"Theonomy"

[Kishkumen]

Know your enemy, the old adage goes. If you believe in the basic framework of the US Constitution and want to be governed by that constitutional republican system, then your enemy is the theonomist. The theonomist believes that in some sense the law of Israel should be the law governing the United States of America today.

Some theonomists, following Van Til, the father of presuppositional apologetics, frame the question with the following false dichotomy: one either chooses theonomy, "God's law," or autonomy, "self-rule." Of course, the "law of God" to which they refer is their interpretation of the law of Moses in the Old Testament. The theonomists come out of the Reformed Theology tradition. In other words, the Protestant view of God and scripture is preferred over the views of the Catholic, Orthodox, or any other branch of Christianity. Even more narrowly, Reformed Theology is associated with Calvinism.

One of the central ideas in theonomy is the tripartite division of God's law into moral, ceremonial, and civil. Many Christians believe that in Christ the ceremonial and civil law were done away with. This means that there is no need to follow the ritual procedures of the law or to expect the application of the civil punishments of the law. Only the obligation to follow the moral law remains. For theonomists, the ceremonial law was done away with through Christ, but the moral AND civil law remain in force. Ergo, the only Godly government today, one that would not lead people to sin, is one that imposes the penalties of the civil law.

When you listen to theonomists, many of them try to soft-pedal the implications of insisting on the continuing obligation to follow God's civil law. The focus on things like the prescription to love one's fellow beings, etc. What they don't start out with is the stoning of adulterers, gays, etc. Ultimately, however, this is the kind of thing that following Old Testament civil law would entail. As theonomy has evolved, it has contributed to the foundation of Christian Nationalism. The best articulation of Christian Nationalism in book form is Stephen Wolfe's Case for Christian Nationalism, which advocates for theocratic Caesarism.

Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, is a parishioner of Doug Wilson, one of the leading pastors and influencers of the Christian Nationalist/theonomy movement. He and his family joined Wilson's congregation in 2023. If anyone is curious about the origin of Hegseth's loonytunes' patriarchal views, they essentially come from Wilson.

The theonomists may find common cause with the folks in the other fringe right-wing movement known as the New Apostolic Reformation, which seeks to establish Christian dominion over all major levers of influence in the country, including the media, education, entertainment, business, government et al. Among its supporters are Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Lauren Boebert, Paula White, the late Charlie Kirk, etc. Finally, there are the fringe right-wing Catholics such as Amy Coney Barrett, JD Vance, and Steve Bannon, whose views resonate well with the Christian nationalism and dominionism of the other groups. Bannon has been a big advocate for the reestablishment of Christendom, or the view that Christianity is crucial for the survival of Western civilization and must be given a bigger say in society and politics for that reason.

[Chap]

One of the central ideas in theonomy is the tripartite division of God's law into moral, ceremonial, and civil. Many Christians believe that in Christ the ceremonial and civil law were done away with. This means that there is no need to follow the ritual procedures of the law or to expect the application of the civil punishments of the law. Only the obligation to follow the moral law remains. For theonomists, the ceremonial law was done away with through Christ, but the moral AND civil law remain in force. Ergo, the only Godly government today, one that would not lead people to sin, is one that imposes the penalties of the civil law.

Of course, the division of the commandments of the Abrahamic God as set out in the original text of the Torah makes no distinction between "moral, ceremonial, and civil" law. That distinction is made solely by people who want to dump some commandments and insist on people observing some others with absolute strictness.

And of course, so far as us ordinary human beings are concerned NONE of these commandments were delivered to us by a deity. All we know is that various guys at various times said stuff like "Hey! You know what? <name of deity> spoke to me and said everybody has to do <stuff>. Oh, and he said that anybody who didn't do that stuff he told me about had to be killed".

The preceding paragraph is phrased in a jokey manner. But in fact, I am deadly serious. All we have ever had from all those supposed deities is various people telling us what they were told by the said deities when no-one else was around. Why on earth do we keep falling for it?

[Some Schmo]

The preceding paragraph is phrased in a jokey manner. But in fact, I am deadly serious. All we have ever had from all those supposed deities is various people telling us what they were told by the said deities when no-one else was around. Why on earth do we keep falling for it?

You've articulated something I suppose I think about more than might be healthful.

It's one thing to believe in a deity, despite having absolutely no evidential reasons for authentic belief. I honestly don't have a problem with it if you're self-aware enough to put that belief in perspective, and keep it personal and to yourself.

It feels to me that people who want to force their god belief on everyone else is rightfully insecure about that belief. They don't have good reasons to believe, so they keep yelling about it to convince themselves. It's performative; fake it till you make it.

Not to mention it's a naked power grab. People have been suckering others using their desire to believe in a god and heaven for centuries. There are rubes, and there are the folks who make money off the rubes in the religion eco-system.

And everyone outside that religion eco-system is victimized by their group insanity.

[Jersey Girl]

The preceding paragraph is phrased in a jokey manner. But in fact, I am deadly serious. All we have ever had from all those supposed deities is various people telling us what they were told by the said deities when no-one else was around. Why on earth do we keep falling for it?

You've articulated something I suppose I think about more than might be healthful.

Me too.

It's one thing to believe in a deity, despite having absolutely no evidential reasons for authentic belief.

I agree with you in some parts not in others. I'm not countering your statements, I'm offering a different view point. I'm asking for space to do it as I try to make it understandable. Not here to debate.

I believe that I do have evidence that would best be described as subjective and deeply personal. As in...God is responsible for all that has been created and that includes me. The responses I believe I have experienced have been directed towards me as an individual in specific circumstances. Many would call them coincidental. I, of course, believe otherwise. No one walks the mile in my shoes except for me.

with regard to deity. I don't think I have a grasp on what a deity actually is, what divine actually means, and I don't think I practice reverence.

I honestly don't have a problem with it if you're self-aware enough to put that belief in perspective, and keep it personal and to yourself.

I agree with this wholeheartedly but up to a point. On the board here I often express how I've experienced a situation and attributed it to God. On the other hand, I shy away from preaching and/or ramming supportive scripture down people's throats.

I think my position with regard to whomever is to live out my beliefs in front of whomever. Whether I am successful in that is another matter. I really stink at it most days.

It feels to me that people who want to force their god belief on everyone else is rightfully insecure about that belief. They don't have good reasons to believe, so they keep yelling about it to convince themselves. It's performative; fake it till you make it.

I consider that possibility just like you do. The best I have is familiarity with scripture and the ability to determine whether or not what a person is laying down is Biblical or not. What I'm seeing politically is diametrically opposed to the teachings of Yeshua.

Not to mention it's a naked power grab. People have been suckering others using their desire to believe in a god and heaven for centuries. There are rubes, and there are the folks who make money off the rubes in the religion eco-system.

Since the beginning of time! We're seeing it right now in the current administration and so far as I can tell, it's a global trend.

And everyone outside that religion eco-system is victimized by their group insanity.

Yes. And then there are those who claim Christianity who behave more like defensive, deflective, passive aggressive, intellectual whoopee cushions. You can see them every day on this board and in videos/news and such.

Consider this my 2 cents thrown in the collection plate.

[Jersey Girl]

Kish I'm not going to reply to your post. Don't have time. I wanted to say that I read probably everything you post. I appreciate what you share so much as well as your delivery.

[Some Schmo]

I honestly don't have a problem with it if you're self-aware enough to put that belief in perspective, and keep it personal and to yourself.

I agree with this wholeheartedly but up to a point. On the board here I often express how I've experienced a situation and attributed it to God. On the other hand, I shy away from preaching and/or ramming supportive scripture down people's throats.

I think my position with regard to whomever is to live out my beliefs in front of whomever. Whether I am successful in that is another matter. I really stink at it most days.

I perceive you as genuine, and I've never found you religiously preachy (maybe on some other topics, but who isn't sometimes?)

You're the exception I always keep in mind. You're the example I hope represents a larger percentage than I suspect.

Consider this my 2 cents thrown in the collection plate.

Appreciated.

[Jersey Girl]

I agree with this wholeheartedly but up to a point. On the board here I often express how I've experienced a situation and attributed it to God. On the other hand, I shy away from preaching and/or ramming supportive scripture down people's throats.

I think my position with regard to whomever is to live out my beliefs in front of whomever. Whether I am successful in that is another matter. I really stink at it most days.

I perceive you as genuine, and I've never found you religiously preachy (maybe on some other topics, but who isn't sometimes?)

You're the exception I always keep in mind. You're the example I hope represents a larger percentage than I suspect.

Consider this my 2 cents thrown in the collection plate.

Appreciated.

Oh heck please don't let me be an example. I strive to follow the teachings of Yeshua and I mess up every single day of my life. I'm just as prone to posting supporting scripture as I am to toss out F bombs. Whatever. It's me.

for what it's worth I'm deeply disturbed by the attitudes of those who claim Christ that I see online including on this board. I'm no stranger to discernment. I know what I'm seeing. I'm only responsible for my own walk. Not theirs.

[Gadianton]

Thanks Reverend for the fascinating history behind the malpractice of Christianity.

When you listen to theonomists, many of them try to soft-pedal the implications of insisting on the continuing obligation to follow God's civil law. The focus on things like the prescription to love one's fellow beings, etc. What they don't start out with is the stoning of adulterers,

It's becoming more common for them to advertise the outrageous stuff, because that's what the base likes to hear. "We're going to stone everyone who doesn't agree with us." If you're going to start a Christian politics channel on YouTube today, you'll get way more views if you make the outrageous stuff your platform. In fact, if you aren't, you may get no views.

Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, is a parishioner of Doug Wilson, one of the leading pastors and influencers of the Christian Nationalist/theonomy movement. He and his family joined Wilson's congregation in 2023. If anyone is curious about the origin of Hegseth's loonytunes' patriarchal views, they essentially come from Wilson.

I didn't know that, thanks for the heads up. He's one of the many "junkyard dog", ironic Christians out there today, along with the rest of his cabinet, Fox hosts, WFC fighters etc. There are two camps here. One is actual Christian traditionalists. These people actually really do believe in the Bible and even believe in helping the poor (in their own way), they've gone to church their whole lives and over time, right-wing politics has slowly taken over their religious lives, but they still fundamentally do believe in God and Jesus and all that. The ironic Christians are the "bad boy" or "Bad girl" Christians who are going to "F you up" in the name of the Lord. Most of these don't actually believe in God, like the president and Hegseth. Can you tell me how many times he went to church in his life before he got involved with Wilson? Blasting the head off your dog while wearing a cross -- that's the brand.

These folks are extremely popular with the true believers much like Schryver was popular with the apologists, who billed himself as a Samuel Jackson in Pulp Fiction, a guy who read Ezekiel before offing his victims. The base admires their strength and pretends to believe that these folks are actually sincere. Fascism needs both kinds. I wouldn't say that one is morally preferable to the other. I have more sympathy for the fakers because there will always be bad people in the world, and I can't really blame bad people for taking such easy money off the table.

[Kishkumen]

Of course, the division of the commandments of the Abrahamic God as set out in the original text of the Torah makes no distinction between "moral, ceremonial, and civil" law. That distinction is made solely by people who want to dump some commandments and insist on people observing some others with absolute strictness.

Thanks for pointing out, Chap!

[Kishkumen]

I consider that possibility just like you do. The best I have is familiarity with scripture and the ability to determine whether or not what a person is laying down is Biblical or not. What I'm seeing politically is diametrically opposed to the teachings of Yeshua.

That's the problem I have with the whole thing. It is like they can't let go of the punitive Calvinism and prefer that to Jesus.