Day: May 13, 2008

Dear Pastor — Is Theonomy Like Circumcision?

The coming of Christ, the true Son of God, abolishes national Israel. Since the coming of Christ, there is no more reason for the theocracy. Whether they mean to or not, theonomists are an affront to Christ. They want to have the theocracy that Christ abolished by his coming. He fulfilled the purposes of Israel. To claim those purposes for ourselves is to reject Christ himself.

Read Gal 5:1-5 and replace “circumcision” with “theonomy”.

First, the coming of Christ does indeed abolish national Israel. That is why we don’t see any relevance of that piece of sod in the Middle East for eschatology. However, saying that the coming of Christ abolishes national Israel and saying that the coming of Christ abolishes the law are two quite different statements. The case law that Theonomy appeals to is naught but the moral law applied to concrete situations. If one insists that the case law is abolished one is left saying that the moral law only continues to inform in a completely abstract fashion, or one is left to inconsistently saying that while the moral law applies concretely to individuals it doesn’t apply concretely to the public square where it was specifically given and never rescinded to apply to.

Second, as Theocracy is an inescapable category, the coming of Christ has nothing to do with its elimination. All governmental arrangements are theocratic since all law orders that provide the framework for all social orders are derivative of some expressed or implied Theology. Saying that theocracy is eliminated by the coming of Christ is like insisting that oxygen has been eliminated by the coming of Christ. You can say it all you want but it doesn’t make it so.

Third, we would say that it is not theonomists who are an affront to Christ but rather those who would deny the proper place of His Kingship. They argue against God’s concrete law and they turn around and plead for a Kingship of Jesus that is abstract and debatable. (Debatable because Jesus’ Kingship as expressed by their natural law theories is a Kingship that looks different according to which natural law theorists you speak with.)

You letter however, does reveal the anti-thesis between Christians who are theonomists and Christians who desire to read them out of the Kingdom. It is difficult to see how, if each insists that the other is an affront to Christ how they can co-exist together.

Fourth, theonomist, most assuredly do not desire the Israelite Theocracy that Christ abolished. They want the Theocracy that comes from bearing allegiance to Christ in this age and in this place. Silly boy, why would we ever build fences around our roofs as the Israelite Theocracy was required to? No, the Israelite Theocracy is abolished, but the law of God lives on since it is, after all, Holy, just and good.

Fifth the purpose of Israel is not abolished. The overarching purpose of Israel was to testify and be witnesses to God’s hegemonic glory. That remains the overarching purpose of the Church today. Certainly you are not saying that this purpose is abolished are you? That would be true Reformed Dispensationalism if you were. One way the overarching purpose continues to be pursued is by properly esteeming God’s law (we still meditate on it both day and night), which means that we do not seek to use it as a ladder to climb into the presence of God but rather out of gratitude we seek to conform ourselves in every area of life to God’s law revelation.

Sixth, thus it is quite clear that theonomists do not reject Christ himself, though once again we see the anti-thesis here between Classical Reformed Theology and more recent Reformed innovations. We see it because it is the conviction of many a theonomist that it is the Reformed innovations that are rejecting Christ himself. So, each side continues to hurl invective at one another.

1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free,[a] and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become a theonomist, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes a theonomist that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

First, while it might have been convenient for your argument if the Holy Spirit had inspired the writer to write ‘theonomy’ instead of ‘circumcision’ such is not the case and the suggestion of replacing one word for the other is completely gratuitous and may border on faulting the Holy Spirit for not using the word that you would prefer.

Second, while Scripture makes it abundantly clear that the ceremonial law has been fulfilled (not abolished) and so no longer in force it does not make the same case for the moral law which the civil law is but the concrete embodiment of.

Third, your position consistently embraced would (and some would say does) result in public square anti-nomianism.

Fourth, you come perilously close to bearing false witness about Theonomists since no theonomist has ever come close to teaching that we are justified by the law as the Judaizers taught that the Galatians would be justified by circumcision. Do you have no conscience against bearing false witness or do you not have to be concerned about that since your comments are in the public square and the law does not apply to the public square? Once again, I would recommend Samuel Bolton’s book to you that teaches a very standard Reformed and Puritan view of the Law.

I hope this helps you think your way through these matters more precisely,

Pastor Bret

Washington Post Confirms Instincts

I’ve been saying for some time that even though White Marxists have won the Presidency in America a Black Marxist can’t win the Presidency in America. Now, I don’t want any Marxist winning the Presidency, and though I shouldn’t need to say it I am happy to report I would be glad to pull a lever for a Walter Williams or a Thomas Sowell if they were running against a White Marxist. The article below confirms on some level what I have instinctively known and have been saying for quite some time, which is a Black Marxist with a Muslim name can’t win the Presidency in America. I link it here because I haven’t read any place else the kind of analysis that agrees with observations that I’ve been giving for some time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051203014_pf.html

Now, in order to cover myself I personally think it odd that a person who would vote for a White Marxist wouldn’t likewise vote for a Black Marxist but it is what it is. Perhaps the reason is a sense of ethnic homogeneity? Perhaps people will vote for a White Marxist and not a Black Marxist with a Muslim name because the White Marxist still is wearing their face with their features.

Here is quote from the article that supports that observation,

“One Pittsburgh union organizer told her he would not vote for Obama because he is black, and a white voter, she said, offered this frank reason for not backing Obama: ‘White people look out for white people, and black people look out for black people.‘

And again,

Karen Seifert, an Obama volunteer from New York, was outside of the largest polling location in Lackawanna County, Pa., on primary day when she was pressed by a Clinton volunteer to explain her backing of Obama. “I trust him,” Seifert replied. According to Seifert, the woman pointed to Obama’s face on Seifert’s T-shirt and said: “He’s a half-breed and he’s a Muslim. How can you trust that?”

Again, I am not condoning the response that the article reveals. I’m just saying it is the way things are, and I’m saying that somebody is confirming what I’ve been saying for some time. It is interesting also that Hillary knows the same thing. This is seen in her quote this past week relating an AP article,

“that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

“There’s a pattern emerging here,” said Hillary. “I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on.”

Also earlier Hillary took time to talk about having a broader base to win on. She argued that her coalition is broader and stronger against McCain that B. Hussein’s. One of her chief lieutenants, Paul Begala, even went so far as to contrast Hillary’s coalition with the ‘Egghead and Black coalition’ that B. Hussein was building. It is clear that Hillary likewise realizes what this Washington Post article reports on.

Still, as I’ve likewise said before, B. Hussein Obama, even though he is black could still not lose this election due to the very weak candidacy of his Republican opponent. In other words, all that is working against Obama as reported in that article still might not be enough to keep him out of the White House (now there’s some irony) since McCain is running away from his base and since McCain looks like he will wage his candidacy according to the PC rules that will not allow him to criticize the black guy for fear of being labeled a racist by the major media outlets..

For those who will get some satisfaction on me being wrong — remember I didn’t think Hillary would lose the nomination, and while I’m still not convinced she will lose it is becoming more and more difficult to see how she wins.