think is getting missed in the back and forth. The big "advantage" that keeps getting cited by advocates of theonomy is "Well there is at least a limit on the number of laws that can be passed." But that's not necessarily the case. Just like Calvin banned dancing without any actual Biblical basis to do so, modern theonomists are tempted to ban child pornography or marriage of people under 20 without a biblical basis. And true, that's not "all" theonomists, but that's besides the point. The philosophy itself allows for the growth of government based on what people think should be banned under the law of Moses rather than restricting itself to what actually is banned under the law of Moses. And some things that are actually banned are allow because of loopholes. (There was no explicit penalty for it for example). So the theonomist claim of small government superiority is dubious at best.

This can happen with libertarianism to, so I don't really see this as that strong. Calvin was blatantly wrong. So what? Heck, Calvin wasn't even a theonomist.

[jmdrake]

I was going to give a longer answer, I typed it, and my computer glitched. So, I'm going to shorten, but still try to hit the main points.

I'm opposed to any police that currently exist, because I don't view our current government as legitimate.

In terms of theory, a theonomist state may or may not have any police. That's a structural question, and legitimate theonomists can disagree on it. My personal answer would probably be that they are more needed the more urbanized an area is.

Okay.

Not sure what this has to do with anything.

You mentioned property rights as the enforcement mechanism for the defecation in public rule. My point is that property rights are not always applicable and they weren't applicable in the situation where Moses gave the no defecation rule. Sorry but I don't buy your theory that rules where there were no explicit punishment simply weren't enforced and were mere "suggestions." (If that is indeed your theory).

That's not really my argument though. I gave circumstantial reasons for why it might be banned, but my reason for supporting a ban is because God says so. There also is a very real victim.

You can't show that there is a victim merely by continued assertion without evidence. Emotional trauma? If that's your argument then there are all sorts of "very real victims" for victimless crimes. And you've basically ignored open marriages where the "victim" might even encourage the adulterous behavior.

I agree that Christians reject sin for reasons other than civil magistrates. 1 Timothy 1 makes clear that the law is for the lawless. Christians who would follow the moral law without the civil sanctions need not worry about the civil sanctions.

There is no new testament justification for civil sanctions for moral laws period.

That said, theonomy isn't really about "seeking political power." I support tiny, local government, with the governors chosen by those they are supposed to serve. I don't support imposing theonomy on non-Christian societies. But I believe its the right system of government. If you believe ANYTHING should be punished for moral reasons, even murder, you are inconsistent.

For you maybe. For some people socialism isn't about seeking political power. In fact the early Christian church was voluntary socialism. But if something is going to be enforced by a civil magistrate there must be political power sought. If you don't understand that you are naive. Also there are reasons other than moral reasons to punish murder. Compare murder to adultery. You have to strain to come up with an argument (in fact so far you haven't) why adultery necessarily has a victim. Murder there is always a victim. Adultery only affects the "victim" if the victim chooses to be affected. Murder affects the victim regardless of the mentality of the victim. Murder removes a potentially productive member of society. Adultery does not. And the fact that defecation can lead to mass death (black plague again) means that there is a stronger non moral reason to enforce that rule than there is for adultery.

Yes, that's your opinion. I disagree because I am convinced the Bible teaches it is the civil government's job.

It never says that in the new testament.

This would be more consistent as a pacifist argument than a libertarian one. Nowhere is "NAP" in those verses. You are implying that the Law God gave Moses somehow contradicts this principle. But since loving your neighbor as yourself is actually in the OT Law (albeit without a penalty) I would assert the impossibility of this.

I didn't imply any such thing WRT the law of Moses. That said, you aren't even really about applying the law of Moses, but of picking and choosing what you want to apply and adding things that were never even in there. Regardless, Jesus came to show us a better way than the law of Moses. He came to fulfill the law and write it on our hearts for inward enforcement. And saying "Yes that's for lawful people but we need civil magistrates to enforce it on the unlawful" is a cop out and shows a lack of faith in Jesus. The purpose of Christianity is to win people over to lawful behavior as opposed to enforcing it through political power that you apparently don't realize is necessary for theonomy.

As for those verses and NAP, if I'm not being aggressive to someone else I am doing unto them as I would have them do unto me. I'm not sure how anyone can read that and not see the non aggression principle at work.

I just started this thread to have a discussion, not so much to convince other people. I am convinced at this point, and I was not convinced when I started the thread. But, I'm not necessarily trying to convince you guys. I am OK with that if it happens, but that's not necessarily my goal. I'm still new to this myself.

I'm going by the thread title. If I were to post a thread that said "Why aren't the rest of you Christians keeping the Sabbath?" most people would rightly think I was trying to convince someone else to keep the Sabbath.

I've thought through the problems, first of all. Second of all, the two systems are not as diametrically opposed as you think. Not precisely the same, but with many similarities.

Theonomy, if it's really trying to follow the Bible, is closer to socialism than libertarianism. Take some time to read the economic system of the law of Moses as well as the New Testament church. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean that because theonomy isn't exactly biblical with taking what it wants, rejecting what it doesn't want, and adding other stuff.

Jesus' kingdom not being of this world means that Jesus didn't come to overthrow Rome. He came to die for people's sins. That doesn't change the fact that civil governments should pursue justice and that God tells them how to do that.

In the New Testament God never said anything about civil governments enforcing moral laws. That's why theonomy has to go to the Old Testament, but then it does so in an inconsistent way. The New Testament, even Romans 13, was instructions for how Christians should interact with governments that already exist. It was not about setting up or even influencing government.

The Christian living peaceably in Iran are more closely following Romans 13 than what I've seen of theonomy. Paul was giving instructions to Christians on how to live in a hostile world ruled by hostile rulers. Rule number 1, don't do anything to give anyone else just reason from coming down on you. Christians are going to persecuted by hostile governments anyway. Why give a hostile government ammunition against you by stealing or killing or vandalizing or even not paying taxes? The civil government says "No street protests", according to Romans 13 you shouldn't street protest. Now here's were people get crosswise. Not every piece of advice given in the Bible is a test of fellowship or a sin if you don't follow it. Paul says "Drink a little wine for the stomach's sake." That's biblical advice but not biblical admonition. If a Christian feels the need to stand up against unjust government then that Christian isn't sinning. John the Baptist wasn't sinning for openly preaching against Herod. But he might have lived to preach other things longer if he hadn't.

OK, we just disagree on this. Fair enough. For what its worth, most theonomists agree with you.

Really? That's a bit surprising....and a bit concerning. While I believe the Sabbath is part of the moral law, I would hate to see anyone trying to enforce it, whether they were enforcing Saturday or Sunday. It's meant to be voluntary time spent with God.

No. But then, I think there's a difference between 6 year olds "playing doctor" and an adult "playing doctor" with a 6 year old. That seems pretty obvious to me.

Of course. But is the reason why obvious to you? It's not an issue of consent but of power. We assume the adult has the ability to over power the 6 year old either through physical force or subterfuge. Society uses the term "cannot consent" not because it's not possible but because that's an easier "bright line rule" to draw. And it's fine for society to draw a bright line rule. I'm all for laws against child pornography. I just realize that I can't back that up with a specific verse in the Bible. You instinctively know that there should be a law against child porn, so you will work that into your version of theonomy even though it doesn't fit what you've described. And that's a major problem with trying to devise a system based on what you have so far described. We can't have a law against defecation on the sidewalk because, even though it was mentioned in the Old Testament and even though the New Testament doesn't specifically say public defecation is okay and even though millions have died in the past due to such unsanitary conditions just because there's no specific penalty mentioned for it, but we can have a law to stone people who practice wiccan or who are openly gay? That just makes no sense.

To quote my ESV commentary (which isn't theonomic BTW):

(On Exodus 21:7-9) If a poor family could not afford a normal wedding, the father might "sell" his daughter to a rich man as his "slave", that is, as a secondary wife like Zilpah and Billhah. These laws aim to prevent any mistreatment that the daughter might face."

Therefore, this seems more for the purpose of protecting the girl than for the purpose of allowing parents to enslave their kids. That said, we don't know how old she was either.

You realize that neither the commentary you quoted nor the fact that we don't know the age of the daughter has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made? You brought up the point about consent. I brought up the fact that in the OT there were situations where women were placed legally in positions where they had to have sex and that didn't required their consent. Personally I'm with you on the "Consent should be required" idea. It's just not always required from a Biblical perspective. And again, that's the structural problem with theonomy. There are things that you would like to be illegal that don't really fit into theonomy as you have described it. So you're bending your own rules.

Well, I don't know if I'd go that far, but I think I would agree with you that the argument regarding age 20 is incorrect.

Of course you won't go that far. At least not yet. But here's why I call it a joke of a philosophy. Theonomy, as you have described it, tries to claim moral superiority over other forms of government because laws are supposedly "limited" by what's in the Bible. But then theonomists, including yourself, add to the Bible rules that simply aren't there. (Age of consent. Prohibition against child porn etc). At there are rules in the OT that theonomists don't want enforced for whatever reason and leave out.

This can happen with libertarianism to, so I don't really see this as that strong. Calvin was blatantly wrong. So what? Heck, Calvin wasn't even a theonomist.

You say Calvin was blatantly wrong. Some other theonomist might say "Dancing leads to adultery so we should ban it just like we banned child pornography and marriage for people under 20." And again, libertarianism doesn't make the same false moral superiority claim that theonomy does.