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

[jmdrake]

Jmdrake, read this:

http://reformedlibertarian.com/artic...-of-deut-2221/

I did. Do you actually buy into that crap? It isn't even well written.

[pcosmar]

I live between there and Paradise.. but am closer to Paradise.

[Sola_Fide]

I didn't say there was or that there wasn't. My argument isn't at all dependent on that. Again, the law not to blaspheme is a moral law. When Jezebel had Naboth put to death, falsely of course, for blaspheming she was using civil power to enforce moral law. There were moral laws, civil laws, health laws, sanitation laws etc. Your counter argument is without merit. Now do you care to attempt to make a real one?

There is a difference between the eternal moral law against blasphemy, and the Mosaic civil penalty of execution for blasphemy. The civil penalty is not just an application of the moral law.

I can't help but think Ellen G. White's confusion on the ceremonial laws have led you to be confused about this. Ellen G. White was a Reconstructionist before there even were ones.

[Sola_Fide]

I did. Do you actually buy into that crap? It isn't even well written.

Crap? What's crap about it? It's making your argument against Reconstructionism for you. Oh wait, are you a Reconstructionist now? Earlier in the thread you said you weren't?

[jmdrake]

Crap? What's crap about it? It's making your argument against Reconstructionism for you. Oh wait, are you a Reconstructionist now? Earlier in the thread you said you weren't?

From your link.

Many reformed Christians today, who have grown tired of today’s moral relativism, turn to WCF 19.4 in an effort to develop a political philosophy. The Law of God, they say, must be our only standard. We must follow God’s law, or man’s law. And God has given a rather detailed list of how that law applies to states in the Mosaic Law. Of course, those laws were particular to Israel, but if we change the details, the laws are still God’s ideal for states. So, we exchange language about the land of Canaan for the land of California, and “voilla!” we’re left with the “general equity” of any give Mosaic law.

^That is crap. Do you believe that crap? Seriously? If so then you are further gone down bat guano crazy land than I thought.

[jmdrake]

There is a difference between the eternal moral law against blasphemy, and the Mosaic civil penalty of execution for blasphemy. The civil penalty is not just an application of the moral law.

I never said there wasn't a different. I said that had nothing to do with my argument. My point is that the law for blasphemy had a civil penalty to it and that civil penalty no longer applies. Thankfully most sane Christians agree. As I have said multiple times, and you have ignored because know it prove you wrong, Moses never talked about eternal hell for someone violating the moral law. The "death" under the law of Moses was physical death. And that has been done away with. Really simple. You know you don't have a leg to stand on so you want to turn this into a debate about reconstructionism when that has nothing to do with anything.

I can't help but think Ellen G. White's confusion on the ceremonial laws have led you to be confused about this. Ellen G. White was a Reconstructionist before there even were ones.

If a reconstrcutionist is someone who didn't think there was a difference between the civil and moral law then EGW wasn't a reconstructionist. But that doesn't matter. You just make up stuff and throw it against the wall to see if it sticks.

[Sola_Fide]

From your link.

Many reformed Christians today, who have grown tired of today’s moral relativism, turn to WCF 19.4 in an effort to develop a political philosophy. The Law of God, they say, must be our only standard. We must follow God’s law, or man’s law. And God has given a rather detailed list of how that law applies to states in the Mosaic Law. Of course, those laws were particular to Israel, but if we change the details, the laws are still God’s ideal for states. So, we exchange language about the land of Canaan for the land of California, and “voilla!” we’re left with the “general equity” of any give Mosaic law.

^That is crap. Do you believe that crap? Seriously? If so then you are further gone down bat guano crazy land than I thought.

Good heavens jmdrake. I mean, do you ever read past the first paragraph of an article? He is describing the position he is going to argue against .

[Sola_Fide]

I never said there wasn't a different. You are starting to just flat out lie. I didn't say there was a difference I didn't say there wasn't. I said that had nothing to do with my argument. My point is that the law for blasphemy had a civil penalty to it and that civil penalty no longer applies. Thankfully most sane Christians agree.

Wrong. I think maybe the 3rd or 4th time I say it, it might get through to you. Reconstructionists believe that the moral law had a civil application. That is what Reconstructionists believe (which astoundingly is what you are saying you believe).

If those civil laws were just civil applications of God's eternal moral law, why wouldn't they still apply today? You see, this is their exact argument. I'm trying to help you not make their argument for them.

If a reconstrcutionist is someone who didn't think there was a difference between the civil and moral law then EGW wasn't a reconstructionist. But that doesn't matter. Being bat guano crazy you just make up bat guano and throw it around and see if it sticks.

Jmdrake, does your church have a position on OT law? Mine does, I'll post it:

To them also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being of moral*use.

[jmdrake]

Wrong. I think maybe the 3rd or 4th time I say it, it might get through to you. Reconstructionists believe that the moral law had a civil application. That is what Reconstructionists believe (which astoundingly is what you are saying you believe).

If those civil laws were just civil applications of God's eternal moral law, why wouldn't they still apply today? You see, this is their exact argument. I'm trying to help you not make their argument for them.

So you are calling the ordinances the "civil law"? Okay. I say this is a distinction without a difference but okay. The reason there was a "civil law" (as you put it) against blasphemy is because blasphemy is morally wrong. And I've already explained the reason why it still doesn't apply today. We are free from the law of sin and death. Just because you don't understand that doesn't make it any less true. You wish to pigeonhole the conversation to "reconstructionist versus non reconstructionist" when I reject the framework itself and don't believe that a civil application of an eternal moral law must itself be eternal. The civil authority designated to carry it out no longer exists for one thing. God established judges and later kings but when Jesus came He said "My kingdom is not of this world." So without God re-establishing a civil authority there is no one to carry out a civil application. Further the civil application of the moral law (or the "civil law" as you put it) did not exist prior to the children of Israel rejecting direct communication with God in favor of God using Moses as a go-between. Either way the theonomist argument holds no water.

Jmdrake, does your church have a position on OT law? Mine does, I'll post it:

Sure. The 10 commandments are still binding. It's just as wrong to worship false gods or bear false witness or dishonor your parents now as it ever was. The ordinances were for Israel. Some of them still make sense to follow because, after all, God gave them to Israel for a purpose. For example sanitation laws. God ordered Israel to leave camp when they had to use the bathroom, did a hole and bury it.

Duet 23:13 As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement.

It's the same "law" backpackers use today. Had that and other sanitary "laws" been followed by the Christian church during the dark ages there never would have been the black plague. As it stands the Jews followed the sanitary "law" and didn't get sick as much and the European Christians of the time thought the Jews were poisoning the wells and started persecuting (again) the Jews. See: http://www.jewishhistory.org/the-black-death/

God made this promise regarding the health laws.

Exodus 15:26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the Lord that healeth thee.

There is a a reason SDA live 7 to 10 years longer than the general population. We take God at His word on the promise in Exodus 15:26. We don't believe that doing something unhealthy is a "sin" but why not trust God on what He says is best for heath?

[Sola_Fide]

So you are calling the ordinances the "civil law"? Okay. I say this is a distinction without a difference but okay. The reason there was a "civil law" (as you put it) against blasphemy is because blasphemy is morally wrong. And I've already explained the reason why it still doesn't apply today. We are free from the law of sin and death. Just because you don't understand that doesn't make it any less true. You wish to pigeonhole the conversation to "reconstructionist versus non reconstructionist" when I reject the framework itself and don't believe that a civil application of an eternal moral law must itself be eternal. The civil authority designated to carry it out no longer exists for one thing. God established judges and later kings but when Jesus came He said "My kingdom is not of this world." So without God re-establishing a civil authority there is no one to carry out a civil application. Further the civil application of the moral law (or the "civil law" as you put it) did not exist prior to the children of Israel rejecting direct communication with God in favor of God using Moses as a go-between. Either way the theonomist argument holds no water.



Sure. The 10 commandments are still binding. It's just as wrong to worship false gods or bear false witness or dishonor your parents now as it ever was. The ordinances were for Israel. Some of them still make sense to follow because, after all, God gave them to Israel for a purpose. For example sanitation laws. God ordered Israel to leave camp when they had to use the bathroom, did a hole and bury it.

Duet 23:13 As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement.

It's the same "law" backpackers use today. Had that and other sanitary "laws" been followed by the Christian church during the dark ages there never would have been the black plague. As it stands the Jews followed the sanitary "law" and didn't get sick as much and the European Christians of the time thought the Jews were poisoning the wells and started persecuting (again) the Jews. See: http://www.jewishhistory.org/the-black-death/

God made this promise regarding the health laws.

Exodus 15:26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the Lord that healeth thee.

There is a a reason SDA live 7 to 10 years longer than the general population. We take God at His word on the promise in Exodus 15:26. We don't believe that doing something unhealthy is a "sin" but why not trust God on what He says is best for heath?

No. When Paul says the law of sin and death has no power over a Christian, he is talking about the moral law. The moral law has no sting of eternal death anymore to a Christian because Christ's perfect law keeping has been imputed on his behalf and now he has liberty from that.

[Sola_Fide]

So you are calling the ordinances the "civil law"? Okay. I say this is a distinction without a difference but okay. The reason there was a "civil law" (as you put it) against blasphemy is because blasphemy is morally wrong. And I've already explained the reason why it still doesn't apply today. We are free from the law of sin and death. Just because you don't understand that doesn't make it any less true. You wish to pigeonhole the conversation to "reconstructionist versus non reconstructionist" when I reject the framework itself and don't believe that a civil application of an eternal moral law must itself be eternal. The civil authority designated to carry it out no longer exists for one thing. God established judges and later kings but when Jesus came He said "My kingdom is not of this world." So without God re-establishing a civil authority there is no one to carry out a civil application. Further the civil application of the moral law (or the "civil law" as you put it) did not exist prior to the children of Israel rejecting direct communication with God in favor of God using Moses as a go-between. Either way the theonomist argument holds no water.



Sure. The 10 commandments are still binding. It's just as wrong to worship false gods or bear false witness or dishonor your parents now as it ever was. The ordinances were for Israel. Some of them still make sense to follow because, after all, God gave them to Israel for a purpose. For example sanitation laws. God ordered Israel to leave camp when they had to use the bathroom, did a hole and bury it.

Duet 23:13 As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement.

It's the same "law" backpackers use today. Had that and other sanitary "laws" been followed by the Christian church during the dark ages there never would have been the black plague. As it stands the Jews followed the sanitary "law" and didn't get sick as much and the European Christians of the time thought the Jews were poisoning the wells and started persecuting (again) the Jews. See: http://www.jewishhistory.org/the-black-death/

God made this promise regarding the health laws.

Exodus 15:26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the Lord that healeth thee.

There is a a reason SDA live 7 to 10 years longer than the general population. We take God at His word on the promise in Exodus 15:26. We don't believe that doing something unhealthy is a "sin" but why not trust God on what He says is best for heath?

No. When Paul says the law of sin and death has no power over a Christian, he is talking about the moral law. The moral law has no sting of eternal death anymore to a Christian because Christ's perfect law keeping has been imputed on his behalf and now he has liberty from that.

[jmdrake]

No. When Paul says the law of sin and death has no power over a Christian, he is talking about the moral law. The moral law has no sting of eternal death anymore to a Christian because Christ's perfect law keeping has been imputed on his behalf and now he has liberty from that.

And that's your opinion and I strongly disagree with it. The idea that Christians can be physically put to death for violations of the moral law but are at liberty spiritually is silly.

[Sola_Fide]

And that's your opinion and I strongly disagree with it. The idea that Christians can be physically put to death for violations of the moral law but are at liberty spiritually is silly.

Jmdrake, if the ceremonial dietary laws still apply today, why don't the civil laws?

[jmdrake]

Jmdrake, if the ceremonial dietary laws still apply today, why don't the civil laws?

I didn't say ceremonial dietary laws did apply. I said eating pork is not a sin. It's just healthy for you. I explained that God has not established an new civil authority to carry out civil laws. How can civil law be applied if God has not ordained an earthly civil authority?

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not sure I even see any point in commenting at this point.

[Sola_Fide]

I'm not sure I even see any point in commenting at this point.

Truer words have never been spoken...

[Christian Liberty]

I don't know yet. I think I agree with your argument.

I wouldn't claim that its entirely voluntary. But I'm not sure voluntarism is completely Biblical. At the bare minimum I don't see how you could possibly call theonomic law "the law of sin and death." There's a blatant demonization of Biblical standards here, and a total lack of understanding that theonomic law is far more voluntaristic and libertarian than what we have today. I think the god of secularism has basically taken over the entire forum.

I'm not sure I can adequetely explain why I lean toward the theonomic position at this point. I may need time before I can really do that, since I'm really new to it. but, I don't see how basic principles of justice can change, nor do I see how "general equity" (whatever exactly that means) leads to libertarianism.

[Christian Liberty]

Some have backed away from it. Some (like Greg Bahnsen when he got ordained) really started to go back the Westminster standards on salvation, but many people saw that as purely political. I've been in Reconstructionist churches and I can tell you that they say "the covenant" is the key to understanding the Bible. As John Robbins said, beware of anyone who tells you that they have "the key" to understanding the Bible. It is works salvation, plain and simple.

If I could do one thing to keep this thread on some semblance of topic, let's assume an orthodox view of the gospel (as you acknowledge Bahnsen had.) Let's not deal with the Federal Vision in this thread. I'd like to learn more about the FV as well, but I don't think we can lump theonomy and FV together. Yes, some theonomists are FVers. Yes, some churches are "reconstructionist churches" that "make politics the gospel." And yes, some churches do this with the GOP.

Let's leave that aside and just deal with the hermaneutics of the particular issue of OT law being in effect today. Can we do this?

[Sola_Fide]

If I could do one thing to keep this thread on some semblance of topic, let's assume an orthodox view of the gospel (as you acknowledge Bahnsen had.) Let's not deal with the Federal Vision in this thread. I'd like to learn more about the FV as well, but I don't think we can lump theonomy and FV together. Yes, some theonomists are FVers. Yes, some churches are "reconstructionist churches" that "make politics the gospel." And yes, some churches do this with the GOP.

Let's leave that aside and just deal with the hermaneutics of the particular issue of OT law being in effect today. Can we do this?

Don't you hold to the LBC? It condemns Reconstructionism:

To them also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being of moral use.

[Christian Liberty]

Don't you hold to the LBC?

No. I like the LBCF, but I don't think its infallible. When I was an ancap I would have disagreed with the section on the civil magistrate. And, I have always rejected the sabbatarian section.

It condemns Reconstructionism:

But where is the Biblical basis for that?

BTW: I'm not sure I'm a "reconstructionist." I'm not necessarily sold on the eschatology. But I don't see what standard Christian magistrates should use if not the one in the OT. And I think its mostly modernism that makes us reject the OT as a standard.

[Sola_Fide]

No. I like the LBCF, but I don't think its infallible. When I was an ancap I would have disagreed with the section on the civil magistrate. And, I have always rejected the sabbatarian section.



But where is the Biblical basis for that?

BTW: I'm not sure I'm a "reconstructionist." I'm not necessarily sold on the eschatology. But I don't see what standard Christian magistrates should use if not the one in the OT. And I think its mostly modernism that makes us reject the OT as a standard.

One of the things I love about Baptists is that they have such a rich history of liberty. I don't hold to everything in the LBC either, but I really love that in the section about the OT law they said only the moral equity of the civil laws are binding. Much better than the WCF that said the civil equity of the civil laws were binding.

[Christian Liberty]

One of the things I love about Baptists is that they have such a rich history of liberty. I don't hold to everything in the LBC either, but I really love that in the section about the OT law they said only the moral equity of the civil laws are binding. Much better than the WCF that said the civil equity of the civil laws were binding.

You know, people have told me I'm going Presbyterian I still don't believe in paedobaptism though. It might be fun to have a discussion about that sometime to.

I like liberty. But, what's the standard for liberty? Calvin's* Geneva banned gambling and dancing. I'd assert that that's wrong because that's outside the authority given to the civil magistrate. By contrast, Romans 13 says the civil magistrate is there to punish evil and reward good. Which evil are they supposed to punish? What standard if not the Bible itself?

As a former reconstructionist, I'm sure you realize that theonomists support limited government. Interestingly, I know you admitted this at one point (I believe your claim was that "theonomists oppose 98% of the government we have today", and for me its probably more than 98%) and yet you act like its an ultra-statist position at the same time. I suppose I understand this because claiming any role for civil magistrates is "statist" from an ancap conception. But, I definitely reject statism.

One thing that mainstream Christian libertarianism tries to do is it tries to combine Christian principles with secular ones and I don't think that works. Maybe you're a genuine exception to this, but I never was. I read what I wanted to read into the text. I effectively ignored Romans 13, and I've never seen a libertarian approach to it that actually works (and yes, I've seen erowe1's argument and C Jay Engel's argument. Neither one works. It requires a convolted understanding of "God's minister for your good" as somehow meaning "wicked man that slaughters you" and "would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Than do what is good" as "good as in what the civil magistrate says." Basically, it effectively writes the passage out of existance.

[Christian Liberty]

I should clarify that I'm exceptionally libertarian even by theonomic standards at this point. I am not convinced that the first table of the law should be enforced at all, and I definitely wouldn't enforce anything that doesn't have a specific God given penalty attached to it (Deuteronomy 4:2.) I'm also big on localism. I wouldn't really call myself a libertarian at this point. But, I'm pretty close.

[Sola_Fide]

You know, people have told me I'm going Presbyterian I still don't believe in paedobaptism though. It might be fun to have a discussion about that sometime to.

I like liberty. But, what's the standard for liberty? Calvin's* Geneva banned gambling and dancing. I'd assert that that's wrong because that's outside the authority given to the civil magistrate. By contrast, Romans 13 says the civil magistrate is there to punish evil and reward good. Which evil are they supposed to punish? What standard if not the Bible itself?

As a former reconstructionist, I'm sure you realize that theonomists support limited government. Interestingly, I know you admitted this at one point (I believe your claim was that "theonomists oppose 98% of the government we have today", and for me its probably more than 98%) and yet you act like its an ultra-statist position at the same time. I suppose I understand this because claiming any role for civil magistrates is "statist" from an ancap conception. But, I definitely reject statism.

One thing that mainstream Christian libertarianism tries to do is it tries to combine Christian principles with secular ones and I don't think that works. Maybe you're a genuine exception to this, but I never was. I read what I wanted to read into the text. I effectively ignored Romans 13, and I've never seen a libertarian approach to it that actually works (and yes, I've seen erowe1's argument and C Jay Engel's argument. Neither one works. It requires a convolted understanding of "God's minister for your good" as somehow meaning "wicked man that slaughters you" and "would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Than do what is good" as "good as in what the civil magistrate says." Basically, it effectively writes the passage out of existance.

Hey! I'm watching a great infant baptism debate right now! Watch it with me:

[Sola_Fide]

I should clarify that I'm exceptionally libertarian even by theonomic standards at this point. I am not convinced that the first table of the law should be enforced at all, and I definitely wouldn't enforce anything that doesn't have a specific God given penalty attached to it (Deuteronomy 4:2.) I'm also big on localism. I wouldn't really call myself a libertarian at this point. But, I'm pretty close.

I think both tables of the law can be, and should be the law of the land of among Christians.

[Christian Liberty]

Hey! I'm watching a great infant baptism debate right now! Watch it with me:

Not sure what part of the country you're in, but its 1AM right now. I'm not going to make it until 4 AM. But, I'll definitely watch it soon. I know James White is debating this issue in March as well. This is a topic I really don't know enough about.

[Christian Liberty]

I think both tables of the law can be, and should be the law of the land of among Christians.

Yes, of course Bible-believing churches should do so. But, I think its the job of the civil government to enforce the second table in areas where the OT gives them authority. Whereas libertarians would say government should ONLY enforce the NAP. I don't see that in the Bible.

[jmdrake]

I wouldn't claim that its entirely voluntary. But I'm not sure voluntarism is completely Biblical. At the bare minimum I don't see how you could possibly call theonomic law "the law of sin and death." There's a blatant demonization of Biblical standards here, and a total lack of understanding that theonomic law is far more voluntaristic and libertarian than what we have today. I think the god of secularism has basically taken over the entire forum.

I'm not sure I can adequetely explain why I lean toward the theonomic position at this point. I may need time before I can really do that, since I'm really new to it. but, I don't see how basic principles of justice can change, nor do I see how "general equity" (whatever exactly that means) leads to libertarianism.

How is calling it the law of sin and death "demonization?" At a bare minimum theonomic law is based on Mosaic law and Paul explicitly called that the law of sin and death. Now SF and I are debating on precisely what "death" is being talked about there. But it's a denial of plain Biblical truth to say that quoting Paul is somehow "demonization."

Edit: But here's the overall problem with the theonomist position. On the one had it wants to run around and say "You're free! You're free!" with regards to the law of Moses because Christ died for you and you are "predestined" to be saved. Then it turns around and says "You're not free because if you don't keep our definition of the law of Moses we will stone you to death." I'm not even at all clear which laws theonomist believe are still stoning worthy and which are not. I assume the Sabbath is no longer stone worthy. (Do theonomists believe in civil enforcement of Sunday laws?) I guess adultery is. Stoning for witchcraft?

Also, if you're relying on Romans 13 for the "voluntaryism isn't Biblical" idea....don't. That was not Paul's finest hour. At best he was writing in code. At worst he was mistaken. The "power the was" at the time was Nero, one of the worst rulers of all time who routinely killed the just and elevated the wicked. Paul appealed to Nero as if he would actually get justice from that madman and he (Paul) literally lost his head as a result. One could argue that Paul was simply continuing the idea of Jesus of "Don't resist evil" (turn the other cheek, the Romans force you to go a mile go two, someone take your coat give your cloak, render to Caeser, agree with your adversary who is suing you) and that's well and good. But he went overboard in claiming that rulers only terrorize those who do wrong.

And that brings me to the ultimate problem with theonomy. Jesus said "If My kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight to keep Me from being arrested. But My kingdom is not of this world." Using Jesus own logic, this is also true. "If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight to establish it." Talk all you want to about establishing theonomy by "conversion", but at some point you would have to fight. If you say you are going to stone me for working on Sunday because Sunday is the Sabbath, I'm kicking your ass. As the RCC and EO people of this forum love to point out, there are thousands of Protestant church. I personally think that's a good thing. That's the free marketplace of ideas at work. I do not believe in forced unity. The last thing I would want would be a church, even my own church, with its hands on the levers of power to be able to force its definition of morality on those who don't agree. And this is what you have not let sink in. Say if you get caught up in a theocracy that you don't agree with? You set up your Calvinist based theocracy, you put down roots, you don't pay attention to demographics, you get outbred by Catholics, and all of a sudden your faced with death for any heresy against the papacy. What then? Oh you can hope they play by your rules and let you leave, but say if they don't?

[jmdrake]

You know, people have told me I'm going Presbyterian I still don't believe in paedobaptism though. It might be fun to have a discussion about that sometime to.

I like liberty. But, what's the standard for liberty? Calvin's* Geneva banned gambling and dancing. I'd assert that that's wrong because that's outside the authority given to the civil magistrate. By contrast, Romans 13 says the civil magistrate is there to punish evil and reward good. Which evil are they supposed to punish? What standard if not the Bible itself?

As a former reconstructionist, I'm sure you realize that theonomists support limited government. Interestingly, I know you admitted this at one point (I believe your claim was that "theonomists oppose 98% of the government we have today", and for me its probably more than 98%) and yet you act like its an ultra-statist position at the same time. I suppose I understand this because claiming any role for civil magistrates is "statist" from an ancap conception. But, I definitely reject statism.

One thing that mainstream Christian libertarianism tries to do is it tries to combine Christian principles with secular ones and I don't think that works. Maybe you're a genuine exception to this, but I never was. I read what I wanted to read into the text. I effectively ignored Romans 13, and I've never seen a libertarian approach to it that actually works (and yes, I've seen erowe1's argument and C Jay Engel's argument. Neither one works. It requires a convolted understanding of "God's minister for your good" as somehow meaning "wicked man that slaughters you" and "would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Than do what is good" as "good as in what the civil magistrate says." Basically, it effectively writes the passage out of existance.

Saying theonomists are against 98% of government today does not mean they believe in limited government. North Korea would be against 98% of the U.S. government circa 1800. Great. You are against laws against dancing and gambling. But you don't say what moral laws you are for. And laws have a tendency to multiply themselves. People came up with laws against dancing because they realized some type of dancing are sexual in nature and might lead one to be tempted into fornication and adultery. Why wait until someone breaks a "big law" and stone him to death when you may can "prevent" that person for getting that point in the first place right?

[jmdrake]

Yes, of course Bible-believing churches should do so. But, I think its the job of the civil government to enforce the second table in areas where the OT gives them authority. Whereas libertarians would say government should ONLY enforce the NAP. I don't see that in the Bible.

If you believe that the NAP is good then Romans 13 support the idea of the government enforcing only the NAP. If you read Romans 13 literally then Nero was good and Paul being beheaded was good. Some might argue that is was good and I don't simply mean those who don't like Paul but from the view of "all things working together for good" in which case there's no need for Christians to be involved in trying to change or set up government at all since ultimately God is setting up even the worst tyrants for "good." Even that makes more sense than "God really wants Christians to reinstate old testament theocracy but kinda sorta modified as they see fit."