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

[jmdrake]

That's not true. My claim is completely correct. There is a near consensus among New Testament text critics that John 7:53-8:11 is not part of the original text. I don't say you have to agree with them. But it's nothing like global warming, which is more controversial among scientists than that.

If that were true then it wouldn't be in most modern translations of the Bible. And so far you haven't provided a link to back up your claim.

Edit: This lays out the case better. Many of the early commentaries (3rd century and 4th century) include references to it.

http://mindrenewers.com/2012/02/10/t...t-manuscripts/

[erowe1]

If that were true then it wouldn't be in most modern translations of the Bible

That's not true. It is included in modern versions as a nod to its traditional inclusion, and the expectation to be able to find it in Bibles on the part of those who buy them, despite the fact that their translators doubt its authenticity.

Here's an article that discusses that precise fact, by a conservative Christian who has done serious work in New Testament textual criticism. He is the director for the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.
https://bible.org/article/my-favorit...hats-not-bible

[erowe1]

The following is quoted from A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. This is a book that explains some of the decisions made by the editors who compiled the Greek text of the 4th edition of the United Bible Society's Greek New Testament, which is the Greek text used by practically all recent English Versions.

Their note on John 7:53-8:11 is several pages long. But here are a couple of their remarks illustrating claims I made.

The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming.

Although the Committee was unanimous that the pericope was originally no part of the Fourth Gospel, in deference to the evident antiquity of the passage a majority decided to print it, enclosed within double square brackets, at its traditional place following John 7:52.

These are not marginal scholars representing an extreme position. These are judicious representatives of the guild of New Testament text critical scholars.

There are people who differ. But, like I said, they are confined to Majority Text advocates, who are in a very small minority.

[Sola_Fide]

That's not true. It is included in modern versions as a nod to its traditional inclusion, and the expectation to be able to find it in Bibles on the part of those who buy them, despite the fact that their translators doubt its authenticity.

Here's an article that discusses that precise fact, by a conservative Christian who has done serious work in New Testament textual criticism. He is the director for the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.
https://bible.org/article/my-favorit...hats-not-bible

The following is quoted from A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. This is a book that explains some of the decisions made by the editors who compiled the Greek text of the 4th edition of the United Bible Society's Greek New Testament, which is the Greek text used by practically all recent English Versions.

Their note on John 7:53-8:11 is several pages long. But here are a couple of their remarks illustrating claims I made.

The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming.

Although the Committee was unanimous that the pericope was originally no part of the Fourth Gospel, in deference to the evident antiquity of the passage a majority decided to print it, enclosed within double square brackets, at its traditional place following John 7:52.

Thank you Erowe1.

[Sola_Fide]

Yes it is. Romans 13 is not questionable. But there's almost a total consensus among New Testament textual critics that John 7:53-8:11 was not in the original text. The authenticity of that passage is among the most questionable of any in the Bible.

That's not true. My claim is completely correct. There is a near consensus among New Testament text critics that John 7:53-8:11 is not part of the original text. I don't say you have to agree with them (personally, I'm undecided--I just couldn't see myself being as dogmatic as you about something as debatable as this). But it's nothing like global warming, which is more controversial among scientists than that.

Even in that wikipedia link, the only scholars it listed who go against that consensus are majority text advocates. And that view is only held by a tiny minority of textual critics. Most of the names it listed for that view can't even be called textual critics. Of those who are still alive, the only one who is is Maurice Robinson.

Yes. Thank you for posting.

[Christian Liberty]

But in that very passage what you're calling a "legitimate authority" was just the elders of the city, the people themselves, not some state that ruled over them.

I think we're just equivocating. When you say "State" do you mean any form of political authority? Or do you mean more than that?

I'm not honestly sure what you're trying to argue. No, the town elders weren't a king. But they were a legitimate authority in their towns. But even appointing a king wasn't sinful. In any case, the form and structure of authority isn't the moral issue, its content is. It would be unjust for any authority to execute thieves or to merely have thieves pay monetary restitution.

I think what we disagree on is the very concept of government. You would assert (it seems) that if its OK to execute murderers that ANYONE can execute murderers. I would reject this and say that is the sphere of civil government. By contrast, the civil government cannot deny someone access to the sacraments (or ordinances if you prefer that, most Baptists do but I don't), only church leaders can do that. Church leaders can't corporately raise all the children collectively, their families are supposed to do that. Notably with the flagrant and uncorrigible violation of the 5th commandment in the OT law, only the civil government (town elders) could order the execution, but only the parents could actually bring the child to the authorities for punishment. So there's a check and balance there.

Would anything they did be sin if common people did the same? If so, then according to God's law, it's a sin for them too.

Not precisely. I'd say that this is the case except in regards to the authority God specifically gave them.

That's not true. As I stated in my original post, this is not what I believe. But it is still the case that the Mosaic covenant was a particular covenant between God and the nation of Israel. Nothing either within it, nor elsewhere in scripture, ever suggests that it includes any other parties.

So is bestiality moral? The only reference to it is in the OT law. Its still immoral.

I'm not sure you're a consistent dispensationalist either.

That's true. But morality predates Scripture. It's not as though murder only became wrong when God made a covenant with Israel telling them not to do it.
Once you remove that entire covenant, there still remains that moral law that was always there all along. And this is how to understand the NT teaching that, on the one hand, Christians are free from the Law (that is, the Law of Moses), while on the other hand their walking in the Spirit will still be in accordance with the law (that is, the moral law that has always existed, and was a foundation underneath the Mosaic covenant, not an edifice built on top of it).

This eternal morality that was there before written scriptures is essentially the same thing as natural law. And the Bible affirms its existence from beginning to end.

OK, I think I agree with you on that point. We don't know if God told people that murder was immoral beforehand or if they just knew. Regardless of whether that's the case though, "natural law" has to be understood from scriptural terms. Thus, we can't say that there's some kind of natural law that bans execution of adulterers, for instance, because the Bible commands this. I see no reason why a Christian nation should not do this.

The authenticity of that text is no more questionable than Romans 13. The reason it was taken out of some manuscripts is because some people (foolishly in my opinion) thought that it would lesson the seriousness of adultery.

I don't believe that John 8 undermines the seriousness of adultery. I don't even think it teaches that adulterers shouldn't be executed.

I only put that in there are an example of a victimless crime.

OK.

The only reason adultery is not victimless is if someone gets pregnant and somebody is now taking care of a bastard child (no longer a problem thanks to DNA and birth control) or if someone catches a disease (easily preventable). If you're going by the "Well so and so feels bad" then just about anything one can thing of has a victim. Maybe I feel back because you sold my child drugs and he died of and overdose. And the "it undermines society" argument squarely fits with drugs. In fact the argument can be made that drugs undermine society as much if not more than homosexuality. And that's why I included drugs in my earlier list. The same "logic" you are using to explain why homosexuality (maybe) should be criminalized applies to drugs.

Adultery has a very specific nonconsenting party, namely, the spouse of the adulterer.

I don't think drugs undermine society in the same degree and to the same extent that sexual sin does, and I think drugs, while clearly immoral (like drunkenness) are blown way out of proportion by latent baptistic prohibitionism. But that's not really the core of my argument. The core of my argument would be that homosexual acts (when there are witnesses, which would almost always leaning on absolutely always only actually apply in public instances) are in the jurisdiction of civil government, while drug use is not. The fact that homosexuals are actively trying to undermine Christianity and always will, and the fact that the homosexual lifestyle necessarily goes hand and hand with tyranny to promote it, are perhaps reasons why God's law made it illegal, but that's not really the core of my argument. The core of my argument is that we should do what the Bible says even if we don't like it.

Yes it is. Romans 13 is not questionable. But there's almost a total consensus among New Testament textual critics that John 7:53-8:11 was not in the original text. The authenticity of that passage is among the most questionable of any in the Bible.

Exactly.

[Christian Liberty]

Oh come on! There is less consensus about your false claim then there is about man made global warming. I gave you the reference for that already. John 7:53-8:11 was most likely in the original book of John. And while Romans 13 is a writing by Paul, it's meaning is highly questionable. In fact, as written, it's simply inaccurate. Nero was "the power that be" at the time and he punished those that did good including Paul.

Hence why I argue Romans 13 isn't talking about Nero. Paul, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, realized that his letters would be important to people that weren't immediately reading them. He was also aware of good men who had held power in the past, including David, Josiah, judges, and so forth. There were even Roman magistrates that protected Paul from Jewish mobs, it is possible that some individual Roman judges and magistrates met this definition even if the government as a whole did not (this was a common argument during the Reformation.)

That said, if Romans 13 was the only passage in the entire Bible that seemed to indicate the legitimacy of civil magistates, that may well not be enough. Romans 13 is part of my argument, but it is not the entirety of my argument.

John 8 being non-canonical also isn't necessary to my argument. I suspect that the incident did in fact happen, although I doubt its canonicity. I still believe adultery should be a capital crime.

[erowe1]

I think we're just equivocating. When you say "State" do you mean any form of political authority? Or do you mean more than that?

I'm not honestly sure what you're trying to argue. No, the town elders weren't a king. But they were a legitimate authority in their towns.

They were simply the heads of household of the townspeople. The Torah gives no method for appointing or electing anyone to a position of "elder." It wasn't that kind of thing. Elders simply were who they were. And no group of heads of household held any authority over any others.

But even appointing a king wasn't sinful.

But if that king ever did anything that would have been sinful for any common Israelite, it would have been sinful for him too. There was no double-standard in the law giving him special rights to do things to them that they couldn't do to each other. In fact, the possibility of such a double-standard was explicitly excluded.

You would assert (it seems) that if its OK to execute murderers that ANYONE can execute murderers.

I have never said any such thing. It belongs to the people collectively.

"The people of the land shall stone him with stones." (Lev 20:20)
"they shall stone them with stones" (Lev 20:27)
" let all the congregation stone him." (Lev 24:14)
"Then Moses spoke to the children of Israel; and they took outside the camp him who had cursed, and stoned him with stones. So the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses." (Lev 24:23)
"And all the congregation said to stone them with stones." (Num 14:10)
"all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." (Num 15:35)
"all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died." (Num 15:36)
"And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, " (Deut 13:10)
"then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has committed that wicked thing, and shall stone to death that man or woman with stones." (Deut 17:5)
"Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones" (Deut 21:21)
"and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones" (Deut 22:21)
"then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, " (Deut 22:24)

I would reject this and say that is the sphere of civil government.

Number of occurrences of the phrase "civil government" in the Bible - zero.

The responsibility of governance belongs to all people, not some special subset of the population that rules over everyone else without their consent.

Not precisely. I'd say that this is the case except in regards to the authority God specifically gave them.

But nowhere does the Bible talk about this. And it explicitly excludes the possibility by saying that God is no respecter of persons. Not even the king was allowed to do things that were sins if committed by common Israelites.

So is bestiality moral? The only reference to it is in the OT law. Its still immoral.

Did you not read what I said? I reject the view that a law must be explicitly reiterated in the NT to be moral.

Bestiality was already immoral before any written scriptures existed. Even if there had never been a commandment explicitly mentioning it in the Bible, it would still be immoral. In fact, the very passage of Leviticus 18 that outlaws bestiality tells us this:

24 ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. 25 For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants.

I'm not sure you're a consistent dispensationalist either.

I am. But I don't really care if I'm called one or not.

I see no reason why a Christian nation should not do this.

What is a "Christian nation"? Where do you even get such a concept?

And what about people who don't belong to this "Christian nation" (whatever that means)? Are Christians supposed to go out and conquer them and stone their adulterers? Israel was given no command to go outside the land God promised them and subject other people to their laws. In fact, I would argue that God's condemnation of David's census was on account of his aspirations to do just that.

[Christian Liberty]

They were simply the heads of household of the townspeople. The Torah gives no method for appointing or electing anyone to a position of "elder." It wasn't that kind of thing. Elders simply were who they were. And no group of heads of household held any authority over any others.

Why did the parents have to bring their rebellious sons to their elders*?

But if that king ever did anything that would have been sinful for any common Israelite, it would have been sinful for him too. There was no double-standard in the law giving him special rights to do things to them that they couldn't do to each other. In fact, the possibility of such a double-standard was explicitly excluded.

What exactly is the point of having a king? It seems like if the people appointed a king (which wasn't ideal but it was allowed, and God had Samuel annoint one when the people sinfully demanded one) the king would have authority to punish crime.

Was David sinning by taking the office of king? I know he sinned at times, but was he sinning by the very nature of his office? I think that's an untenable position.

I have never said any such thing. It belongs to the people collectively.

"The people of the land shall stone him with stones." (Lev 20:20)
"they shall stone them with stones" (Lev 20:27)
" let all the congregation stone him." (Lev 24:14)
"Then Moses spoke to the children of Israel; and they took outside the camp him who had cursed, and stoned him with stones. So the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses." (Lev 24:23)
"And all the congregation said to stone them with stones." (Num 14:10)
"all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." (Num 15:35)
"all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died." (Num 15:36)
"And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, " (Deut 13:10)
"then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has committed that wicked thing, and shall stone to death that man or woman with stones." (Deut 17:5)
"Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones" (Deut 21:21)
"and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones" (Deut 22:21)
"then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, " (Deut 22:24)

OK, this is an important detail, because general anarcho-capitalism would assert that anyone at all can take on the roll of court or of executioner. By contrast, Biblically the role of justice was given to the COMMUNITY, not to an individual. It would seem that if the community has this role, it could appoint officers to do it for them (and indeed, this would be necessary in modern communities, which are bigger than the Israelite ones). They would then have the authority to execute justice (though only God's justice, not their own conceptions thereof. Oddly enough, I wonder if mainstream libertarianism** actually leads to tyranny because it replaces God's justice with man's. I think Chris Cantwell is case in point for how libertarianism could easily lead to tyranny. Now, Cantwell is extreme but that's not the point. The point is that libertarianism is just another version of man's justice.

Number of occurrences of the phrase "civil government" in the Bible - zero.

Or Trinity. But there's "governing authorities", "governors", and refrences to kings, including several good ones and advice to kings in the Proverbs.

The responsibility of governance belongs to all people, not some special subset of the population that rules over everyone else without their consent.

I would say that a murderer certainly doesn't have to "consent" personally to be executed. I would argue that an adulterer wouldn't either, because God himself says that those people should be put to death.

Based on your mode of argumentation though, I think you're getting at how leaders should be chosen, not what can be considered a crime. With that said, does the Bible text say every single Israelite individually consented to be ruled by Saul or David? I doubt that was the case. But they were still divinely appointed rulers. I would define a just ruler in terms of the CONTENT of their rule, not the "consent" (I realize Saul wasn't a just ruler because of the actions he took, but Samuel had annointed him, presumably without the consent of every single individual. Saul then had the right to rule. He was judged because he ruled based on his own standards, not because he ruled.)

But nowhere does the Bible talk about this. And it explicitly excludes the possibility by saying that God is no respecter of persons. Not even the king was allowed to do things that were sins if committed by common Israelites.

Does God not being a respecter of persons refute the idea of family authority? Does it refute 1 Corinthians 5 and the right of the local church to excommunicate?

Did you not read what I said? I reject the view that a law must be explicitly reiterated in the NT to be moral.

OK, sorry. I confused this.

Bestiality was already immoral before any written scriptures existed. Even if there had never been a commandment explicitly mentioning it in the Bible, it would still be immoral. In fact, the very passage of Leviticus 18 that outlaws bestiality tells us this:

Good point.

I am. But I don't really care if I'm called one or not.

OK.

What is a "Christian nation"? Where do you even get such a concept?

Presumably a nation being ruled by Christians and according to Christian principles?

I want to thank you (and to a lesser extent Sola_Fide, but especially you) for actually dealing with the points I've been raising rather than just going ballistic at the thought. I don't think I completely agree with either of you but its been a good discussion.

[Sola_Fide]

FF, watch that debate. When you see Reconstructionism get crushed, you will have answers to a lot of your questions.

[Christian Liberty]

FF, watch that debate. When you see Reconstructionism get crushed, you will have answers to a lot of your questions.

I'm not necessarily a reconstructionist. I'm not convinced of the eschatology. And I'm not sure I agree with the level of emphasis on politics. That's something I'd like to ask a self-professing reconstructionist about. But regarding the debate, I'm going to watch it. I'm waiting on a friend who wants to watch it with me.

[erowe1]

What exactly is the point of having a king?

I think to prepare the way for the Messiah, whose people will be volunteers (Psalm 110:3).

Until this king, who will turn the world upside-down, by establishing his rule not by killing his enemies, nut by being killed by them, who rides into his capital not on a war horse, but a donkey, no king of Israel has any possible way of ruling righteously. And none ever did. Even the best of them fulfilled the predictions of 1 Samuel 8.

You're right that the Bible often talks about kings and other sorts of rulers. But at no point does it ever give them permission to do anything that would be a sin if any other common person did the same thing.

[Christian Liberty]

I think to prepare the way for the Messiah, whose people will be volunteers (Psalm 110:3).

Until this king, who will turn the world upside-down, by establishing his rule not by killing his enemies, nut by being killed by them, who rides into his capital not on a war horse, but a donkey, no king of Israel has any possible way of ruling righteously. And none ever did. Even the best of them fulfilled the predictions of 1 Samuel 8.

Are you sure they all did? If you have explicit evidence of this I'd like to see it. John Robbins argues specifically that David's recorded census was a draft and that God judged him for it. Considering 1 Samuel 8, that would make sense.

[jmdrake]

Adultery has a very specific nonconsenting party, namely, the spouse of the adulterer.

As I explained, only to the extent that the nonconsenting party feels bad about it. (Once you deal with the pregnancy and STD issue). And some spouses consent to adultery. If a man likes to see his wife sleeping with other men (or women) does that make it not adultery? For that matter, did all of David's wives and concubines consent to each other? Remember, concubines were basically just girlfriends. If we really want to apply OT then as long as a man is picking up extra unmarried women, even if he doesn't marry them, technically it's not adultery. God told David through the prophet Nathan that not only did He give him all of those wives and girlfriends, but that He would have given David more. So....who do we stone?

I don't think drugs undermine society in the same degree and to the same extent that sexual sin does, and I think drugs, while clearly immoral (like drunkenness) are blown way out of proportion by latent baptistic prohibitionism.

Visit a home that takes care of crack babies and get back with me on that.

But that's not really the core of my argument. The core of my argument would be that homosexual acts (when there are witnesses, which would almost always leaning on absolutely always only actually apply in public instances) are in the jurisdiction of civil government, while drug use is not.

You only believe that because the OT doesn't say "Thou shalt not use drugs." But the really dangerous drugs of today didn't exist when the Old Testament (or the New Testament for that matter) was written. Child pornography didn't exist either. Should child porn that doesn't involve any actual sex acts (since that might fit in the adultery category) be legal simply because there is nothing in the Bible specifically forbidding it?

The fact that homosexuals are actively trying to undermine Christianity and always will, and the fact that the homosexual lifestyle necessarily goes hand and hand with tyranny to promote it, are perhaps reasons why God's law made it illegal, but that's not really the core of my argument. The core of my argument is that we should do what the Bible says even if we don't like it.

Except nowhere does the New Testament endorse the civil enforcement of moral law.

[Sola_Fide]

I'm not necessarily a reconstructionist. I'm not convinced of the eschatology. And I'm not sure I agree with the level of emphasis on politics. That's something I'd like to ask a self-professing reconstructionist about. But regarding the debate, I'm going to watch it. I'm waiting on a friend who wants to watch it with me.

The good thing about JD Hall is that he is passionate about political things, and also passionately against theonomy.

[jmdrake]

Hence why I argue Romans 13 isn't talking about Nero. Paul, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, realized that his letters would be important to people that weren't immediately reading them. He was also aware of good men who had held power in the past, including David, Josiah, judges, and so forth. There were even Roman magistrates that protected Paul from Jewish mobs, it is possible that some individual Roman judges and magistrates met this definition even if the government as a whole did not (this was a common argument during the Reformation.)

Except you are reading into Romans 13 what isn't there and you are ignoring what is. Paul didn't say "The powers that once existed were ordained of God" nor did he say "The powers that exist in the future will be ordained of God." Paul spoke in the present tense. Nor did he say "Those powers that are protecting me are ordained of God and the other powers are not." Further your reading of Romans 13 denies the teaching of Daniel on the subject of who sets up even evil kings.

John 8 being non-canonical also isn't necessary to my argument. I suspect that the incident did in fact happen, although I doubt its canonicity. I still believe adultery should be a capital crime.

Why? If you believe that Jesus declined to execute capital punishment for adultery and stated that only those without sin should do so then why? Are you saying that you are without sin?

[Christian Liberty]

As I explained, only to the extent that the nonconsenting party feels bad about it. (Once you deal with the pregnancy and STD issue). And some spouses consent to adultery. If a man likes to see his wife sleeping with other men (or women) does that make it not adultery? For that matter, did all of David's wives and concubines consent to each other? Remember, concubines were basically just girlfriends. If we really want to apply OT then as long as a man is picking up extra unmarried women, even if he doesn't marry them, technically it's not adultery. God told David through the prophet Nathan that not only did He give him all of those wives and girlfriends, but that He would have given David more. So....who do we stone?

This is a good question, and I'm not really sure of the answer. My best guess would be that while polygamy is a sin due to the fact that it undermines the original intent of marriage (Genesis 2:24), that these marriages were nonetheless still marriages, and thus not properly "adultery" per say. on the other hand, its possible that Jesus' discussion on divorce in Matthew changes the laws of marriage so that polygamy is not only immoral but actually impossible. I'm not sure. I do know that there are a number of theological problems with saying David was living in adultery, for one thing, he's a man after God's own heart, second, the Bible says unrepentent adulterers will never enter heaven [and while David repented of his adultery with Bathsheba, he never repented of having multiple wives]. Thus, I'd lean toward one of the two above answers. But, that I don't know the answer doesn't mean that adultery shouldn't be punished.

You only believe that because the OT doesn't say "Thou shalt not use drugs." But the really dangerous drugs of today didn't exist when the Old Testament (or the New Testament for that matter) was written.

The Old Testament says not to get drunk, but there's no civil penalty for not doing so, so its an issue for families and churches to deal with, not the civil government.

Child pornography didn't exist either. Should child porn that doesn't involve any actual sex acts (since that might fit in the adultery category) be legal simply because there is nothing in the Bible specifically forbidding it?

I think child porn would be a variation on rape.
Except nowhere does the New Testament endorse the civil enforcement of moral law.[/QUOTE]

[Christian Liberty]

The good thing about JD Hall is that he is passionate about political things, and also passionately against theonomy.

I'm hoping he won't misrepresent theonomy as badly as you have

[jmdrake]

This is a good question, and I'm not really sure of the answer. My best guess would be that while polygamy is a sin due to the fact that it undermines the original intent of marriage (Genesis 2:24), that these marriages were nonetheless still marriages, and thus not properly "adultery" per say. on the other hand, its possible that Jesus' discussion on divorce in Matthew changes the laws of marriage so that polygamy is not only immoral but actually impossible. I'm not sure. I do know that there are a number of theological problems with saying David was living in adultery, for one thing, he's a man after God's own heart, second, the Bible says unrepentent adulterers will never enter heaven [and while David repented of his adultery with Bathsheba, he never repented of having multiple wives]. Thus, I'd lean toward one of the two above answers. But, that I don't know the answer doesn't mean that adultery shouldn't be punished.

David wasn't even married to his concubines so the idea that polygamy is "no longer possible" doesn't get you out of hot water on this one. A concubine is basically a mistress. So you stone someone based on an old testament teaching on adultery that you no longer actually believe. How is that justice? And if you are going to say "Well under Jesus' definition having a concubine is adultery so it should be punished" don't forget that under Jesus' definition having lust in your heart counts as adultery too. So....let's all get stoned.

The Old Testament says not to get drunk, but there's no civil penalty for not doing so, so its an issue for families and churches to deal with, not the civil government.

There are drugs available now that are much worse for the individual using them and for society as a whole than alcohol. No I'm not talking about marijuana. I'm talking heroine, meth, crack. Again visit a home for crack babies if you don't believe me.

I think child porn would be a variation on rape.

You think? Under what definition of rape is child porn rape? It's not rape under U.S. law. Rape requires penetration. If there is no touching (the child disrobes himself/herself) it doesn't fit the definition of molestation either. It's wrong as hell and I think it should be illegal and I can understand why you would want to fit it into theonomy, but what is your actual Biblical basis for doing so? Now if you are going with a "lust = sex" argument, okay. But that would mean the death penalty for adult pornography and even for impure thoughts. Alright, no civil authority can punish you for thoughts alone since the mind can't (yet) be read. But anybody who ever dared articulate how fine he thought some woman other than his wife was should be stoned?

[erowe1]

Are you sure they all did? If you have explicit evidence of this I'd like to see it. John Robbins argues specifically that David's recorded census was a draft and that God judged him for it. Considering 1 Samuel 8, that would make sense.

Yes, the explicit evidence is the accounts of all their reigns in Kings and Chronicles.

[Christian Liberty]

David wasn't even married to his concubines so the idea that polygamy is "no longer possible" doesn't get you out of hot water on this one. A concubine is basically a mistress. So you stone someone based on an old testament teaching on adultery that you no longer actually believe. How is that justice? And if you are going to say "Well under Jesus' definition having a concubine is adultery so it should be punished" don't forget that under Jesus' definition having lust in your heart counts as adultery too. So....let's all get stoned.

Well, David was certainly under OT law so appealing to him as an argument against theonomy definitely doesn't work. You can argue either that he wasn't violating the adultery law, or that he was and thus should have been executed, but in neither case does your argument work against theonomy. You can't use examples of OT kings to argue against theonomy. That doesn't make any sense.

There are drugs available now that are much worse for the individual using them and for society as a whole than alcohol. No I'm not talking about marijuana. I'm talking heroine, meth, crack. Again visit a home for crack babies if you don't believe me.

I believe you, but I'd still assert that those shouldn't be civil crimes. Do you disagree with me on that?

You think? Under what definition of rape is child porn rape? It's not rape under U.S. law. Rape requires penetration. If there is no touching (the child disrobes himself/herself) it doesn't fit the definition of molestation either. It's wrong as hell and I think it should be illegal and I can understand why you would want to fit it into theonomy, but what is your actual Biblical basis for doing so? Now if you are going with a "lust = sex" argument, okay. But that would mean the death penalty for adult pornography and even for impure thoughts. Alright, no civil authority can punish you for thoughts alone since the mind can't (yet) be read. But anybody who ever dared articulate how fine he thought some woman other than his wife was should be stoned?

No, I don't think "daring to articulate how fine he thought some woman other than his wife was should be stoned". Forcing a child to engage in child porn (which is the case in ANY child porn case, children can't consent) wouldn't be legal. You're right that it isn't specifically mentioned but I think that would be the implication of the laws against rape.

Regarding "adult porn", I don't see how mere possession would be a crime, and production would be a crime if it violated other Biblical laws, which in most cases it would be.

Yes, the explicit evidence is the accounts of all their reigns in Kings and Chronicles.

I haven't read through those in awhile, but I don't remember any text that mentions every specific king doing what is described in 1 Samuel 8. Admittedly, Saul wasn't shown doing that either, but we know from 1 Samuel 8 that we did. Barring Biblical evidence otherwise, it would seem to make sense to assume that the good kings didn't violate 1 Samuel 8 (The one exception I am aware of for this is David's draft in the end of 2 Samuel, which David was judged for. There isn't an exhaustive list of deeds for other kings, so its possible they also did things like this and were punished. We don't know.) That said, my argument doesn't really rest on this. Maybe every single king violated 1 Samuel 8. That doesn't really change my central argument (which, to be clear, doesn't say we should have kings.)

[Sola_Fide]

I'm hoping he won't misrepresent theonomy as badly as you have

Where have I misrepresented theonomy? I think I have pretty fairly discussed it even thought I am against it. I used to be a theonomist and I've read all the key books.

[Christian Liberty]

Where have I misrepresented theonomy? I think I have pretty fairly discussed it even thought I am against it. I used to be a theonomist and I've read all the key books.

Mostly when you assumed that theonomy inherently means a worship of political involvement, Federal Vision, starting special "reconstructionist" churches, and making every sermon about politics.

[Sola_Fide]

Mostly when you assumed that theonomy inherently means a worship of political involvement, Federal Vision, starting special "reconstructionist" churches, and making every sermon about politics.

Even when I said that, I said that some Reconstructionists were more nuts than other ones. Not all of them believed (or believe) the same thing about certain issues. But most of them, like Rushdoony and North, speak so stridently and so confidently about their views that some unassuming people take it as that their position is unassailable. It definitely is not.

[jmdrake]

Well, David was certainly under OT law so appealing to him as an argument against theonomy definitely doesn't work. You can argue either that he wasn't violating the adultery law, or that he was and thus should have been executed, but in neither case does your argument work against theonomy. You can't use examples of OT kings to argue against theonomy. That doesn't make any sense.

Or you can look behind door number 3 and argue that since the modern Christian definition of adultery differs significantly from the Old Testament definition of adultery that stoning someone for adultery is stupid because we don't have solid agreement of what adultery is.

I believe you, but I'd still assert that those shouldn't be civil crimes. Do you disagree with me on that?

No victimless crimes should be civil crimes. That's my point. If we are going to go with "Well X can harm society" as a justification for stoning someone who does X then there's no reason to stop at X. And further theonomy misses the point of the New Covenant. I talked about this before, but I will talk about it again. Note that none of this was law prior to the children of Israel rejecting a personal relationship with God in favor of a by proxy relationship with God through Moses. God spoke the 10 commandments, the children of Israel told Moses "We will obey them, just you speak to God on our behalf because we are afraid", then as soon as Moses was out of side they made the golden calf and began fornicating. It was their rejection of the original covenant that caused the yoke of the ordinances to be put on them in the first place. And now theonomists want to bring it back? Why? That's why I call this movement backwards. It preaches "freedom from the law" but then seeks to impose slavery of the state. Jesus came to renew the original covenant relationship that ultimately Adam and Eve had with God and to a lesser extent Enoch, Methusaleh, Noah, Abraham and all the patriarchs through Moses had with God. Note that the only case prior to Moses mentioned in the Bible of someone seeking to impose the death penalty for the violation of a moral law was Judah seeking to kill Tamar for being pregnant out of wedlock only to find out that he was the father. Funny how timeless hypocrisy is.

No, I don't think "daring to articulate how fine he thought some woman other than his wife was should be stoned". Forcing a child to engage in child porn (which is the case in ANY child porn case, children can't consent) wouldn't be legal. You're right that it isn't specifically mentioned but I think that would be the implication of the laws against rape.

Can't you see the problem? Once you say "Well this isn't in the Bible but it's close enough to something that is and so we should punish it as well" then you have now relinquished the one redeeming fact about theonomy which is that it limits crimes to those that are in the Bible. Okay, the Bible doesn't mention you can't use sex toys so are we going to ban sex with inanimate objects? After all sex with animals was banned. The new testament didn't specifically say we can wear blended fabrics and the OT said we couldn't so pass a law. The OT said women on their period were unclean and couldn't be touched so lets ignore the invention of tampons and maxipads and go back to how that was done in the OT.

Regarding "adult porn", I don't see how mere possession would be a crime, and production would be a crime if it violated other Biblical laws, which in most cases it would be.

So adult porn is okay as long as its solo porn or the people are married or it's a man and his mistresses which he gives the title "concubines?" Okay. A lot of adult porn could still be produced under those limitations.

I haven't read through those in awhile, but I don't remember any text that mentions every specific king doing what is described in 1 Samuel 8. Admittedly, Saul wasn't shown doing that either, but we know from 1 Samuel 8 that we did. Barring Biblical evidence otherwise, it would seem to make sense to assume that the good kings didn't violate 1 Samuel 8 (The one exception I am aware of for this is David's draft in the end of 2 Samuel, which David was judged for. There isn't an exhaustive list of deeds for other kings, so its possible they also did things like this and were punished. We don't know.) That said, my argument doesn't really rest on this. Maybe every single king violated 1 Samuel 8. That doesn't really change my central argument (which, to be clear, doesn't say we should have kings.)

11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.

12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.

16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.

Are you saying that you don't believe every king took servants to work in his castle and taxed the people? Solomon's taxes were so high that the people complained to Rehaboam and the revolted when Rehaboam foolishly said he would raise them.

[Christian Liberty]

Even when I said that, I said that some Reconstructionists were more nuts than other ones. Not all of them believed (or believe) the same thing about certain issues. But most of them, like Rushdoony and North, speak so stridently and so confidently about their views that some unassuming people take it as that their position is unassailable. It definitely is not.

McDurmon is the one I'm most familiar with and he's almost libertarian by his own admission. I think I'd probably qualify as one of the less nutty ones by your definitions.

I don't know what you mean about "unassailable". I wouldn't say I'm 100% certain at this point. I would say that I'm 100% certain that a lot of the proble Hems the vast majority of Christians have with theonomy are solely based on 21st century cultural biases rather than the Bible. That may not be true for you, but I think its true for most people here. It was true for me. Heck, its still true for me in some ways, but I try not to let that dictate my thinking.

Or you can look behind door number 3 and argue that since the modern Christian definition of adultery differs significantly from the Old Testament definition of adultery that stoning someone for adultery is stupid because we don't have solid agreement of what adultery is.

I think this is a stupid argument. If the existance of gray areas is the best the anti-theonomy position has to argue, than anti-theonomy is stupid (non-theonomists that are actually giving arguments, see the if-then clause.)

No victimless crimes should be civil crimes. That's my point.

But the Bible doesn't assert anything like this.

If we are going to go with "Well X can harm society" as a justification for stoning someone who does X then there's no reason to stop at X. And further theonomy misses the point of the New Covenant. I talked about this before, but I will talk about it again. Note that none of this was law prior to the children of Israel rejecting a personal relationship with God in favor of a by proxy relationship with God through Moses. God spoke the 10 commandments, the children of Israel told Moses "We will obey them, just you speak to God on our behalf because we are afraid", then as soon as Moses was out of side they made the golden calf and began fornicating. It was their rejection of the original covenant that caused the yoke of the ordinances to be put on them in the first place. And now theonomists want to bring it back? Why? That's why I call this movement backwards. It preaches "freedom from the law" but then seeks to impose slavery of the state. Jesus came to renew the original covenant relationship that ultimately Adam and Eve had with God and to a lesser extent Enoch, Methusaleh, Noah, Abraham and all the patriarchs through Moses had with God. Note that the only case prior to Moses mentioned in the Bible of someone seeking to impose the death penalty for the violation of a moral law was Judah seeking to kill Tamar for being pregnant out of wedlock only to find out that he was the father. Funny how timeless hypocrisy is.

First of all fornication in and of itself wasn't a capital offense.

Second of all, calling the law of God "slavery of the State" borders on heretical. The New Testament affirms that the law of Moses was "just" (Hebrews 2:2.) I'm not saying that's a slam dunk argument that the laws should be in place today, but I am saying that it either means those laws weren't "slavery to the State", or that slavery to the State is actually fine. I would assert the former and reject the latter as absurd.

Third of all, contrary to your strawmen, I actually support extremely small government and extreme liberty. I don't support "tyranny" at all.

Can't you see the problem? Once you say "Well this isn't in the Bible but it's close enough to something that is and so we should punish it as well" then you have now relinquished the one redeeming fact about theonomy which is that it limits crimes to those that are in the Bible. Okay, the Bible doesn't mention you can't use sex toys so are we going to ban sex with inanimate objects? After all sex with animals was banned. The new testament didn't specifically say we can wear blended fabrics and the OT said we couldn't so pass a law. The OT said women on their period were unclean and couldn't be touched so lets ignore the invention of tampons and maxipads and go back to how that was done in the OT.

Leaving aside that some of those laws were ceremonial, they also never had penalties attached to them, thus they weren't crimes. And no, I wouldn't ban "sex with inanimate objects."

So adult porn is okay as long as its solo porn or the people are married or it's a man and his mistresses which he gives the title "concubines?" Okay. A lot of adult porn could still be produced under those limitations.

I don't think that last one would qualify, but its possible that some porn could still be produced. OK. That doesn't really refute my argument. I'm not looking to ban every sin I possibly can. And just because something isn't a crime doesn't mean it isn't a sin.

11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.

12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.

16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.

Are you saying that you don't believe every king took servants to work in his castle and taxed the people? Solomon's taxes were so high that the people complained to Rehaboam and the revolted when Rehaboam foolishly said he would raise them.

Its possible that every single king did this (note that the tax was 10%, a lower tax wouldn't necessarily qualify though I still don't think any taxes are just) but we do not know that they did. Note specifically the things that were stated were forced confiscation of property, enslavement (particularly the draft, and also other kinds of enslavement), and ten percent taxes. There's certainly no inherent reason you have to do those things in order to hold the office of king.

[jmdrake]

I think this is a stupid argument. If the existance of gray areas is the best the anti-theonomy position has to argue, than anti-theonomy is stupid (non-theonomists that are actually giving arguments, see the if-then clause.)

If your only argument against what you are calling "anti-theonomy" is to say "nanny nanny boo boo that's stupid" then you don't have an argument and theonomy is stupid. Seriously, you're ready to start stoning people over a crime that you can't even fully define. That's confusion and the Bible says God is not the author of confusion. You want to apply an old testament penalty to a sin that you believe was redefined in the new testament.

But the Bible doesn't assert anything like this.

God gave us brains to use for a reason. Nowhere in the NT do you see Christians stoning Christians (or anyone else for that matter) for moral crimes (or for anything else for that matter). It's not like they couldn't. Paul got stoned by the Jews on multiple occasions. And with Herod persecuting Christians he certainly wouldn't have had a problem with the Christian community persecuting itself. Yet...we never see that happening. Nor do you see morality police prior to Moses.

First of all fornication in and of itself wasn't a capital offense.

You haven't read your Bible well.

Deut 22:20-21 20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Second of all, calling the law of God "slavery of the State" borders on heretical.

Channeling your inner Sola_Fide?

You're trying to reimpose through the state a law of ordinances that Paul said was a yoke his forefathers could not bear is what is bordering heretical.

The New Testament affirms that the law of Moses was "just" (Hebrews 2:2.)

Yes. And according to Jeremiah 31, Hebrews 8 and Hebrews 10 this just law is to be written on our hearts. In fact all of those passages say we ultimately are even supposed to be teaching each other because we will each know the Lord. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. Theonomy seeks to have the state to the Holy Spirit's job for Him. At least theonomy as you have described it.

I'm not saying that's a slam dunk argument that the laws should be in place today, but I am saying that it either means those laws weren't "slavery to the State", or that slavery to the State is actually fine. I would assert the former and reject the latter as absurd.

Nothing wrong with the laws being written on the heart as they are intended to be. But misusing them the way theonomy seeks to do is state slavery. The problem isn't the law. It's the way theonomists seek to apply it. Big difference.

Third of all, contrary to your strawmen, I actually support extremely small government and extreme liberty. I don't support "tyranny" at all.

Good. Then maybe you will come to your senses and drop theonomy. I'm sure you believe in limited government. I'm also sure you haven't thought this theonomy thing all the way through. That you didn't know that in some cases the death penalty was imposed for fornication, and not just adultery, proves to me that you haven't thought this all the way through.

Leaving aside that some of those laws were ceremonial, they also never had penalties attached to them, thus they weren't crimes. And no, I wouldn't ban "sex with inanimate objects."

The law against beastiality had a penalty (death) attached to it. The penalty for touching a woman on her period was that you were unclean and couldn't come into the camp. And while no penalty specifically was mentioned for blended fabrics, it stands to reason that they weren't allowed to be sold. There was no penalty per se for not letting the land go fallow....but God put Israel into captivity for the precise amount of time needed to make up for the land not being allowed to go fallow. So it doesn't stand to reason that theonomists would only seek laws that had specific penalties. You might do that I suppose.

I don't think that last one would qualify, but its possible that some porn could still be produced. OK. That doesn't really refute my argument. I'm not looking to ban every sin I possibly can. And just because something isn't a crime doesn't mean it isn't a sin.

Okay. But I still haven't heard you come up with a solid reason as to why child porn fits into the rape category. Are you just sticking it in there because you don't like it and you need a reason to ban it?

Its possible that every single king did this (note that the tax was 10%, a lower tax wouldn't necessarily qualify though I still don't think any taxes are just) but we do not know that they did. Note specifically the things that were stated were forced confiscation of property, enslavement (particularly the draft, and also other kinds of enslavement), and ten percent taxes. There's certainly no inherent reason you have to do those things in order to hold the office of king.

Okay. So we know David violated the standing army rule and Solomon violated the taxation rule. Who do you think were the good kings?

[Christian Liberty]

If your only argument against what you are calling "anti-theonomy" is to say "nanny nanny boo boo that's stupid" then you don't have an argument and theonomy is stupid. Seriously, you're ready to start stoning people over a crime that you can't even fully define. That's confusion and the Bible says God is not the author of confusion. You want to apply an old testament penalty to a sin that you believe was redefined in the new testament.

I would definitely err on the side of caution. But I don't think this proves that the fundamental principle of justice changed, nor does it prove that blatant, public adultery shouldn't be punished by death.

God gave us brains to use for a reason. Nowhere in the NT do you see Christians stoning Christians (or anyone else for that matter) for moral crimes (or for anything else for that matter). It's not like they couldn't. Paul got stoned by the Jews on multiple occasions. And with Herod persecuting Christians he certainly wouldn't have had a problem with the Christian community persecuting itself.

Lynch mobs =/= legitimate civil government.

Yet...we never see that happening. Nor do you see morality police prior to Moses.

"Morality police"? When did I support that.

I don't necessarily support the existance of police.

I certainly do not think most sins should be crimes.

You haven't read your Bible well.

Deut 22:20-21 20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Only if she was pledged to be married, which in that culture was treated as much closer to actual marriage than today, or if the woman falsely claimed to be a virgin before marriage. Otherwise the penalty was marriage, not death.

Channeling your inner Sola_Fide?

When I say "heresy" it hits harder because I don't do it as often

You're trying to reimpose through the state a law of ordinances that Paul said was a yoke his forefathers could not bear is what is bordering heretical.

There were numerous "ordinances" that God commanded that still weren't crimes. That's the thing.

Yes. And according to Jeremiah 31, Hebrews 8 and Hebrews 10 this just law is to be written on our hearts. In fact all of those passages say we ultimately are even supposed to be teaching each other because we will each know the Lord. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. Theonomy seeks to have the state to the Holy Spirit's job for Him. At least theonomy as you have described it.

No, saying the State should punish adultery doesn't say the State should do God's job for him anymore than saying that the State should punish murder is saying it should do God's job for him.

Nothing wrong with the laws being written on the heart as they are intended to be. But misusing them the way theonomy seeks to do is state slavery. The problem isn't the law. It's the way theonomists seek to apply it. Big difference.

You mean the way the Bible says to apply it? Lol! Actual state slavery is more like what we have today. God's law is liberating.

Good. Then maybe you will come to your senses and drop theonomy. I'm sure you believe in limited government. I'm also sure you haven't thought this theonomy thing all the way through. That you didn't know that in some cases the death penalty was imposed for fornication, and not just adultery, proves to me that you haven't thought this all the way through.

I knew that, but it doesn't actually matter. True justice is God's justice, not my own.

The law against beastiality had a penalty (death) attached to it.

Which I support.

The penalty for touching a woman on her period was that you were unclean and couldn't come into the camp

Which is ceremonial.

And while no penalty specifically was mentioned for blended fabrics, it stands to reason that they weren't allowed to be sold.

Not sure how this follows, but since its ceremonial it was fulfilled in Christ.

There was no penalty per se for not letting the land go fallow....but God put Israel into captivity for the precise amount of time needed to make up for the land not being allowed to go fallow. So it doesn't stand to reason that theonomists would only seek laws that had specific penalties. You might do that I suppose.

Some theonomists would disagree with that point, that's typically the difference between theonomists that lean libertarian and theonomists that lean authoritarian. But yes, God can punish laws (even ceremonial ones like here) that don't have specific penalties. Civil magistrates cannot, per Deuteronomy 4.

Okay. But I still haven't heard you come up with a solid reason as to why child porn fits into the rape category. Are you just sticking it in there because you don't like it and you need a reason to ban it?

There are plenty of things I "don't like" that I wouldn't ban, but this seems pretty obvious.

Okay. So we know David violated the standing army rule and Solomon violated the taxation rule. Who do you think were the good kings?

Well, Solomon was clearly implied to be unwise for his tyranny in the Rehoboam passages, and he went apostate for awhile, so I'm not sure he was a good king throughout, although it seems that he ultimately was saved.

But with regards to David, like with adultery and murder, he repented and didn't make those things the character of his reign. That's why.

[jmdrake]

I would definitely err on the side of caution. But I don't think this proves that the fundamental principle of justice changed, nor does it prove that blatant, public adultery shouldn't be punished by death.


Lynch mobs =/= legitimate civil government.


"Morality police"? When did I support that.

I don't necessarily support the existance of police.

I certainly do not think most sins should be crimes.

Wait a second. You don't think a "lynch mob" should enforce the moral law and you don't necessarily support the existence of the police, but yet you think the civil authority should enforce moral law? How exactly? Who goes and drags the blatant homosexual adulterer witch out of her bed to be stoned? Seriously, I'm confused.

Only if she was pledged to be married, which in that culture was treated as much closer to actual marriage than today, or if the woman falsely claimed to be a virgin before marriage. Otherwise the penalty was marriage, not death.

Uh huh. It's the death penalty for fornication under certain circumstances. I thought you said that there wasn't a death penalty for fornication period? No matter. You've already said there are some instances of adultery where you don't think the death penalty necessarily applies. (Lust in one's heart for example). So both adultery and fornication have instances where the death penalty does and doesn't apply in your version of theonomy.

When I say "heresy" it hits harder because I don't do it as often

LOL. Whatever.

There were numerous "ordinances" that God commanded that still weren't crimes. That's the thing.

They still weren't legal. You only believe civil authority applies to crimes? Okay. The law of Moses said you couldn't defecate inside the camp. You had to go outside the camp, dig a hole, defecate in the hole and bury it. No specific punishment was specified for violating this law. So in your view of theonomy there should be no law against defecating on the side walk because, while the law of Moses spoke against it, no punishment was specified, but an unruly kid or an adulterer (under certain circumstances) or a fornicator (under certain circumstances) should be stoned?

No, saying the State should punish adultery doesn't say the State should do God's job for him anymore than saying that the State should punish murder is saying it should do God's job for him.

Murder has a non moral component. Adultery does not. Homosexuality most certainly has no non moral component. Even the "it's an attack on Christianity" is a moral argument. Who's job is it to make men moral?

You mean the way the Bible says to apply it? Lol! Actual state slavery is more like what we have today. God's law is liberating.

Yes. I feel liberated now that I can defecate on the sidewalk! But if I commit adultery I may be stoned....only it depends on what the definition of adultery is at the time.

I knew that, but it doesn't actually matter. True justice is God's justice, not my own.

God will meet out true justice on the day of judgement with no help from you.

Which I support.


Which is ceremonial.



Not sure how this follows, but since its ceremonial it was fulfilled in Christ.

Ummmm....no. The prohibition about women on their periods was not "ceremonial" nor was it something "fulfilled in Christ." It was a health law based on a very real issue that was solved by tampons and maxi pads. Ceremonial laws are ones that pointed to the death of Christ such as the Passover. Not every law that wasn't moral was ceremonial. Again consider the law of no defecating on top of the ground in camp. That was (is!) a sanitation law. Societies that violate it do so at the risk of their own health.

Some theonomists would disagree with that point, that's typically the difference between theonomists that lean libertarian and theonomists that lean authoritarian. But yes, God can punish laws (even ceremonial ones like here) that don't have specific penalties. Civil magistrates cannot, per Deuteronomy 4.

Letting the land go fallow was not a ceremonial law either. It was an economic law. It was designed to keep the land productive.

There are plenty of things I "don't like" that I wouldn't ban, but this seems pretty obvious.

Right. But I'm specifically asking you about child porn. Calling it rape is more than a bit of a stretch. So why ban it under theonomy?

Well, Solomon was clearly implied to be unwise for his tyranny in the Rehoboam passages, and he went apostate for awhile, so I'm not sure he was a good king throughout, although it seems that he ultimately was saved.

But with regards to David, like with adultery and murder, he repented and didn't make those things the character of his reign. That's why.

Fair enough.

[Christian Liberty]

Wait a second. You don't think a "lynch mob" should enforce the moral law and you don't necessarily support the existence of the police, but yet you think the civil authority should enforce moral law? How exactly? Who goes and drags the blatant homosexual adulterer witch out of her bed to be stoned? Seriously, I'm confused.

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.

Uh huh. It's the death penalty for fornication under certain circumstances. I thought you said that there wasn't a death penalty for fornication period? No matter. You've already said there are some instances of adultery where you don't think the death penalty necessarily applies. (Lust in one's heart for example). So both adultery and fornication have instances where the death penalty does and doesn't apply in your version of theonomy.

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

LOL. Whatever.

But at least I got the lol

They still weren't legal. You only believe civil authority applies to crimes? Okay. The law of Moses said you couldn't defecate inside the camp. You had to go outside the camp, dig a hole, defecate in the hole and bury it. No specific punishment was specified for violating this law. So in your view of theonomy there should be no law against defecating on the side walk because, while the law of Moses spoke against it, no punishment was specified, but an unruly kid or an adulterer (under certain circumstances) or a fornicator (under certain circumstances) should be stoned?

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.

Murder has a non moral component. Adultery does not. Homosexuality most certainly has no non moral component. Even the "it's an attack on Christianity" is a moral argument. Who's job is it to make men moral?

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.

Yes. I feel liberated now that I can defecate on the sidewalk! But if I commit adultery I may be stoned....only it depends on what the definition of adultery is at the time.

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.

God will meet out true justice on the day of judgement with no help from you.

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.

Ummmm....no. The prohibition about women on their periods was not "ceremonial" nor was it something "fulfilled in Christ." It was a health law based on a very real issue that was solved by tampons and maxi pads. Ceremonial laws are ones that pointed to the death of Christ such as the Passover. Not every law that wasn't moral was ceremonial. Again consider the law of no defecating on top of the ground in camp. That was (is!) a sanitation law. Societies that violate it do so at the risk of their own health.

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.

Letting the land go fallow was not a ceremonial law either. It was an economic law. It was designed to keep the land productive.

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.

Right. But I'm specifically asking you about child porn. Calling it rape is more than a bit of a stretch. So why ban it under theonomy?

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