A friend of mine asked me to go through the following 10 questions and get back to him. He added that after thinking through all 10, he answered yes to all of them. He believes that to respond no, is to give into “cultural relativism”. He adds that in his studies of the Puritans, they would all respond yes to all 10. Giving examples such as Thomas Shepard, John Cotton, Thomas Watson. Also mentioning Rutherford and Gillespie.
Quote
Moral Law 1. Do you believe the moral law, summarized in the Ten Commandments, remains fully binding on all people today? 2. Do you believe the moral law should be the standard for both individual believers and nations? 3. Do you believe governments are obligated to uphold both the first table (duties to God) and second table (duties to neighbor) of the moral law?
⸻
Civil Law (General Equity) 4. Do you believe the civil laws of Israel expired as such but continue to apply today in their general equity? 5. Do you believe the civil laws give timeless principles of justice that still obligate all societies? 6. Do you believe modern civil governments should apply the principles of Old Testament case laws when forming their laws?
⸻
Civil Penalties 7. Do you believe the penalties attached to Old Testament civil laws reveal God’s standard of justice? 8. Do you believe some of those penalties (e.g., restitution for theft) should still guide modern governments? 9. Do you believe capital punishment for crimes like murder reflects God’s abiding justice? 10. Do you believe capital punishment for other sins (e.g., adultery, blasphemy, homosexuality) still reflects God’s justice for civil societies today?
I am still thinking through them. However, I think all of them are correct on how God thinks about sin. However, I believe only in a theocracy would this work.
I wonder however, if that sounds like a neutral position? If there is one thing I am seeing in the last 5-6 years, is what happens when we go against God’s law.
Thinking through these issues, at present I feel like I am sitting on the fence. But I am not comfortable sitting there.
Something else my friend said:
Quote
Every Reformed Christian is, by confession, a general equity theonomist. The spectrum of debate lies in defining what “general equity” requires—whether it is limited to broad moral principles of justice or extends to the abiding validity of the specific Mosaic case laws and their sanctions
Let me add something to this. I was in discussion with another friend today, that reminded me of this thread.
He said he disagreed with the pastors in Calgary Alberta that got themselves arrested for refusing to close their Churches during Covid.
He said, there are better ways to get around these mandates. He went onto say that part of the problem with many in the Church are trying to do today. Is trying to make a moral people without proclaiming the Gospel first and letting the Gospel change them.
He went onto say that, it is not that they are not proclaiming the Gospel as well. Rather he believes that even if our nation got Christian ethics back and it became comfortable to live in our nation again. It would still mean they are living comfortably, without salvation.
I for one, believe that this is a bit short sited. Though it is true, the salvation of people is the most important.
Nevertheless, I think the Alberta pastors were correct to defy government mandates. Not talking about the one Calgary Polish pastor that was not respectable to authorities, calling the police gestopo and NAZIs.
The government overstepped their bounds and I believe they the pastors did the correct thing. Regardless of the fact many pastors condemned them. He also added, he thought it was wrong that Pastor John MacArthur stood against the Governor of California.
I also believe that with the Gospel, Christians should talk against things like abortion, euthanasia, Woke and Cultural Marxism. Civilization cannot survive long without the healthy family structure and things that go with it.
I really don't want to get involved in this... the questions are classic Theonomic Reconstructionist bait and too many 'bite'. God as by prescription requires that all men must keep His moral law. God ordained that only Christ would and could keep the moral law. God by providence and predestination called a remnant of mankind to be renewed into the likeness of Christ via the Holy Spirit's work and consequently they and they alone would and could love the Lord God and His law. Israel was raised up and given the law but would not and could not keep it and constantly rejected God and His holy law and consequently suffered the consequences of their enmity against all that was good and the One who is only Good. The moral law is eternal for it is the expression of the very nature of the Holy God. The ceremonial law was temporary since it's purpose was to point to the Messiah/Christ to come. And thus, at His coming it was abrogated and surpassed in Him. The civil law was given to Israel politic and died with their rejection and their being 'cut off', but the principles of righteous judgment are applicable to all nations.
It is nowhere written that God intended that a permanent theocracy be established upon this earth with strictly regenerated men as leaders who perfectly kept the holy moral law of God. The fulfillment of all the types and shadows is only to be found in the New Heaven and New Earth where the elect, being glorified and given their new incorruptible bodies and perfectly holy nature dwell. That God holds all human beings accountable to keep the moral law, none, NOT ONE, can do so and NO ONE can expect that such a thing will nor can exist in this fallen world. To demand that the OT body politic given to Israel is applicable today is nonsense for it makes No Sense since it was ordained to be temporary and an example of those who were to come thereafter of 1) the impossibility of perfect law keeping, 2) the horrible punishment coming upon all who do not keep the holy law of God perfectly, 3) the Savior of sinful men Who was given that those who God gave Him will come and be justified in Him and His perfect atoning work in their behalf, 4) the hope of the New world to come where righteousness dwells.
Thus, NEVER take the "bait" for it is illegitimate on its face and not worthy of one's time and very dangerous to get ensnared in its faulty 'logic' the end of which is to be carried away from the truth taught in Scripture concerning the law, the Gospel, and the salvation which is in Christ.
1. Are the societal motivations of various secular and governmental entities often aligned with the principles and priorities of the Christian? Probably not often.
2. Should Christian leaders discern the proper, well-intended and good faith emergency measures of our public officials? For sure.
3. Should The Church maintain their spirituality and just disobedience based on 1. & 2.? Yes. While maintaining proper mission & motivation.
4. I think Pilgrm responded very well.
Last edited by Anthony C.; Sat Oct 04, 202511:43 AM.
Just so you know, my friend is not a Reconstructionist. He is a 1689 Federalist like myself. Reconstructionism, is not compatible with 1689 Federalism.
My friend however, is tired of taking people’s word for what Reconstructionists believe. He wants to read them himself and he is telling me in some cases, he believes they are being misunderstood. He went on to say, that he has found very few people who call themselves “Theonomists”, that are actually “Reconstructionists”.
He is a very good Christian friend, who is an elder in his Church. His Church is Confessional Reformed Baptist, holding to the 1689 LBCF, that was started up, when the Baptist Church he belonged to closed down for the duration of the Covid mandates, imposed by the government. He was an elder in training there also, but found himself at odds with the other elders because of this issue. One other elder (who is now the head pastor of his Church) and others left and started up the new Church.
Him and I often talk to each other on various issues. In fact, during Covid, we helped each other to navigate the rough waters. What I found, is often how someone understands Romans 13, played a big part in their stand on the government and the Church. He was helped greatly, by watching a sermon series by Dr. Samuel Waldron on Romans 13.
To be honest, this particular topic although I have done a lot of research on it (referring to the 10 questions). Seems way above my pay grade.
Those 10 questions he asked, I really had trouble answering. Mainly because in principle, I want to answer yes to all of them. Yet, I do not believe it is easy as saying yes. Pilgrim thanks for your 2 cents.
My friend does not believe in a theocracy like Israel was in the OT. Yet, still believes we should answer “yes” to the questions. He believes regardless of whether we will not see these things until the New Heavens and the New Earth. Scripture indicates that no matter what sphere we are in (family, Church, government), they are under God and will answer to God for not taking their responsibility seriously.
I keep hearing two extremes. Or variations of the two.
1.) We need to primarily be concerned about giving people the Gospel. If we don’t we may succeed in making a moral people, where it will be comfortable for Christians to live. Yet, people will still be going to hell. Let change happen, because of changed hearts. Pastors getting arrested for defying government mandates, is not the way to do this. Pastor John MacArthur was wrong to take the stand he did during Covid. Whether they know it or not, they are advocating for “Christian Nationalism”.
(Personal note) I have heard people in this group, condemn people like Voddie Baucham for advocating for “Christian Nationalism”, despite Voddie saying: “Why would I not want America to be Christian? Yet, when I hear the term “Christian Nationalism”. I suspect, I am not that. It really depends on someone’s definition of “Christian Nationalism.” In fact, that statement made one Calvinist Baptist dig in on his condemnation of Voddie Baucham.
This group seems to believe politics and the Gospel should be kept separate. Definitely never from the pulpit.
(Personal note: While I am against endorsing political candidates or parties from the pulpit. I believe we can’t get away from the fact, the Bible does indeed talk about politics. Especially when it comes to the policies of candidates and parties.)
2.) Law and Gospel needs to be proclaimed, equally. The law cannot save, but it is still God’s moral standard. We need to proclaim God’s sovereignty, in the government, the Church and the family. Issues like abortion, euthanasia, Woke, etc.., need to be called out for what they are. Yet, done in a manner that is according to 1 Peter 3:15-16. The whole council of God needs to be proclaimed, not just the Gospel. The whole counsel of God includes, talking about issues such as abortion, and many of the issues of our culture. The culture is doubling down on these things, we ignore them at our peril.
Charlie Kirk and Voddie Baucham are examples of how we should engage the culture.
(Personal note) I have seen both Voddie Baucham and Charlie Kirk, being interviewed together. Charlie Kirk said he is extremely grateful, to Voddie Baucham for his wealth of knowledge that helped him to understand how to communicate truth.
—————
I am still trying to wrap my mind around this whole topic and although I know the topic better than before. I am not certain I am closer to coming up with a solid position. I am sure that this is to the consternation of my friend. ???? He is a bit more of a black and white person than me.
Talking to many Christians, including family and some in my own Church. If you bring up politics, they quickly get agitated and shut the conversation down. Some have never even heard of things like Woke, the WEF, and CRT.
By the way, i hear Christians that appear to be solid where the Gospel in concerned. I have even seen good fruit in their lives. However, it appears they have bought into the left media lies concerning President Trump. Often I just bite my tongue, when such conversations get brought up. I have been bit a few times, for a contrary opinion on Donald Trump, as them. Even saying things like: “If you like Donald Trump so much, why don’t you move to the USA?”
True, but there are things I believe we as Christians need to fight against. Our culture has already declared war and some even in Reformed circles are compromising because of it.
During Covid for example, the Church was divided over whether or not the government had the right to regulate Churches. Some even condemned John MacArthur for standing against the government. In Alberta Canada, 3 pastors spent time in jail, for the same thing. Many Christians actually said they deserved to go to jail.
Woke is another thing, that has divided a lot of people.
I do think church leaders need to discern whether to take the ordinance of public officials at face value. There appears to be a rise in false justification and overreach in areas that the state has no business promoting or facilitating. In a best case scenario, the Christian Church and the Christian citizen is left alone to obey God and conscience. But an attempt to Christianize an official territory (land or nation) is an overreaction that would just make matters worse in a multitude of ways. I think Doug Wilson represents/reflects a cult of personality in which such things may go wrong in motive and fidelity.
Last edited by Anthony C.; Sat Oct 04, 202511:22 PM.
I did a bit more thinking through this issue and I have definitely not answered all these questions. However, I have written some of my thoughts out.
Should Christians try to push for God’s laws on society? Actually in some ways, God’s law is already influenced on society. Although, new world views are pushing against this and we are seeing the direct results of that. God’s laws are part of the founding of North America. Even our founding fathers, some being Deists, recognized the truth of these laws, because they wanted a moral society. Regardless of whether or not they wanted to be under the authority of the “one true God” or not. Examples of this are: “Penalties for crimes to be dealt out by the magistrate for murder, rape, adultery and homosexuality, and other crimes.” People must borrow from the Christian world view, to have an objective moral view. Otherwise everything is subjective. Can we expect our society to agree with this? I believe that the answer is yes and no.
Yes, we should try to push God’s sovereignty over every sphere of life. When we look at passages, like Romans 13, we notice that even Government is under the authority of God. The power that the Government does have is given by God.
No, in the sense that this truth will not be completely lived out, until the New Heavens and the New Earth. The New Heavens and the New Earth however, will be the only real theocracy, made up of the elect from all time.
I find no place in Scripture that God has commanded that the visible church on earth is to "Christianize" the earth, i.e., demand that all men obey God's law as a prerequisite for some government office or even any secular job. In short, it appears that there is a misuse of the "law" in all this such as those 10 Questions. It is God who demands that all men REPENT AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL. And, the fundamental issue is "what IS the Gospel?". My response is that the overwhelming 'message' being preached, taught and heard today is a FALSE gospel which speaks of "another Jesus" and "a different spirit" (2Cor. 11:1-4). And the "conversions" that result are a FALSE conversion that promises a false assurance of "salvation" at best, but more often it is a call to live a 'good life" and/or a "means to cure all one's ills in life". The law of God is definitely to be a part of the Gospel and a means to bring CONVICTION of sin and the reason why all men are under the wrath and condemnation of God. It is AFTER genuine regeneration and conversion that a person comprehends the beauty of God's holy law and the desire to obey it comes to life. This new nature that desires to please God and live after holiness is what transforms one's life and has an influence upon society. But demanding that all men who hate God and all that is good suddenly obey God's law without regeneration is silliness at best. Again, as I have often stated here, it is NOT God's decree and purpose to make this fallen world into a theocracy. This world is going to be destroyed by fire and a New Heaven and New Earth created. Now, it is God's purpose to call the elect OUT OF THIS WORLD and not be conformed to this world nor to love the things of this world. And these transformed lives will be a testimony and judgment to all who remain enemies of God and are worthy of eternal punishment at God's hand. Remember well, only a REMNANT will be saved out of the masses of the entire human race, albeit it that the number will be as the sands of the sea. It is individuals and not nations nor society at large that the Church should be trying to get to bow to God's law, but rather individuals to flee to Christ and avoid the wrath that is to come. The micro example given in Scripture is found in marriage where a believer, who is woman, is wed to an unbeliever. She is not to try and force the husband to be a good man, but rather it is her responsibility to live a life that reflects that new nature given her through gentleness and her rightful obedience. It is THAT Christlike life that God says will have the most effect on bringing about any change which if God has so willed results. Bottom line for me is such "10 Questions" are a clever trap which is meant, whether the person who brings them intends them to be so, to take a believer's eyes off of Christ and the simple truth of the Gospel and to this: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself." (Lk 10:27).
Quote
Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before the swine, lest haply they trample them under their feet, and turn and rend you.
7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
9 Or what man is there of you, who, if his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give him a stone;
10 or if he shall ask for a fish, will give him a serpent?
11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
12 All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets.
13 Enter ye in by the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many are they that enter in thereby.
14 For narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life, and few are they that find it.
15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.
16 By their fruits ye shall know them. Do [men] gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
24 Every one therefore that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, who built his house upon the rock:
25 and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and if fell not: for it was founded upon the rock.
26 And every one that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand:
27 and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and smote upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall thereof.
28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were astonished at his teaching:
29 for he taught them as [one] having authority, and not as their scribes.
Tom, yeah, natural law. The binding extent to which God’s preserving grace restrains men (to not be as bad as they otherwise would as in Noah’s day). If God doesn’t restrain sin, especially outside of the faithful Church, things will get worse. I don’t see any attempts to Christianize the state thwarting these realities.
I’m sure this is sobering if we apply to the Canadian context, but I think these are biblical and theologically based realities.
Also, Tom, at the end of the day, your friend is promoting a Social gospel, no matter how orthodox it sounds. It is a social agenda. It is socially driven and socially motivated. It is a social project, absent of the gospel.
Last edited by Anthony C.; Sun Oct 05, 202511:33 AM.
I did a bit more thinking through this issue and I have definitely not answered all these questions. However, I have written some of my thoughts out.
Should Christians try to push for God’s laws on society? Actually in some ways, God’s law is already influenced on society. Although, new world views are pushing against this and we are seeing the direct results of that. God’s laws are part of the founding of North America. Even our founding fathers, some being Deists, recognized the truth of these laws, because they wanted a moral society. Regardless of whether or not they wanted to be under the authority of the “one true God” or not. Examples of this are: “Penalties for crimes to be dealt out by the magistrate for murder, rape, adultery and homosexuality, and other crimes.” People must borrow from the Christian world view, to have an objective moral view. Otherwise everything is subjective. Can we expect our society to agree with this? I believe that the answer is yes and no.
Yes, we should try to push God’s sovereignty over every sphere of life. When we look at passages, like Romans 13, we notice that even Government is under the authority of God. The power that the Government does have is given by God.
No, in the sense that this truth will not be completely lived out, until the New Heavens and the New Earth. The New Heavens and the New Earth however, will be the only real theocracy, made up of the elect from all time.
Here’s where Christian’s Reconstructionism gets a bum rap. We, I being included in that number, do not teach that Christians are to push God’s law on society. We are to try to win them to Christ via the gospel, not by coercive means. It is the civil magistrates’ job to enforce the civil penalties prescribed in God’s law.
Look at the death penalty for instance. Those who oppose Theonomy are sure quick to turn into Theonomists when someone is murdered. And we should demand justice for a murderer, his (or her) life for the ones they killed. At the same time, we are to pray for their conversion. These are consistent with the Christian Reconstructionist construct.
I hope this hasn’t made a rabbit trail in the thread. If it has, please delete it.
Last edited by SovereignGrace; Tue Oct 07, 20258:11 PM.
“The foundation of knowledge is God’s revelation.” Dr. Greg Bahnsen
“In the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ appears in order to fulfill the Old Testament hope of the Messiah. He presents himself as the king who has come to establish his kingdom in anticipation of his universal rule.” Dr. Kenneth Gentry
“Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.” William Penn
I am still thinking through them. However, I think all of them are correct on how God thinks about sin. However, I believe only in a theocracy would this work.
I wonder however, if that sounds like a neutral position? If there is one thing I am seeing in the last 5-6 years, is what happens when we go against God’s law.
Thinking through these issues, at present I feel like I am sitting on the fence. But I am not comfortable sitting there.
Something else my friend said:
Quote
Every Reformed Christian is, by confession, a general equity theonomist. The spectrum of debate lies in defining what “general equity” requires—whether it is limited to broad moral principles of justice or extends to the abiding validity of the specific Mosaic case laws and their sanctions
Tom
Can you show me where the decalogue has been annulled via scripture?
Are we free to have other idols to worship? Are we free to take the Lord's name in vain? Are we free to not observe the sabbath? Are we free to dishonor our parents? Are we free to murder others? Are we free to lay with our neighbor's spouse? Are we free to steal from others/ Are we free to lie? Are we free to covet our neighbor's spouse or his belongings?
By free, I mean able to do so w/o punishment by God. If you answer "no", then the moral law is still binding upon all our consciences. If you answer "yes" to any of them, Houston, we have a problem.
“The foundation of knowledge is God’s revelation.” Dr. Greg Bahnsen
“In the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ appears in order to fulfill the Old Testament hope of the Messiah. He presents himself as the king who has come to establish his kingdom in anticipation of his universal rule.” Dr. Kenneth Gentry
“Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.” William Penn
Historic Calvinism has always affirmed that the MORAL law of God is perpetual and binding upon ALL MEN. The disagreement, as you surely know is if God has determined that governments are to be formed by believers only and/or are to be established upon God's moral and OT civil law ONLY? But most pressing is if the civil law established for the nation of Israel in the OT is perpetual and thus to be exacted upon all societies and by whom?
Let's take your list and have you answer that question, shall we?
Are we free to have other idols to worship? Are those who violate this law to be executed by stoning? Are we free to take the Lord's name in vain? Are those who violate this law to be executed by stoning? Are we free to not observe the sabbath? Are those who violate this law to be executed by stoning? Are we free to dishonor our parents? Are those who violate this law to be executed by stoning? Are we free to murder others? Are those who violate this law to be executed by stoning? Are we free to lay with our neighbor's spouse? Are those who violate this law to be executed by stoning? Are we free to steal from others? Are those who violate this law to be executed by stoning? Are we free to lie? Are those who violate this law to be executed by stoning? Are we free to covet our neighbor's spouse or his belongings? Are those who violate this law to be executed by stoning?
If you are convinced that the biblical answer to all or even any of the above questions is "Yes!", then please tell me who would be left on earth? Would the last man then commit suicide to fulfill this requirement? The ONLY law that include capital punishment and which is perpetual and universal is #5; murder, which is a creation ordinance (Gen 9:6, et al). The truth is that GOD is the one who will exact capital punishment upon all lawbreakers, and even that punishment isn't "death" (non-existence), but eternal death/punishment. This includes the elect who are not declared, "No Guilty" but rather "GUILTY!! as charged and their punishment was exacted upon them on Calvary through the vicarious substitutionary atonement of the Lord Christ. For they too are constantly guilty of breaking all of God's holy law day in and day out and are worthy of judgement throughout their days on earth.
Paul was not sentenced to stoning, for by his own confession he broke the law of God constantly:
Originally Posted by the Apostle Paul
Romans 7:14-25; 8:1,2) (ASV) 14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I do I know not: for not what I would, that do I practise; but what I hate, that I do. 16 But if what I would not, that I do, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17 So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me, but to do that which is good [is] not. 19 For the good which I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I practise. 20 But if what I would not, that I do, it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me. 21 I find then the law, that, to me who would do good, evil is present. 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I of myself with the mind, indeed, serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death.
I would say yes to all those who violate the moral law are to be put to death. But the civil magistrates haven't done their due diligence in enacting the civil punishments. Many states say that corporal punishment is cruel and unusual punishment are in reality say God is cruel for saying one who murders, its his (or her) life for their life.
And it does not have to be stoning, eitther. A guillotine, firing squad, noose, electric chair, lethal injection, gas chamber, will suffice.
“The foundation of knowledge is God’s revelation.” Dr. Greg Bahnsen
“In the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ appears in order to fulfill the Old Testament hope of the Messiah. He presents himself as the king who has come to establish his kingdom in anticipation of his universal rule.” Dr. Kenneth Gentry
“Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.” William Penn
I would say yes to all those who violate the moral law are to be put to death. But the civil magistrates haven't done their due diligence in enacting the civil punishments. Many states say that corporal punishment is cruel and unusual punishment are in reality say God is cruel for saying one who murders, its his (or her) life for their life.
And it does not have to be stoning, eitther. A guillotine, firing squad, noose, electric chair, lethal injection, gas chamber, will suffice.
Okay, let me be sure I have understood your view correctly. Every man, woman, and child who breaks any of the Ten Commandments of God are to be executed, correct?
IF <--- I have understood you correctly, then again my questions above need to be addressed:
1. Who is to do the executions? 2. Is there any man, woman, or child who has not violated any of the Ten Commandments myriad times daily? 3. IF you want to assert that true believers are exempt from capital punishment, then evidently logic would demand that you believe that ALL unbelievers should be immediately executed, correct?
I would say yes to all those who violate the moral law are to be put to death. But the civil magistrates haven't done their due diligence in enacting the civil punishments. Many states say that corporal punishment is cruel and unusual punishment are in reality say God is cruel for saying one who murders, its his (or her) life for their life.
And it does not have to be stoning, eitther. A guillotine, firing squad, noose, electric chair, lethal injection, gas chamber, will suffice.
Okay, let me be sure I have understood your view correctly. Every man, woman, and child who breaks any of the Ten Commandments of God are to be executed, correct?
IF <--- I have understood you correctly, then again my questions above need to be addressed:
1. Who is to do the executions? 2. Is there any man, woman, or child who has not violated any of the Ten Commandments myriad times daily? 3. IF you want to assert that true believers are exempt from capital punishment, then evidently logic would demand that you believe that ALL unbelievers should be immediately executed, correct?
My point is I can find nowhere where the civil punishments have been rescinded. What you posed are very serious and deep questions that I do not take lightly, neither do I seek to avoid answering them. Let me study, and also pray, before I give you the answers you seek from me, I may need a few days, okay?
“The foundation of knowledge is God’s revelation.” Dr. Greg Bahnsen
“In the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ appears in order to fulfill the Old Testament hope of the Messiah. He presents himself as the king who has come to establish his kingdom in anticipation of his universal rule.” Dr. Kenneth Gentry
“Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.” William Penn
I would say yes to all those who violate the moral law are to be put to death. But the civil magistrates haven't done their due diligence in enacting the civil punishments. Many states say that corporal punishment is cruel and unusual punishment are in reality say God is cruel for saying one who murders, its his (or her) life for their life.
And it does not have to be stoning, eitther. A guillotine, firing squad, noose, electric chair, lethal injection, gas chamber, will suffice.
Okay, let me be sure I have understood your view correctly. Every man, woman, and child who breaks any of the Ten Commandments of God are to be executed, correct?
IF <--- I have understood you correctly, then again my questions above need to be addressed:
1. Who is to do the executions? 2. Is there any man, woman, or child who has not violated any of the Ten Commandments myriad times daily? 3. IF you want to assert that true believers are exempt from capital punishment, then evidently logic would demand that you believe that ALL unbelievers should be immediately executed, correct?
Not every one of the commandments was punishable by death. Adultery, blasphemy, idolatry, and murder, were, but stealing and lying for instance, I don't think was punishable by death.
But the church is not the one to execute those who break God's laws that are punishable by death. That is the duty of the civil magistrates.
“The foundation of knowledge is God’s revelation.” Dr. Greg Bahnsen
“In the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ appears in order to fulfill the Old Testament hope of the Messiah. He presents himself as the king who has come to establish his kingdom in anticipation of his universal rule.” Dr. Kenneth Gentry
“Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.” William Penn
No one would be left alive on Earth if the civil magistrate enforced the moral law by exacting the prescribed penalties, especially since Christ Himself clarified the moral law:
Lust in one's heart - death by stoning.
Angry with another without cause - death by stoning
Causing another to stumble into sin - death by drowning, tied to a millstone
etc
A free society is only possible among men of good moral character. What the world needs is a true God-breathed revival, not another reign of Roman (Catholic) terror.
No one would be left alive on Earth if the civil magistrate enforced the moral law by exacting the prescribed penalties, especially since Christ Himself clarified the moral law:
Lust in one's heart - death by stoning.
Angry with another without cause - death by stoning
Causing another to stumble into sin - death by drowning, tied to a millstone
etc
A free society is only possible among men of good moral character. What the world needs is a true God-breathed revival, not another reign of Roman (Catholic) terror.
I don’t think lusting in the heart would bring the death penalty. None can know the machinations of the mind. If that’s the case, then thinking of murdering someone would also result in the death penalty.
As William Penn said, “Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.”
“The foundation of knowledge is God’s revelation.” Dr. Greg Bahnsen
“In the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ appears in order to fulfill the Old Testament hope of the Messiah. He presents himself as the king who has come to establish his kingdom in anticipation of his universal rule.” Dr. Kenneth Gentry
“Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.” William Penn
No one would be left alive on Earth if the civil magistrate enforced the moral law by exacting the prescribed penalties, especially since Christ Himself clarified the moral law:
Lust in one's heart - death by stoning.
Angry with another without cause - death by stoning
Causing another to stumble into sin - death by drowning, tied to a millstone
etc
A free society is only possible among men of good moral character. What the world needs is a true God-breathed revival, not another reign of Roman (Catholic) terror.
Just because the RCC ran roughshod over many via their inquisitions does not mean civil magistrates cannot execute the civil penalties prescribed in God’s law.
Man’s law has given us:
1) Same sex marriage 2) Women the right to murder their unborn babies 3) LGBTQ+ rights, including adopting babies to pollute their minds into believing their lifestyle is acceptable
God’s law, properly enforced, does away with all these abominations.
Last edited by SovereignGrace; Wed Oct 08, 20259:05 PM.
“The foundation of knowledge is God’s revelation.” Dr. Greg Bahnsen
“In the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ appears in order to fulfill the Old Testament hope of the Messiah. He presents himself as the king who has come to establish his kingdom in anticipation of his universal rule.” Dr. Kenneth Gentry
“Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.” William Penn
Historic Calvinism has always affirmed that the MORAL law of God is perpetual and binding upon ALL MEN. The disagreement, as you surely know is if God has determined that governments are to be formed by believers only and/or are to be established upon God's moral and OT civil law ONLY? But most pressing is if the civil law established for the nation of Israel in the OT is perpetual and thus to be exacted upon all societies and by whom?
Let's take your list and have you answer that question, shall we?
Are we free to have other idols to worship? Are those who violate this law to be executed by stoning? Are we free to take the Lord's name in vain? Are those who violate this law to be executed by stoning? Are we free to not observe the sabbath? Are those who violate this law to be executed by stoning? Are we free to dishonor our parents? Are those who violate this law to be executed by stoning? Are we free to murder others? Are those who violate this law to be executed by stoning? Are we free to lay with our neighbor's spouse? Are those who violate this law to be executed by stoning? Are we free to steal from others? Are those who violate this law to be executed by stoning? Are we free to lie? Are those who violate this law to be executed by stoning? Are we free to covet our neighbor's spouse or his belongings? Are those who violate this law to be executed by stoning?
If you are convinced that the biblical answer to all or even any of the above questions is "Yes!", then please tell me who would be left on earth? Would the last man then commit suicide to fulfill this requirement? The ONLY law that include capital punishment and which is perpetual and universal is #5; murder, which is a creation ordinance (Gen 9:6, et al). The truth is that GOD is the one who will exact capital punishment upon all lawbreakers, and even that punishment isn't "death" (non-existence), but eternal death/punishment. This includes the elect who are not declared, "No Guilty" but rather "GUILTY!! as charged and their punishment was exacted upon them on Calvary through the vicarious substitutionary atonement of the Lord Christ. For they too are constantly guilty of breaking all of God's holy law day in and day out and are worthy of judgement throughout their days on earth.
Paul was not sentenced to stoning, for by his own confession he broke the law of God constantly:
Originally Posted by the Apostle Paul
Romans 7:14-25; 8:1,2) (ASV) 14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I do I know not: for not what I would, that do I practise; but what I hate, that I do. 16 But if what I would not, that I do, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17 So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me, but to do that which is good [is] not. 19 For the good which I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I practise. 20 But if what I would not, that I do, it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me. 21 I find then the law, that, to me who would do good, evil is present. 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I of myself with the mind, indeed, serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death.
I'm glad you mentioned God being the One who will bring wrath/judgment upon lawbreakers, and I heartily agree. However, how is God's justice meted out? We can find in Romans 12, bleeding over into chapter 13:
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord. “BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.[Romans 12:14-21]
Here we see we are not the ones who are to take justice into our own hands, but to give this over to God. Now, how does God do this exactly? When chapter 13 starts, Paul hasn't started a new thought (I am sure you already know this, but to make a point), but expounds upon what he wrote in chapter 12:
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.[Romans 13:1-5]
God uses civil magistrates to exact justice upon lawbreakers. Yes, He has used supernatural means, with Achan and his family in Joshua 7. But He usually uses others to accomplish it. Look at Isaiah 10 for instance. He called the Assyrians His rod of anger (vs 5) and His axe (vs 15). He used them to accomplish His will. We even see this in a parable told by Jesus:
Now He was telling them a parable to show that at all times they ought to pray and not to lose heart, saying, “In a certain city there was a judge who did not fear God and did not respect man. There was a widow in that city, and she kept coming to him, saying, ‘Give me legal protection from my opponent.’ For a while he was unwilling; but afterward he said to himself, ‘Even though I do not fear God nor respect man, yet because this widow bothers me, I will give her legal protection, otherwise by continually coming she will wear me out.’” And the Lord said, “Hear what the unrighteous judge said; now, will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them? I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?”[Luke 18:1-8]
This widow was being bothered (ESV used "justice", whereas the NASB used "legal protection") and she did the right thing. She did not take justice into her own hands, but sought civil magistrates to exact justice for her.
I'm slowly answering you, one post at a time.
Last edited by SovereignGrace; Thu Oct 09, 20252:16 AM.
“The foundation of knowledge is God’s revelation.” Dr. Greg Bahnsen
“In the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ appears in order to fulfill the Old Testament hope of the Messiah. He presents himself as the king who has come to establish his kingdom in anticipation of his universal rule.” Dr. Kenneth Gentry
“Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.” William Penn
I would say yes to all those who violate the moral law are to be put to death. But the civil magistrates haven't done their due diligence in enacting the civil punishments. Many states say that corporal punishment is cruel and unusual punishment are in reality say God is cruel for saying one who murders, its his (or her) life for their life.
And it does not have to be stoning, eitther. A guillotine, firing squad, noose, electric chair, lethal injection, gas chamber, will suffice.
I want to clarify this as I cannot edit it now. I misspoke when I said that those who violate the moral law are to be put to death. Not all violations were worthy of death, so not every moral law broken was to be punished via capital punishment.
“The foundation of knowledge is God’s revelation.” Dr. Greg Bahnsen
“In the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ appears in order to fulfill the Old Testament hope of the Messiah. He presents himself as the king who has come to establish his kingdom in anticipation of his universal rule.” Dr. Kenneth Gentry
“Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.” William Penn
Well, let's transfer all the capital crimes over into the NT and our day to see if your view is feasible, shall we? Now ignoring the logic of the outcome which since God is perfect Logic, is this really what the Bible teaches? So, here's a brief list of offenses that God required of Israel (not the other nations) to exact on sins/offenses committed:
In the Old Testament, capital punishment (often stoning) was prescribed for a wide range of offenses, including murder, kidnapping, and blasphemy, but also for religious crimes like idol worship, false prophecy, and disrespecting parents. Adultery, incest, homosexuality, and certain forms of witchcraft were also capital offenses. Other capital crimes included working on the Sabbath and failing to confine a dangerous animal that caused death.
Here is a list of some offenses for which the Old Testament prescribed capital punishment: Religious Offenses Idolatry: Sacrificing to other gods, or children to Molech, was a capital offense. False Prophecy: A prophet who led people to worship other gods and/or those whose prophecies failed to materialize was to be put to death. Witchcraft and Divination: Practicing sorcery, soothsaying, or necromancy (communicating with the dead) was punishable by death. Blasphemy: Cursing God's name or speaking against Him was a capital crime. Sabbath-Breaking: Working on the Sabbath was a serious offense that carried the death penalty.
Family and Personal Offenses Murder: The killing of another person was a capital crime. Kidnapping: The unlawful seizure of a person was punishable by death. Disobedience to Parents: A rebellious, stubborn, and disobedient son could be stoned to death. Adultery: Sexual intercourse with a married person or betrothed virgin was a capital offense. Incest and Homosexuality: Certain forms of incest and homosexual acts were punishable by death.
Other Offenses Attacking or Cursing a Parent: Strikes or curses against a father or mother were capital offenses. Perjury in Capital Cases: Giving false testimony in a case that could result in a death sentence was a crime punishable by death. Failure to Confine a Dangerous Animal: If a dangerous animal killed someone, the owner could face the death penalty. Apostasy: Wilfully following other gods or leading others to do so was a capital crime.
Okay, so applying your view, assuming I understand it correctly, this again begs the questions posed to you: WHO would not be executed in this present world? And WHO would be authorized to carry out the executions? In short, WHO is NOT guilty of breaking any of those laws in their lifetime? How about YOU? Are you guiltless before God and not subject to being put to death due to transgressing any of the OT moral laws?
Well, let's transfer all the capital crimes over into the NT and our day to see if your view is feasible, shall we? Now ignoring the logic of the outcome which since God is perfect Logic, is this really what the Bible teaches? So, here's a brief list of offenses that God required of Israel (not the other nations) to exact on sins/offenses committed:
In the Old Testament, capital punishment (often stoning) was prescribed for a wide range of offenses, including murder, kidnapping, and blasphemy, but also for religious crimes like idol worship, false prophecy, and disrespecting parents. Adultery, incest, homosexuality, and certain forms of witchcraft were also capital offenses. Other capital crimes included working on the Sabbath and failing to confine a dangerous animal that caused death.
Here is a list of some offenses for which the Old Testament prescribed capital punishment: Religious Offenses Idolatry: Sacrificing to other gods, or children to Molech, was a capital offense. False Prophecy: A prophet who led people to worship other gods and/or those whose prophecies failed to materialize was to be put to death. Witchcraft and Divination: Practicing sorcery, soothsaying, or necromancy (communicating with the dead) was punishable by death. Blasphemy: Cursing God's name or speaking against Him was a capital crime. Sabbath-Breaking: Working on the Sabbath was a serious offense that carried the death penalty.
Family and Personal Offenses Murder: The killing of another person was a capital crime. Kidnapping: The unlawful seizure of a person was punishable by death. Disobedience to Parents: A rebellious, stubborn, and disobedient son could be stoned to death. Adultery: Sexual intercourse with a married person or betrothed virgin was a capital offense. Incest and Homosexuality: Certain forms of incest and homosexual acts were punishable by death.
Other Offenses Attacking or Cursing a Parent: Strikes or curses against a father or mother were capital offenses. Perjury in Capital Cases: Giving false testimony in a case that could result in a death sentence was a crime punishable by death. Failure to Confine a Dangerous Animal: If a dangerous animal killed someone, the owner could face the death penalty. Apostasy: Wilfully following other gods or leading others to do so was a capital crime.
Okay, so applying your view, assuming I understand it correctly, this again begs the questions posed to you: WHO would not be executed in this present world? And WHO would be authorized to carry out the executions? In short, WHO is NOT guilty of breaking any of those laws in their lifetime? How about YOU? Are you guiltless before God and not subject to being put to death due to transgressing any of the OT moral laws?
Not every law had the death penalty prescribed to it. If you stole, you were required to repay what you stole fourfold, IIRC.
Disobedience to parents was not just someone doing so one time, but it was perpetual. And it wasn't merely slapping them, but causing serious bodily harm.
I have zero problem saying those laws that had the death penalty prescribed is still applicable today. If it warranted the death penalty then, why is it not applicable today? Has God's character changed? The Law is a reflection of His nature is it not? It is called perfect in Psalm 19:7, it is called holy, just(righteous), and good in Romans 7:12. God's law is called good in 1 Timothy 1:8. God's law is called eternal in Psalm 119:160. If the Law is perpetual, then why are the civil penalties prescribed in them now null and void?
“The foundation of knowledge is God’s revelation.” Dr. Greg Bahnsen
“In the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ appears in order to fulfill the Old Testament hope of the Messiah. He presents himself as the king who has come to establish his kingdom in anticipation of his universal rule.” Dr. Kenneth Gentry
“Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.” William Penn
We can read in Mark 7 Jesus stating what was to be done to children who disobeyed their parents. He even said that by them not doing this, they were laying aside the commandment of God. Jesus was not laying aside the civil penalty for rebellious children, but actually driving it home. If this was the just thing to do under the Law, and the Law is a reflection of God's nature, which included the civil penalties prescribed for each offense, then why are they no longer applicable today? What changed? If h@m@sexuality was punishable by death then, and it was the just thing to do per God, then why is it all of a sudden no longer punishable today? What changed? Same with witchcraft, false prophets, blasphemy, et al?
“The foundation of knowledge is God’s revelation.” Dr. Greg Bahnsen
“In the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ appears in order to fulfill the Old Testament hope of the Messiah. He presents himself as the king who has come to establish his kingdom in anticipation of his universal rule.” Dr. Kenneth Gentry
“Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.” William Penn
Using Greg Bahsen's (actually from VanTil et. al.) presuppositional apologetic, the "presupposition of Theonomic Reconstructionism (Theonomy) is in error for it is based upon the idea that Israel as a nation is "special" over all peoples and is the paradigm upon which ALL nations are to be instituted. Israel was the foreshadow of the CHURCH and not a blueprint for world political and social constructs. What we see in Israel is indeed a revelation of God's sovereignty and holiness with some foreshadowing of the NEW Heavens and NEW Earth. There is not going to be a "Christianized" world anywhere. The Law was the "schoolmaster" that showed the incomprehensible depravity of man, the futility of trying to keep it for the purpose of gaining or maintaining God's favor, and lastly the absolute necessity of looking only to the remedy provided by God Himself; the Messiah Who would be the perfect law keeper (active obedience) and the sacrificial Lamb (passive obedience) Who would be endure the punishment owned by sinners (the elect). A secondary faux pax is the distorted interpretation of Matt. 5:17 "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil." But that's another major discussion in itself which fortunately has been dealt with by myriad NT scholars.
My main gripe and rejection of that entire view; Theonomy is that 1) it relegates the magnificent person and work of Christ to a secondary position and elevates the establishment of a man-made dominion of enforcing God's law upon societies which is so inferior to God's purpose for this present world. What is that purpose? To gather OUT OF this world those whom He predestined in love to be redeemed in the Lord Christ. The remainder He predestined to eternal punishment due to their inherent guilt and actual sins. It is the CHURCH who has been given the power to exact punishment upon its professing and unrepentant members for violating the moral law. The secular governments have the power to punish crimes committed by its citizens that ideally are founded upon biblical principles but NOT mirroring Theocratic Israel, which has been cut off, divorced and is the example of the depravity of man who will not and cannot turn to God regardless of how much favor bestows upon man.
Nowhere in the NT does one find a "plan" for establishing a God-approved and mandated government system. What is overwhelming given to us in Scripture is God's infallible plan to redeem a people for Himself and how those given that privilege are to live according to His holy law. The law in general is a restraint upon sin but never the means to live a holy life. The law is the guide for life to those who have been given the desire and ability to please God, which is only in part in this life but will be fully fulfilled when they are glorified.
So, all the attempts to convince me and obviously the majority of the Christian Church of "Theonomy" are insufficient as the teaching of God for this world. This world is destined to destruction not renovation. The Spirit and the means of law are restraints for one main purpose... to allow the Church to fulfill its two main tasks until the end; 1) feed the sheep, and 2) evangelize by which the elect are called to faith in Christ. Then comes the end.
A better guiding governmental principle is found in the slogan “Don’t Tread on Me”… as a nation under God (as per His design and the natural law that sustains civil society). Further fleshed out via conservative and libertarian principles of individual rights only in association with limited government. Tea Party Movement in its best forms are “ a symbol of fiscal conservatism and opposition to government overreach. “
Checks and balances are unfortunately often even thwarted due to a lack of oversight (e.g., ‘rubber stamps’ of corrupted entities) due to the depravity of men. But in its purest form it’s the best we got.
"Don't Tread on Me" embodies a spirit of independence and resistance to oppression.
If government in tandem with media propaganda, even half-truths, is manipulating masses to embrace / manufacture(d) consent, we need to make our voices heard (especially when our representative options are failing us).
But only God can sustain us for the sake of His elect - that’s the greatest purpose and ultimate reality.
Last edited by Anthony C.; Sat Oct 11, 20251:29 PM.
A better guiding governmental principle is found in the slogan “Don’t Tread on Me”… as a nation under God (as per His design and the natural law that sustains civil society). Further fleshed out via conservative and libertarian principles of individual rights only in association with limited government. Tea Party Movement in its best forms are “ a symbol of fiscal conservatism and opposition to government overreach. “
Checks and balances are unfortunately often even thwarted due to a lack of oversight (e.g., ‘rubber stamps’ of corrupted entities) due to the depravity of men. But in its purest form it’s the best we got.
"Don't Tread on Me" embodies a spirit of independence and resistance to oppression.
If government in tandem with media propaganda, even half-truths, is manipulating masses to embrace / manufacture(d) consent, we need to make our voices heard (especially when our representative options are failing us).
But only God can sustain us for the sake of His elect - that’s the greatest purpose and ultimate reality.
Would you please clarify this post of yours? I’m unsure the thought you’re expressing here. Thanks in advance.
“The foundation of knowledge is God’s revelation.” Dr. Greg Bahnsen
“In the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ appears in order to fulfill the Old Testament hope of the Messiah. He presents himself as the king who has come to establish his kingdom in anticipation of his universal rule.” Dr. Kenneth Gentry
“Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.” William Penn
Tyranny takes various forms - religious, ideological, cultural, etc., but the common denominator is the human heart. Government should be small (and by extension transparent) and force should only be applied when one’s livelihood is threatened. So the idea behind Dont Tread On Me is that government serves the citizen in the prevention of crimes against the person, their property and their ability to live and worship freely. A government that seeks to create and grant unnatural rights attempts to alter reality and enact social experiment / radical societal transformation on behalf of dark and corrupt powers at the behest of unregenerate men. That’s why government should be small, less it engages in greater, corrupt, unnecessary and sinister activity to the detriment of the citizenry.
Christinizing government is an oxymoron. Government is a “necessary evil” at its best. Who are these regenerate men who will establish a truly Christian (even Reformed-Calvinist) form of government and freely God honoring society? Sounds like a recipe for disaster, the mere suggestion of such a thing. There’s a reason why Martin Luther would shudder at the ideas and actual attempts to organize a type of heaven on earth by the men who sought further reforms in his day - it would typically turn ugly and violent (ultimately, an unnecessary quest for power and authority by high-minded, self-serving zealots).
Last edited by Anthony C.; Sat Oct 11, 202510:36 PM.
“The foundation of knowledge is God’s revelation.” Dr. Greg Bahnsen
“In the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ appears in order to fulfill the Old Testament hope of the Messiah. He presents himself as the king who has come to establish his kingdom in anticipation of his universal rule.” Dr. Kenneth Gentry
“Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.” William Penn
Sure… also, you would probably have to Christianize the media, including the news media, and ultimately, the culture, possibly by force - since human hearts will be riled up against so-called changes, in particular, people who value their glorification of sin and social justice. I don’t see a wholesale embrace of Christian law taking hold with a media and culture riled up in opposition without force.
Some Christian Nationalists appear to be gearing up for such a thing (e.g., “hostile takeover”) by promoting that it’s time to “hate” in response to the death of Charlie Kirk.
Last edited by Anthony C.; Sun Oct 12, 202511:55 AM.
I can tell you one thing for certain. Charlie Kirk, would not want that.
I believe that if the Constitution was actually followed as the original writers meant it to be read. The principles of Scripture found in the Constitution, as well as many of the Constitutions of many of the original states. There would not be the problems we are facing today.
There is a culture war going on today, between the original Judeo-Christian ethic America was founded upon and the Cultural Marxist Woke ethic, being pushed.
Woke has definitely declared war and we cannot win by ignoring it.
God is ultimately in control and we need to remember that no matter what happened.
——————- Woke Ideology and Sharia Influence Gaining Ground in North America (A Summary)
— Concerns are growing that Woke Cultural Marxism is merging with Islamic political movements to advance a Sharia-based agenda in parts of Canada and the United States.
Critics say many North Americans—including Christians—are unaware or indifferent, distracted by political polarization and what some call “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”
In the U.S., the Florida legislature has moved to ban Sharia Law, while some Democrats show little resistance. In Canada, even discussing Islam critically can be labeled “Islamophobia,” a term now referenced in federal documents as a potential hate crime.
Observers note a double standard: laws protect Islam from criticism, yet offer little mention of anti-Christian or anti-Semitic hate, explaining why pro-Hamas demonstrations have freely displayed anti-Israel and anti-Christian rhetoric—including flag burnings and chants of “Death to America and Canada.”
Across several U.S. states—Michigan, Minnesota, Texas, and New Jersey—the Muslim call to prayer now echoes through neighborhoods five times daily, prompting complaints from non-Muslims who feel pressured to leave.
Analysts warn these trends mirror Europe’s struggles with Islamic extremism. In Nigeria, more than 100,000 Christians have been killed by Islamist militants in recent years—a crisis largely ignored by Western media.
“What’s happening in Texas and Minneapolis is hard to believe,” said one observer. “We’re watching the erosion of Western values in real time.
————-
If you would like to know my basic position on ‘Christian Nationalism’
That’s fine Tom. People, and Christians, should organize and work around the current political systems as they are being monopolized by the political parties. But you also have to deal with the controls over the mass media and various institutions. I think Christian citizens should organize and take back what they feel needs to be taken back as long as it doesn’t impede their highest calling. Give it a go. Just beware as even the best efforts too often get hijacked. Thankfully, the worst kind of Christian Nationalists are too busy fighting on Twitter to make a bigger mess of things.
Last edited by Anthony C.; Tue Oct 14, 20258:22 PM.
Do you have a problem with natural law as an ethical principle or is general equity a better or more defined foundation? It’s fine that your friend can answer “yes!” Now what’s his plan in the here and now? I can answer yes to a lot of things, but what am I doing to get there? Are there any plans in the works or are we just being (righteously) contrarian in word only? How do (((we))) make (((everyone))) accountable before God and man? I think we are locked into our own bubbles and echo-chambers, but I guess that’s a start. I didn’t watch the whole video but it sounds like Voddie is supporting natural law principles - don’t kill others, don’t take from others, don’t do harm, allow God’s creation principles for righteous living take hold. And biblical realities are at the heart of these things cause it’s where they are derived - that’s the culture war. But once the debate gets too religious even among Christian variants it gets complicated. I heard Stephen Wolfe mentioned. That guy has had association with white supremacists - you might as well be a Darwinian eugenicist if that’s who you get aligned with - he seems to lean more that way. I don’t take Wolfe seriously at all. Doug Wilson published him.
Last edited by Anthony C.; Tue Oct 14, 20259:07 PM.
Even as far as American history is concerned these matters are often not as clear as we think they are…
Quote
The Meaning of "Free Exercise" Preliminary Thoughts TIMON CLINE OCT 10
Dissenting in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), Justice Sandra Day O’Connor made what is perhaps her only ever astute point. “As is the case for a number of the terms used in the Bill of Rights, it is not exactly clear what the Framers thought the phrase signified.” She’s talking about the Free Exercise Clause.
Rather than review Locke’s musings (for the millionth time) or seek out a principle imbedded in the text. I want to briefly look at the use of the term prior to drafting and ratification of the First Amendment. But at the outset we should note that it is confusing to insist that the Free Exercise clause enshrined a principle of individual right of conscience when, prior to incorporation, the Congress had no ability to guarantee it. It was barred from meddling in religious affairs in the states. And this by desire and design early on. In 1776, John Adams expressed desire for “liberal toleration of all religious denominations,” and hoped that “Congress will never meddle with religion.” “Let every colony,” he declared, “have its own religion, without molestation.” This is exactly the settlement enacted by the Constitution.
If the free exercise of individuals (i.e., right of conscience) was being violated—that they weren’t getting exemptions—by the states, there was nothing the fed could do about it, as was understood for some time.
The first ever free exercise case, Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the City of New Orleans, 44 U.S. 589 (1845) denied its own jurisdiction to “question whether an ordinance of the corporate authorities of New Orleans does or does not impair religious liberty.”
“The Constitution makes no provision for protecting the citizens of the respective states in their religious liberties; this is left to the state constitutions and laws. Nor is there any inhibition imposed by the Constitution of the United States in this respect on the states.”
Louisiana was on “equal footing with the original states in all respects whatever.” Therefore, its relationship to the federal constitution was the same as the first colonies turned states. The same bargain was struck.
“So far as they conferred political rights and secured civil and religious liberties (which are political rights), the laws of Congress were all superseded by the state constitution; nor is any part of them in force unless they were adopted by the Constitution of Louisiana as laws of the state… In our judgment, the question presented by the record is exclusively of state cognizance, and equally so in the old states and the new ones.”
Case dismissed. To claim that this case is “uninformative about the meaning of the free exercise clause,” as Michael McConnell does, is laughable. It is immensely informative, it just doesn’t mean (or didn’t) what people want it to now. The free exercise clause had no bearing on, no ability to temper, state measures. So, if it enshrines some individual right of conscience, of exemption from general policy, then it was a lame duck clause. Given that the convention completely rejected Madison’s proposal for preemptive incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states, it is clear that such a development was not expected or wanted. What then would this individual free exercise right do? But scholars are certain that such an individual right was included. Who would it be enforced against? Who would enforce it?
What Madison argued in the Memorial and Remonstrance, viz., an individual right to free exercise, was something only a state could recognize and inaugurate. It makes no sense for a national (or general) government that has already exempted itself from religious policy to guarantee that which it had no purview over. It was not that individual free exercise according to conscience was not recognized in each state; it is simply that the federal constitution was incapable of offering any such guarantee.
George Sharswood (1810-1883), in his notes to Blackstone, says that the right to individual “free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship” had “no place under the English system,” and, therefore, was not found in Blackstone. Chancellor Kent had added the “fourth head” to the personal tripartite rights of security, liberty, and property. Sharwood claims that, per Kent, this right was “ordained by the constitution of the United States” and that “the same prohibition on the State legislatures appears in all the State constitutions.” (He cites Kent’s Commentaries 2:34). Kent’s Commentaries were published between 1826 and 1830. Sharswood is writing much later, so perhaps there were multiple editions. But from what I can tell Kent does not mention religion, profession, or worship in Lecture 24 (Of the Absolute Rights of Persons), nor does he mention these topics in Lecture 34 (Of the History, Progress, and Absolute Rights of Property). His Commentaries on American Law feature no heading dedicated to religion, profession, or worship.
In Lecture 11, Kent notes that whilst the United States government has no religious test for office, some states do. He does not mention this in Lecture 18 (Of the Concurrent Jurisdiction of the State Governments). Where Sharwood is getting this is unclear. What he is right about is that the English common law did not deliver a “free exercise” right to America. Sharwood does not tell us what “free exercise” meant in 1791 or, for that matter, prior to 1791.
Indeed, let’s go back further.
Earlier usage of “free exercise” in the English language stood for full toleration, as in, you were allowed to practice your religion outwardly, not just privately.
My research into late sixteenth and seventeenth century employment of the term cannot yet be considered exhaustive, but it’s a good start. (Yes, this is a research dump. That’s the point of this Substack… so I don’t forget or lose things.) Some examples:
Richard Knolles (1545-1610 (The Turkish History (1687-1700)) notes that early in Islamic conquest, out of necessity, “free toleration of all religions” was granted in order to compete with Christianity, “especially in outward appearance, courted and favored the Christians,” attempting to draw parallels between Islam and Christianity to sooth relations (50). “Mahomet himself” guaranteed this in the “Alchoran” (“If you adore not what I adore, let your Religion be to you, and mine to me”). The standard Mahometan policy was to tolerate existing (“anciently founded”) Christian churches but not permit Christian expansion (52).
Pierre Du Moulin questioned whether it was just for the Pope to tolerate Jews in Rome, “which believe that Jesus Christ was a seducer and deceiver, and there to permit them the free exercise of their religion, and yet to condemn to the first those that say there is no other mediator but Jesus Christ, neither any other propitatorie [sic] sacrifice for his death [i.e., Protestants].” Father Cotton a Iesuite, the Kings confessour, his two and thirtie… (1614) 51.
Edward Brerewood: Noting that in the dukedoms of the Dutch low countries, “only Protestants have the public (for otherwise Arians, Anabaptists, Socinians are here privately tolerated) and free exercise of their religion.” Enquiries touching the diuersity of languages, and religions through ... (1614).
So, in this sense, free exercise meant preferential treatment. But generally, free exercise means outward practice. In other words, free exercise isn’t about inward belief but external demonstration.
But in the mid-seventeenth century, “free exercise” seems to mean unimpeded but not necessarily favored (i.e., not given establishment privileges). Mere toleration on the other hand seems to be that which is not actively persecuted if exercised un-freely, that is, privately. The distinction is between public and private (corporate) religious expression (public services, mainly). Corroborating examples:
“Some heathen emperors also gave commandment, that men should cease from persecuting the Christians, and that Christians should have the free exercise of their religion, build oratories, and places for their meetings and assemblies, and quietly possess them, for the service of their God.” Christopher Sibthorp, A reply to an ansvvere, made by a popish adversarie… (1625), 45.
“… the free exercise of holy function… and free exercise of ecclesiastical function…” Thomas Morton, The grand imposture of the (now) Church of Rome manifested… (1626), 322. “… free exercise of their ministry…” Robert Sanderson, Ten sermons preached … (1627), 37. “… with an edict which was read that the king granted them the free exercise of their religion restoring unto them the cathedral church of Carthage…” John Floyd, An apology of the Holy Sea… (1630), 127. “… free exercise of the mass…” John Hayward, The life, and raigne of King Edward the Sixt (1630), 121. “… the free preaching of pure doctrine, the free exercise of powerful practice…” John Bond, A doore of hope, also holy and loyall activity two treatises… (1641), 16. See also George Hakewill, An ansvvere to a treatise vvritten by Dr. Carier, by way of a letter… (1616), 4 (“… permitting those churches the exercise of their religion within your dominions…”). William Camden, Annales the true and royall history of the famous empresse Elizabeth ... (1625) (“… others who being zealous of the Roman Religion, fretted that they were not permitted the free exercise thereof…”).
You get the gist. The search must and will continue into the late century, but this seems to be the general usage, and I haven’t seen any scholarly treatments of the subject begin there. Free exercise in the early to mid-seventeenth century is when you’re allowed to have church buildings, and pastors, and preaching, etc. The outward forms of worship. The reference point is institutional and communal not individual.
Jumping ahead: By the eighteenth century, toleration seems to have entailed open or public practice and establishment meant state tax support for “maintenance” of ministers and other civil privileges for members of the favored religion.
In a 1772 essay by Franklin in The London Packet, he recounted the founding of New England. Those emigrants left England “to establish a new country for themselves, at their own expense, where they might enjoy the free exercise of religion in their own way.”
Two years later, Hamilton’s Full Vindication of the Measures of the Congress complained that in Canada, English law had been replaced by French law resulting in the establishment of the “Romish faith.” By contrast, “The free exercise of the protestant faith depends upon the pleasure of the Governor and Council.”
In 1775, Hamilton complained about the Quebec Act, a subject of much consternation for him and other Americans at the time. The Act had, in effect, given “the Church of Rome” a “sanction of legal establishment” in that province. In other words, Catholicism had been established in the king’s dominion (i.e., “permanent support of Popery”). This was a most subversive and tyrannical act by the home government. The text of the Act, as quoted by Hamilton, is significant.
“And for the more perfect security and ease of the minds of the inhabitants of the said province, it is hereby declared, that his Majesty’s subjects professing the religion of the church of Rome in the said province, may have, hold, and enjoy, the free exercise of the religion of the church of Rome, subject to the King’s supremacy, &c. and that the clergy of the said church may hold, receive and enjoy their accustomed dues and rights, &c.”
In this case, “free exercise” entailed, for Hamilton, establishment insofar as Roman practice was permitted and clergy supported. It was not just that individual Roman Catholics were tolerated in Quebec. The “free exercise” of that church, by civil sanction, meant that it had been granted authoritative, official status—not simply the toleration of “his Majesty’s subjects professing the religion of the Church of Rome,” but also the recognition of “the clergy of said church.” The “free exercise” of Protestantism and Romanism were mutually exclusive for Hamilton.
Staying in Canada, The Instructions and Commission from Congress to Benjamin Franklin, Charles Carroll, and Samuel Chase for the Canadian Mission (March 20, 1776), the “whole people” of Canada were promised that were promised that the “Exercise of their Religion” would be “undisturbed.” Whatever was in place would remain, and the clergy would retain their estates and whatever other state benefits then enjoyed.
“the Government of every Thing relating to their Religion and Clergy shall be left entirely in the Hands of the good People of that Province, and such Legislature as they shall constitute: provided however that all other Denominations of Christians be equally entitled to hold Offices and enjoy civil Privileges and the free Exercise of their Religion and be totally exempt from the Payment of any Tythes or Taxes for the Support of any Religion.”
Free exercise was, again, inseparable from the outward, communal, institutional practice. Establishment meant public funds; free exercise meant public practice.
The Jefferson Doctrine
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. My still timid contention is that the free exercise provision can only refer to the establishments or religious policy of the states. Congress won’t meddle in those affairs (i.e., the free exercise of state religious policy). That’s what the establishment clause provision means and there’s really only one clause, as Steven Smith likes to point out. And contra Munoz, provisions in the state constitutions can’t help you on this because their referent is obviously, necessarily distinct. A state could guarantee free exercise of individuals, but the fed couldn’t. In any case…
In his Second Inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson reported that, per the constitution, his first administration had left the “free exercise” of religion to the states “as the constitution found them.” Whatever his faults Jefferson’s constitutional theory is not why we’re in the mess we’re in today, as I’ve said before. His wall of separation was basically an exaggerated summary of the pre-incorporation establishment clause. His Fair Copy commentary confirms all this. Akshually, Jefferson was good on the First Amendment. Later, twentieth century courts were just stupid; or rather, motivated.
Michael McConnell rebukes Jefferson for—get this!—not being cutting edge, not being progressive enough. He was still too narrow, too Lockean. He had this weird distinction between belief and action (“the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions “)—a very traditional distinction, to be sure (see Richard Baxter, for example)—says McConnell.
Hence,
“Jefferson’s understanding of the scope and rationale of free exercise rights, however, was more limited even than Locke’s… Jefferson’s advocacy of a belief-action distinction placed him at least a century behind the argument for full freedom of religious exercise in America… Thus, while Jefferson was one of the most advanced advocates of disestablishment, his position on free exercise was extraordinarily restrictive for his day.”
Now McConnell cites William Penn, Obadiah Holmes, and a random comment from St. George Tucker to say that freedom of conscience or belief requires freedom of action. Ergo, free exercise means freedom of conscience actualized, I guess. Wild. Jefferson was antiquated because a Quaker and a Baptist said so—they define the cutting edge (and proper edge), apparently. And this matters why? Do you see now how bad (certainly slim) much of the historical scholarship on this question is? Much philosophical wish casting under the guise of history.
More research in order, but isn’t all this curious? Sandy Day was more directionally correct than the “originalists.”
I am still thinking through them. However, I think all of them are correct on how God thinks about sin. However, I believe only in a theocracy would this work.
I wonder however, if that sounds like a neutral position? If there is one thing I am seeing in the last 5-6 years, is what happens when we go against God’s law.
Thinking through these issues, at present I feel like I am sitting on the fence. But I am not comfortable sitting there.
Something else my friend said:
Quote
Every Reformed Christian is, by confession, a general equity theonomist. The spectrum of debate lies in defining what “general equity” requires—whether it is limited to broad moral principles of justice or extends to the abiding validity of the specific Mosaic case laws and their sanctions
Tom
Have you answered him yet? Inquiring minds need to know!!!
“The foundation of knowledge is God’s revelation.” Dr. Greg Bahnsen
“In the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ appears in order to fulfill the Old Testament hope of the Messiah. He presents himself as the king who has come to establish his kingdom in anticipation of his universal rule.” Dr. Kenneth Gentry
“Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.” William Penn
Tyranny takes various forms - religious, ideological, cultural, etc., but the common denominator is the human heart. Government should be small (and by extension transparent) and force should only be applied when one’s livelihood is threatened. So the idea behind Dont Tread On Me is that government serves the citizen in the prevention of crimes against the person, their property and their ability to live and worship freely. A government that seeks to create and grant unnatural rights attempts to alter reality and enact social experiment / radical societal transformation on behalf of dark and corrupt powers at the behest of unregenerate men. That’s why government should be small, less it engages in greater, corrupt, unnecessary and sinister activity to the detriment of the citizenry.
So, to express these truths which you so well enumerated, we at our house proudly display 1 "Betsy Ross flag", 2 "American flags" and the now infamous "Gadsden flag". And for those who aren't familiar with the history of the Gadsden Flag, here is a short summary of it:
"The Gadsden flag is a historic American flag with a yellow field, a coiled rattlesnake ready to strike, and the words "Don't Tread on Me". It originated during the American Revolution, named after Colonel Christopher Gadsden, and was used by the Continental Navy as a symbol of resistance against British rule. The rattlesnake was a symbol of colonial unity, and the flag's message was a warning to the British. Today, the flag is a symbol of individual rights and limited government, and is often associated with libertarian and conservative movements, including the modern Tea Party movement."
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
![[Linked Image]](https://the-highway.com/Smileys/ButButBut.gif)
the questions are classic Theonomic Reconstructionist ![[Linked Image]](https://the-highway.com/Smileys/2cents.gif)
Every man, woman, and child who breaks any of the Ten Commandments of God are to be executed, correct?
![[Linked Image]](http://the-highway.com/pilgrim/flags.jpg)