I perused the first page and didn't see a topic specifically addressing this, but over in the "Defending the Faith" forum the Andrew Sandlin thread has John and Jacob discussing Reconstruction and John saying, "As Reconstructionism matures as a concept, it is becoming more and more the central issue for Christians to think about." Now, I am more or less a theonomist. Once I bought into Van Til's apologetic and believed that all forms of human autonomy were left dead, all alternatives seemed wanting, beit on the right or left.

So, is John right? With the rise of the emerging church, postmodernism, and a host of other issues, Christians are readily discussing worldviews, engaging culture, stepping away from pietism, and seeking to change the world around them, at least interacting with most folk 30 and below that is what I find. However, I find most alternatives wanting or without substance. Simple calls to social justice, "God is not a Republican or Democrat", etc., can only do so much. As more and more meat is put on the bones, what are we left with?

I think we are left with theonomy. Unless we back off into a form of modernistic pietism and allow faith to be separated from the world, then how do we avoid theonomy?

openairboy

We view the Church and the Kingdom as non-coextensive.

The pietist views them as the same, with the Kingdom shrunk into the world.

The Theonomist (note the capital "T") views them as the same, with the Church blown up into the Kingdom.

__________________
Fredrick T. Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

Could you explain a little more?

Thanks,
openairboy

Because a Biblical worldview requires interaction with the culture, that does not mean that the Church qua Church should be engaged in the culture. The Church is not called to governing, politicking, art, or any expressions of the "cultural mandate." Individual Christians are called to that. The Church is called to the ministry of Word and Sacrament. No more, no less.

How are you using the term "kingdom"?

__________________
Tom Albrecht
Member, Covenant URCNA, New Holland, PA.

"I'm not a famous man. I'm just a simple country doctor with horse sense."

For sure! And here I reveal myself as a crypto-gnostic, but I believe that the church is a spiritual institution.

The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article XXIX
The Marks of the True Church, and Wherein it Differs from the False Church

The marks by which the true Church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in chastening [1] of sin; in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself.

No cultural mandate mentioned here!

__________________
Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of Grace Reformed Church (URCNA)
Leduc, Alberta CANADA
Church Blog

"there is no creature, either in heaven or on earth, who loves us more than Jesus Christ"
Belgic Confession, Article 26

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Keith:

I am advocating the discussions, not Reconstructionism.

The more we talk about it, the more I realize how far afield the original Theonomy was (e.g. Sandlin et al) . On the other hand, I also realize that too much of our cultural norms colour our sense of morality. I am by no means a Theonomist, nor am I defending it. What I am saying is that those who hold to it, within the confines of Christian liberty, have given us a great deal to think about, and it has been good stuff to think about. It is relevant to many discussions.

What has come out as counterpoint has helped me great deal to stand strong against it, while at the same time upholding my brothers who are convinced of it. There is a great deal of difference between upholding a brother and upholding what he is convinced of. You may not violate the one, but you must contend with the other. That has been crucial for me. This is what has helped me in thinking through other issues.

And the Theonomists on this Board are the ones whom I've contended with who approach it with that same basic attitude, namely respect of the person, and a hope for mutual benefit and growth. That's what our differences are for; not for contention of person against person, but for contention of opinion against opinion. None of us is exempt from correction, and these things are put there for our correction. Why should we shun that?

Why do you think that there are good Christian Baptists, and there are good Christian Presbyterians? So we can bash each other? Or so we can correct each other? Its the 'how' of the Theonomy discussions that I am referring to.

They are the kind of people I like to deal with when it comes to differences of opinion. That was my point in the Sandlin thread. It was not that way back then; it was head bashingly contentious. Now it that has faded a great deal, and we are turning the corner, where we have sounded the depths of each others' understandings. And we are on the cusp of something new coming out of this. That's how I read the discussions. That's what I meant.

__________________
JohnV :detective:

John Vandervliet
Ontario, Canada
member of: Canadian Reformed Church
"In coming to understand anything we are rejecting the facts as they are for us in favour of the facts as they are" C.S Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism

The Kingdom of God.

Whatever happened to Joshua is a type of Christ leading us into the promised land WHEN he comes? Right now we are just sojourners in the desert waiting.

Are we not to lay up our treasures in Heaven and not on the earth which will burn?

He is already ruling and reigning, and he has already, past tense, put the nations under his feet and has dominion over all.

Ephesians 1:18-23

...;that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints,
19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power
20 which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,
21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.
22 And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church,
23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.


Maybe I am missing something. Exactly what would a theonomists ideal theocratic world look like?? Sincerely. Is there any example of it in action in the last 2000 yrs?

__________________
Traci
Lynnwood OPC
Psalm 52:8-9
8 But I am like a green olive tree in the house of God: I trust in the mercy of God for ever and ever.
9 I will praise thee for ever, because thou hast done it: and I will wait on thy name; for it is good before thy saints.

Destroy pietism and all my theonomic hopes will be realized. When Pietism and Retreatism die their long-awaited and overdue deaths, I will never again sound the Reconstructionist trumpet.
Fred,
I have never disagreed in essence with those words. The theonomist who has most influenced my life, the Rev Joe Morecraft in Atlanta, Georgia, said basically the same thing in his phenomal sermon "Christian Courts and Ecclesiastical Arbitration."

I have never opted for the Church ruling the state.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

No income tax, no abortion, no legalized sodomy, etc.

Put it into perspective:
My sophomore year I worked in the Government Documents section of the library at Louisiana College. Part of my job was to file and process the Federal Register and Congressional Record, which in some form or manner showed, among other things, the laws that were passed by our legislatures: thousands and thousands and thousands of laws, rules, and regulations on the citizenry. The Bible (depending on the interpreter) only has a few hundred.

Is something wrong in this picture:

You (generic) can kill your unborn baby but you can't cut down a tree on your land. You might think you own your property, but try not paying your property tax and you will see who owns it.

We think we're free only because we've been told we're free. What we call freedom, our forefathers called bondage.

[Edited on 5--28-05 by Draught Horse]

__________________
Nathan Olaf Brandal
First Baptist Church of Kirkland

"Man is nothing: he hath a free will to go to hell, but none to go to heaven, till God worketh in him to will and to do his good pleasure"
GEORGE WHITEFIELD TO JOHN WESLEY

My Blog

Ok I am listening to Schwertley on "The Kingdom of God" and he is saying basically what you are saying. I see that you don't want to establish a theocracy, you don't want to retreat like the Amish, I get that.

Do you vote Jacob? Do you involve yourself in politics to bring about what you believe are God's laws?

Bear in mind that I don't disagree: If one has a legislator or a judge in the congregation (or a body of them, or whatever)--recall the Schiavo execution. I can't remember the judge's name but he was asked (thankfully) to leave the church because he supported Terry's murder.

Ok, for my point:
Granted the Bible is more concerned about redemption than politics (although politics shall be redeemed), when one gets to political parts of the Bible (Romans 13--the outline for a Christian Republic, for example), then we must recognize that politics (or law or jurisprudence) falls under Jesus's lordship. The same would apply to education: Does the state have a right to proselytize our children?

I am NOT saying that we should spend our time in the pulpit haranguing liberal (or NeoCon) judges or Bush or whoever, but we must recognize evil wherever it may rear its head. Sadly, Nixon silenced much of the Church on this issue. My point: when people are being redeemed and converted, then they MUST let their (i,e, the Congregation) worldviews permeate the Public Square. Notice I did NOT say the CLERGY must let their worldviews permeate (although Democratic pastors do that all the time with no outrage from the liberal media--oh for imprecatory prayers).

Of course, Joe Morecraft has been saying the same thing for the past thirty years.

Do I vote? Um, (I have a big grin on my face right now as I am typing) yes, I vote. Find a lot of threads during election season and I think I let it slip for whom I voted.

I really love all you guys! I am in a good mood right now, and I haven't been in one for a while.

Since your in such a good mood.

How does one put your views into practice in a real sense??

You ask the question that has been on my heart for two years. To answer that eventually, I am going to answer another question that you probably didn't ask, but people usually equate it to theonomy for some reason:

Resistance to tyranny led by the lesser civil magistrate--how do we deal with it?

Several pre-conditions must first be met:

1. God's people need to repent and be repenting, myself foremost.
2. Evangelise, Evangelize, evangelize. The spearhead of our attack will always, must always be evangelism.
3. There are other preconditions that must also be met, but can't go into those now
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyrants, however, hate the gospel, liberty, and law altogether and do everything they can to suppress it. What does the Christian populace then do?

4. Unless hearth and home are being violated, we do not violently resist the tyrants. we pray for God's judgment and that the Christian people would continue to be Reformed by the word and spirit of God.

5. The lesser magistrate--hopefully a Christian--realizes that the Higher Magistrate (the Supreme Court, for example) has asked him to do something that violates his conscience (and God's word, and most probably common law as well). He realizes that he cannot serve two masters and that his obedience to the Higher Magisrtate (HM) is conditioned upon "obeying him, as unto the lord." Therefore, when the HM commands him to do something contrary to the Word of God, he is under another authority.

6. As important as obeying the HM is under normal circumstances, the Lower Magistrate (LM)--who is also the justice of the peace, county judge, the Sheriff, etc. has a more important obligation to defend the people (Remember Romans 13? The State has the primary obligation to kill evildoers.). Therefore, when the HM begans to tyrannize the good people, the LM must step in and defend the people.

7. When a president (and I think this would be true for the Supreme Court (Nazghul) as well) swears an oath upon coronation, he swears to defend the Constitution (Andrew, bear with me for a moment), and asks the judgment of God to fall upon Him if he violates it. Remember premise #6? However, the LM does not go on the attack. He mounts a defensive campaign.

This isn't quite answering your question, bear with me. The short answer to your question: we do our God-given duty as informed citizens--we pray, we plead, we cry out to God and to a weak church and to an apostate world. When the Christian People are finally broken and on their knees praying for God's deliverance, then God will start bringing down the tyrants. Then we respond, "Sic Semper Tyrannus." That's the way I live; that's the way I think, and when we repent God will start bringing down the tyrants.

Thank you Jacob. I am getting there and I really liked your comments. I don't think I disagree with you at all.

Consider:
Patriots vs. Tories: Was there a Scriptural Basis for the First War for Independence? by Rev. Joe Morecraft III.

He does a much better job of what I just tried to do. He goes into certain key aspects that I don't have the time or resources: the King breaking covenant with the people (that was John knox's position) and the people (lower magistrate) responding. the fact that the LM responds is a crucial point. In doing so he shows the king to be violating Romans 13 and the LM sees it as his duty to restore peace and justice to the land. This makes the defensive war to be a restoration of the social norm, not a mere rebellion.

What would this look like?
Well, it is hard to predict the future but I have a good guess:
Heiland: by Franklin Sanders

The best treatment of this subject comes from one who makes it clear that he is NOT a theonomist, although he has stated my position much better than I ever could have done--Dr. Doug Kelly in his phenomenal book,

The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern World: Calvin's Influence on Five Countries

Thanks,
Traci

A practical example of what could have happened was the Terry Schiavo execution.

If JEB Bush decided to intervene on behalf of her, and say to the Nazghul, you will not kill a Floridian, that would be an example of the lesser civil magistrate overturning/disobeying a Federal order. This is similar to the doctrine of interposition and nullification.

From history:
When Lincoln sent 75000 "volunteers" to invade the South, the South responded (prematurely, perhaps. Dabney is masterful on this debated topic. Most Southrons were not in favor of South Carolina's presumptous actions, nevertheless).

But you will quickly point out:
The second example seemed to be just and failed, and no doubt the first one would have as well, and you would be correct. Our country is not ready spiritually to pull this stunt off. See my above threads.

[Edited on 5--28-05 by Draught Horse]