Originally Posted by Tom
The podcast talked about how the critics of Theonomy do not actually understand Theonomy, because they keep saying theonomy gives the impression of being like the Taliban. He says this is actually the opposite of what it means. He also says contrary to what critics say, it also does not mean taking over the government.

They go further to say that, this is not about “coercion”, rather it is transformation starting in the Church and going into the world transforming the people.

He talked about “sphere sovereignty”, which I believe means that God rules over all the world. But He does so in different spheres, mainly in the Church and in the State.
1. Many of us DO understand "Theonomic Reconstructionism" or just plain "Theonomy" as it is being promoted by its small group of adherents.
2. Theonomy and Amillennialism are NOT compatible, for Theonomy is based upon Postmillennialism which believes there will be a literal 1000 years in which the world will be evangelized and the majority of people will be converted to Christianity and the government(s) will be ruled by believers or at least those who adhere to biblical law (OT civil law).
3. re: "different spheres" was first introduced mainstream by Abraham Kuyper and latter by Herman Dooyeweerd. Kuyper wrote about these various "spheres" in his work on "Common Grace" which was embraced by the Christian Reformed Church and later by other Dutch Reformed Churches and is now taught in other "Calvinist" churches, e.g., the OPC, PCA, and others. The problem that I have had with Kuyper's "sphere sovereignty" is that biblical Christianity is said by Kuyper to be the "Queen of the Spheres" of which all the other spheres have their independence and are not 'ruled' by Christian thought. My reading of the Bible to the contrary is that all things are determined by God and anything that contradicts His Word is false. There is no co-mingling of true and false, good and bad, holy and evil, light and darkness, right and wrong, etc.

So, based solely upon what you have shared here about the views of Joe Boot, I am initially skeptical and somewhat confused. scratch1

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]