Theonomy Wars! - Some Thoughts From Ole AD

Hoo boy, there was quite a bit of obstinance on display yesterday on Twitter regarding Theonomy.

All right, well before we get into it, I got a funny story. On the weekend I took my two sons and my wife to the paint store because we're deciding what colors to paint our new house and I never told my kids that they could pick the color for their room but somehow they got it in their minds that they could.

Obviously I'm not crazy. Anyway, my toddler instantly was drawn to this color.

This is a very bright obnoxious orange color and he seemed to think that this would be a great color for his room.

This is exactly why I didn't say that they could pick the color for their room. Obviously this is not going to be the color of the room but what's interesting about this color is that Sherman Williams has titled this color obstinate orange which is a perfect color for a title for a color that a toddler would choose.

Anyway, yesterday was interesting. There was a mixed bag. Not every argument against Theonomy that I saw yesterday is an example of obstinance but there were some that were and what

I want to do in the video today is respond to some of those that are more serious, that deserve respect, that deserve attention and to be quite honest there are some arguments against Theonomy that I feel the weight of and I think that there are some good points being made but let me first give you an example of obstinance.

Here's an example of an obstinate argument. Adam, you are inconsistent and you are a hypocrite and the reason you're a hypocrite is because you don't want to execute yourself for lust of the heart because Jesus said that if you commit lust in the heart then you've committed adultery and so therefore if the penalty for adultery is death you should commit you should you should turn yourself in to the civil governing authorities for having lust in your heart towards a woman you hypocrite.

And of course the answer to that is pretty easy anyone who's thought about Theonomy for two seconds would know the answer to that and there's a difference between a sin and a crime and obviously the crime of adultery in ancient

Israel was punishable by the death penalty but the crime of lust well it actually isn't a crime.

Lust is a sin but not a crime and so there's a distinction there. It'd be very difficult to prove a case of lust with two or more witnesses because it's more of an internal matter that God takes very seriously but at the same time it's not a crime and explain this to this guy very carefully very nicely very patiently and he returned you hypocrite blah blah and that's an obstinate person.

Now not every argument against Theonomy is an example of obstinate and I saw quite a few good ones that deserve respect and deserve an answer and so let me give you an example of something that I responded to and it's not an example of obstinance even though you might be annoyed at the style of argumentation.

This is someone who calls himself Bitcoin Moses and I did a thread about how

I think the just penalty for adultery is the death penalty. I think God intends the civil magistrate to take adultery very seriously and Bitcoin Moses here says

God didn't execute all the adulterers in the Old Testament and I agree in fact I don't even think

Israel did and I don't think Israel's intended to. You see there's a difference between the

Taliban and Sharia law and Christian law. See the Sharia has the secret police that goes around the religious police and they're just looking for you to slip up.

They set up sting operations and they're peeking through your windows and checking your computers and checking your cell phones and stuff like that just to find infraction that they can bring against you and see the law of God doesn't work that way.

See in Israel there weren't people peeping through your windows and checking your email list and stuff like that.

No in fact the death penalty could only be given to someone or someone could only be convicted of a crime rather with two or more witnesses and so the the type of adultery that would have been executable in Israel isn't just any adultery it's public adultery where the person is just flamboyantly like yeah

I'm sleeping with this woman and who cares you know what I mean like it's it's essentially the kind of adultery that is essentially abject rebellion so like people that are kind of keeping it private that's a serious sin and God takes that very seriously but it wouldn't be prosecutable.

Furthermore again it's the idea and I think a lot of times with God's law is to drive the evil into the darkness.

People often say about abortion well if you make abortion illegal all it's going to do is make people go into the alleyways and do their abortions with a back alley abortion and I say good that's where evil belongs not flamboyantly waved in front of everybody but rather in in private in the back alleys and things like that where God still sees you but it's not on display we don't tolerate that kind of stuff publicly and that's what

I think was going on with the law of Israel when it comes to adultery and homosexuality and things of that nature.

I don't think people were being stoned left and right and willy -nilly and stuff like that and I don't think that God prescribes any kind of secret religious police kind of thing like it does in Sharia and the

Taliban. Anyway so I agreed with Bitcoin Moses but then he brings the

Christian version of Taliban you know kind of argumentation which I find very annoying and so what

I said to him he says you guys sound like the Christian Taliban you should really take a step back and listen to yourself and so again this is an annoying style of argumentation

I don't think Christian law is anything like Sharia law I don't think that at least and let me just make sure

I'm clear here I am not for instituting the law of Israel one -to -one to the modern context no

I think that there's a general equity there's general principles that apply to the civil magistrate today not the specificity of Israel's law but even if I did agree with the specificity of Israel's law it's still nothing like the

Taliban you see I think a lot of people kind of picture the old law of Israel almost like a horror show and it's just really not like that and I'm not saying this guy's doing that I don't think he is but some people seem to and I think that's really it's disrespectful to God's law

God's law to Israel was not like Sharia law not at all anyway but this is not an obstinate person you see what he says was he's listen to this

I think this is something that we should consider because on the one hand I want to have purity in our justice system in our law and our morality but there's a reality we need to deal with sometimes you need to deal with the you need to play with the hand you've been dealt here's what he says he says admittedly

I don't know all the issues but my deep distrust of governments has me leery of giving them more power over non -violent criminals execute murderers rapists pedophiles kidnappers traitors maybe a few others but adulterers and fornicators no and I totally understand and I actually agree with him here that the way that our government is now the way that our people are now you wouldn't like we do have kind of a bit of a police state we do set up sting operations and have a police force that I think oversteps its bounds a lot of times and and so would we want people to be investigating your cell phones and stuff like that and setting up sting operations to catch you in an adulterous affair so they get you and stuff like that I don't really think we would want that that strikes me as more similar to you have in sharia systems with the religious police and stuff like that so so I understand that I totally get where he's coming from here so this is not an obstinate person he he you know he doesn't he doesn't think that the old law was like sharia but he doesn't want to give the government who's already overreaching their authority more power to execute people that than they should already have

I get that I feel the weight of that and it is a concern more about that kind of thing in a minute

I want to talk about this is from Ezra Dulles and uh this is again not an obstinate argument against uh against theonomy

I think we we should feel the weight of this we should take this seriously and be ready to to answer when someone talks like this so I was in a conversation where I was saying that that Paul calls the government uh

God's deacon or servant is if he translated into English um and Ezra responds he says he says the weakness of this argument talking to me is that the

Hebrew prophets also called very supremely vile pagan nations the instruments of God's justice sorry ad but tasking the church with any geopolitical outcome is seeking alliance with demonic principalities and he's right about this because at the on the one hand um you know

God says that the government the civil government is his servant to punish evil and to promote good but at the same time he uses evil governments to accomplish his purposes he did this with Babylon to judge

Israel and things like that and so what Ezra is saying here is that this is just Romans 13 is just kind of describing a brute fact about nations

God uses nations to do his will and that is definitely true but I think

Romans 13 is not just talking about what is the case I think there is a prescription in Romans 13 as well so and I'll explain what

I mean so yes it is just a fact that governments serve God they are just servants they're deacons that's a fact of life that's how it is that's what

Paul says that's a description of the situation but there's also a prescription here because when it says they should be they should punish evil they're there to punish evil and to promote good that's actually prescribing a role for the government as well so it's it's describing the fact that they are

God's servant but it's also prescribing what those governments ought to be doing and so it's not necessary that governments are demonic principalities it just has worked out that way very often in our history when our government doesn't do justice according to God's standard and that's what

I told them I said the point is that a government should be Christian a government should embrace its role as God's servant and when it's promoting good and punishing evil it should do that according to God's standards of justice and so we shouldn't want to have a demonic government we should want to have a

Christian government and so here's what how Ezra responds and again this is not obstinance this is this is something that a lot of people feel this way about about theonomy and all of that and I and I understand that I think it's worthy of respect here's what

Ezra says he says can the narrow way control a majority rule system and he quotes from Matthew 7 and then he says should the church judge those outside of it and then he quotes first Corinthians and he says

I realize this leads into a larger pre -mill post -mill debate but those texts are pretty big roadblocks for me and Ezra it's not just you they're pretty big roadblocks for a lot of people and these aren't the only ones there's other texts like this that people say well look at this how does this make sense my kingdom is not of this world that kind of thing there's a lot of them like that and I think as theonomists we need to have an answer for this this is not something that should just be we should just heap scorn upon this is not something where we say oh you just hate

God's law no this this actually does deserve an answer a couple things about the first one

Ezra and you don't hope you don't mind if I talk to you directly can the narrow way control a majority rule system there's a couple things here number one it assumes that a majority rule system is what we ought to have which

I don't think is necessarily a very easy assumption to make so that's the thing and then the second thing it also assumes that the narrow way means that Christians will always be the minority

I don't think either of those are necessarily true and you kind of acknowledge this

Ezra you say this kind of brings up a larger kind of pre -mill post -mill debate and I think it definitely does because as a post -millennial person

I believe that the gospel will be the gospel will go throughout the world and most people will convert to Christ I think the

Holy Spirit will convert tons of souls and there will be a time in our future where most people are

Christians and it's going to be awesome because we're going to have regenerate believers there's going to be tons of members of churches and we're going to all talk about the

Lord we're going to all talk about justice and how great God is and all kinds of things from a

Christian perspective and that's going to be great we're not there yet so I don't think the narrow way means that there's not going to be that many

Christians in the future in fact I think that there's going to be tons of Christians in the future and so if we were in a majority rule system then

Christians could control that but I don't think necessarily that even a majority rule system is ideal so there's a few things there obviously this is not a full response but that's kind of where I would start with that Ezra the second thing is should the church judge those outside of it and this is

I think there's a there's a confusion here because every theonomist that I know makes a distinction and some of them make it a lot sharper than others and I understand the debates there but there's a distinction between the authority of the civil government and the church and so when

Paul's talking about how you know who am I to judge those outside of the church or should judge someone inside the church

I don't think he's talking as a civil magistrate because because in the church with this church's realm of authority the keys of the kingdom you know the church decides who's in and who's out you know that kind of thing that's where Paul is and that's where he's talking it's an instruction for the church but if you were a

Christian judge or a prosecutor or something like that or maybe a Christian congressman or something like that I don't think

Paul's words in first Corinthians apply to you because if somebody were to make the argument that you're a Christian prosecutor let's say and and and the person you're prosecuting is an unbeliever or a

Muslim or something I don't think you would you would I think you would instantly see the problem if they said well in first Corinthians Paul says not to judge outsiders well yeah he's talking about the church but as a civil governing authority that is your whole responsibility to execute justice and you're supposed to do it according to at least the general equity of God's law to sojourners and native born alike so you're supposed to do it believers and unbelievers alike one law for both sets and so you kind of see what

I'm saying here that the civil government and the church they should both submit themselves to God's authority in those specific areas so nobody takes authority in an autonomous way but they have two different realms two different spheres of authority and that's something we're going to talk about in a minute but you see these questions these aren't obstinate questions and so if you're a flavor of theonomy whatever it is because a lot of people think that's a confusing term and I sort of understand why we don't want to just say oh

Ezra you just hate God's law it's not that simple these are good questions that he's asking and I think that there are good answers to them that again

I have just scratched the surface of them but this deserves respect this deserves an answer it deserves a clear answer too if there is one now one final thing uh

Cody Liebold was asking this question online he also asked me in a private conversation and I didn't answer it yet um and I consider

Cody a friend he hates theonomy no question about that um but I consider him a friend there's no

I don't have a problem with him hating theonomy I'm used to that but anyway um so he asked this question online

I can't find it right now but I want to get this recording done so he basically said should we um do you agree with like Gary North and and Bonson and Rush Dooney that we should abolish the first amendment or at least change it um and and and that's his question he wants a yes or no answer and Cody you know

I hope you don't mind if I just talk to you directly there is a yes or no answer but it's a little bit more complicated than that and that's just the reality now before I go into that let me say

I definitely have been influenced by Gary North and some of these guys and stuff like that that being said I don't agree with everything that they've said it's just that simple it's okay for me to say that I don't think

Greg Bonson or Gary North or Rush Dooney's infallible I got a lot of value from them actually

I got a lot more value I'm actually more influenced by this guy on the screen right now this is

Brian Schwertle and I recommend Brian Schwertle to you I have actually not watched this series that he did on natural law two years ago but I did watch a previous series he did on natural law which he believes in by the way um he's got his own specific covenanter view of it um but um but anyway he's very critical of Rush Dooney and some of the

Christian reconstructionists and I have gotten a lot of value from that as well um I recommend this guy

I haven't watched this series but his previous series on natural law was excellent um he's a little long -winded and he's kind of an acquired taste no question about it but I recommend his stuff uh very much he's a very smart guy clearly but anyway oh by the way this is why like I don't know whether to call myself a theonomist anymore or not because some people would say because I agree with Brian Schwertle on so many things

I'm not a theonomist and I'm like well I can understand that and I don't know I don't really care for I'm not zealous for the terms but I believe in the general equity of God's law um anyway so as far as the first amendment is concerned let me just read it real quick it says

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for address of grievances now there's a mixed bag here there's some things here that I have no problem with as they're written but if you want my ideal situation if you like if I was hypothetically made king of the

United States and I could set up whatever government I wanted and people would listen no

I would I would definitely alter this I would make this more specifically Christian more specifically

Christian and I don't think it goes far enough so the answer is do I want to amend the first amendment would

I want to change it yes I would want to change it that being said practically speaking and from a pragmatic perspective if you asked me today should we today change it given our current situation our current state of the church our current government structure everything you know as it is would

I change it probably not probably not and I'll explain myself in just a moment now uh the first amendment is is here and and and I said what

I just said but I'm a Westminster guy and I'm a Presbyterian and I I pretty much adopt the

Westminster confession without exception I think it's a very good description of what the Bible teaches I do take a few exceptions but they're not really relevant here but this is what it says about the civil magistrate

I think this is extremely important to to to hear and to believe because I think

I would like a first amendment that could also you know incorporate this view of the civil government here it is it says the civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and the sacraments or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven that's important so let's just stop there these are separate realms of authority the civil government may not administer the sacraments baptize people administer communion the the civil government may not decide who's in the kingdom and who's out of the kingdom it may not administer the word those things so it's a very different sphere of authority but listen to this it says yet he has the authority and it is his duty to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the church that the truth of God be kept pure and entire that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed and all the ordinances of God duly settled administered and observed so it can't administer the sacraments itself it can't use the power of the keys of the kingdom itself but it has the duty to make sure that peace is preserved in the church to make sure that the church is actually doing the ordinances of God in a settled way observing that kind of stuff and to suppress blasphemies and heresies and corruptions and abuses in the church it has the duty to reform or prevent those things here's what it says in in part two it says for the better affecting whereof he has the power to call synods to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God you see the civil government has a lot more authority than I think the first amendment allows it to have see

I believe the Westminster confession is more accurate than the first amendment if that makes sense so the civil government does have the authority to suppress heresies and blasphemies

I think the way that we often interpret the establishment of religion prohibiting us free speech and stuff like that the way that we ought in our modern context interpret that it's a little bit too libertine it's a little bit too libertine because I do think the government has the authority to suppress blasphemy and heresy whereas most of the time when we're talking about abridging freedom of speech we're essentially saying the government does not have that authority now again the

Westminster confession is genius it's very careful to say it doesn't have the authority to decide what blasphemy and heresy is but it does have the authority to call a synod to make sure that they decide and so you know the civil magistrate can execute this justice and can execute some of this stuff that the church itself is deciding so there's there's a there's a cooperation there but in separate spheres and so if you wanted me to to to just kind of give you a quick yes or no should the first amendment be amended yes

I think it should be more explicitly Christian and I think that there's stuff here in the Westminster confession that we would want to add to to what the first amendment says to make it more explicit because the way it is now in my opinion it's too libertine it's too libertine

I think we should clearly not establish a denomination of Christianity or something like that but when it comes to free speech and blasphemy and heresies and stuff like that I think the civil government does have a role in suppressing that stuff

I don't think it's just libertine craziness all day long you can just be Muslims in the church and Muslims in the government and and all kinds of Zoroastrians and Satanists can be in the government no

I don't I don't think that's actually the way that that it should work and I think oftentimes people interpret it to mean that way

I'm not saying anyone in particular is doing that here I'm not I'm not sure but I would want it to be more explicit let's just put it that way and actually

I hear a lot of good arguments that say well when they wrote the first amendment it was assumed that it would be talking about Christianity and different denominations and stuff like that and that's fine and I'm okay with that argument but that's what

I if you're asking me if I would change it yeah I would change it to make it more explicit I've been on record for a long time saying that I wish that the constitution was more explicitly

Christian acknowledging Christ as king that's what that's what I would prefer now do I think we should change this right now given the state of the church no

I don't think we should and I could be wrong about that but I don't think we should I think the state of the church is in such a sorry state right now that if the government tried to call a synod to decide certain things that it would just be so chaotic and so impossible that's what it seems like but then again

I don't know I mean would God be honored to to work through a synod that we were trying to do the right thing but obviously we've got crazy differences in our denominations and all that kind of stuff well

I don't know I mean it's hard to say it's not quite as easy when you're talking about the hand you've been dealt the situation we currently find ourselves in it's not ideal it's not ideal and so that's why

I think sometimes people give vague answers to this kind of a question because it's it's a hard question to answer but when it comes to the ideals

I don't think it's that difficult a question to answer no I don't think that the first amendment is the end all be all I don't think it goes far enough

I would change it if I could and I do think that the civil government authority has the authority to suppress blasphemies and heresies like the