Theonomy and the Two Kingdoms 

@Rebuked Falsehood I feel like every book Bahnsen wrote on theonomy after the first one was clarifying and repeating the same counterpoint to the same criticisms over and over again, often just by highlighting that he already anticipated and countered the objection in his original work. I think it is an interesting subject, and think more people engaging it would be interesting, so go for it! I'm a bit afraid that the church is too much in an antinomian slump, in part no doubt as an overreaction to abusive legalism, but also in part due to trying to fit into a society that no longer considers God's word as all that relevant to day to day life. I think we need more gospel 101 for christians so that they better understand the law gospel distinction and why Jesus answered that the first and second commandments, the two that summed up the entire law, was love of God and love of neighbor. Yet It seems too many of us act as if Jesus taught, "if you love me, ignore my commandments," or Paul stopped at saying "we should sin all the more so grace may abound," and forgot to read his sharp rebuke at such a thought. We forget that God's Law is his handbook on how to love. Talking about God's law for us collectively is difficult when we don't even recognize why it should be important to us individually as Christians.

Well said. Very well said.

Could you provide a source for that? I'd be interested in seeing the reasoning.

@@DrJordanBCooper I looked it up and apparently the Mosaic civil law was added to our old law from the late Middle ages by King Karl IX in 1608. Karl IX had some Reformed sympathies so maybe thats were it comes from idk. However this law was retained by our Lutheran kings up until 1734 when it was replaced by a new civil code. Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristofers_landslag

Also i meant the 18th century not the 19th

@@samuel6583 Thanks! I'll have to do some reading on that.

Except we are in the world. If a Christian guy noticed a beautiful girl and decided to justify trying to seduce her for a one night stand by appealing to God's kingdom not being of the world, therefore the Bible has nothing to say for today on worldly things like sex, everyone would immediately recognize a gross misapplication of that teaching (or maybe not everyone given how far the modern church has slipped away from God's word). But ponder whether God's word might inform our reasoning when considering our vote in an election or what policies an elected representative should pursue, and suddenly everyone gets up in arms. God's word has things to say in both of those spheres of life and it doesn't contradict God's kingdom not being of the world to bring scripture to bear on all aspects of our lives, including the civil sphere.

Dan 2:44 "In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever. Mat 26:29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom." Luke 22:18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes." Luke 9:27 "But I say to you truthfully, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God." Ready? Luke 24:41-43 While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; and He took it and ate it before them. Acts 10:40-41 God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible, not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. You're welcome.

@@TheDeathInTheAir Very good passages, but I do not understand where you were going with this.

@@Outrider74 You should. Take note of the word, "Kingdom". Now recite the Lord's prayer. If you're born-again, you'll get it. If you're not born-again, you'll still get it.

@@TheDeathInTheAir Are you referring to "thy kingdom come"? If you mean in the sense of the kingdom spreading through the gospel to build the church and ULTIMATELY being established upon the Second Coming and final judgment, I agree wholeheartedly.

I agree. From what I've seen, the understanding of 2K in historic magisterial Protestantism is all pretty similar. When I criticize the way this has been characterized in Reformed thought, I'm almost exclusively speaking about the latter half of the twentieth century until today. I'm appreciative of Davenant and other groups promoting the classical conception in more recent years.

@@DrJordanBCooper Thanks. I think the "Reformed" positions being argued about on social media are rarely the historic positions.

@@MarkGoddard1973 That is generally true.

This is late and you many have found an answer to this, but yes there is more to the moral law, and there is also some overlap. Some examples would be all forms of sexual immorality (besides adultry because that's one of the ten). The ten commandments had civil punishments tied to them. We however, are not ancient Israel, so we can hold the moral part as binding to the Christian and being sin to go against, while not carrying out the civil punishments.

@@logansweet4190, greetings. You contend that, since we are "not ancient Israel", we may forgo the relevant "civil punishments" - although we are still bound to the "moral part" of the law, the "ten commandments." I'm interested in your reasoning. The civil punishments were stipulated alongside the substantive injunctions; as you say, "the ten commandments had civil punishments tied to them." Why, then, are the relevant civil punishments not fundamentally "moral" in nature? Suppose that a civil magistrate were to sentence a petty thief to capital punishment and a cold-blooded murderer to a small fine. Wouldn't it be the case that the magistrate acted immorally in his application of said penal sanctions? In other words, are not the appropriate penal sanctions a matter of morality and justice? If so, it seems to follow that, if God decreed some punishment X for some standing statute Y, and promulgated the sum legislation as a righteous model for the nations of the world to emulate (Dt. 4:5-8), then both the general equity of the statute and the civil punishment are morally binding. What do you think?

@@chrismathew2295 The problem with your example is 1. Civilizations across the world who had no idea about escalating punishment. In a sense I guess you could say the natural law written on all of our hearts (usually described as the first use of the law) was enough for this. Without any knowledge of the Mosaic law and it's punishments. 2. The punishments under the Mosaic Covenant are for covenant breakers since the whole nation was under the Mosaic Law. The US or any other nation is simply not under this covenant, so no the punishments are not morally binding. However, the morality behind those laws absolutely are appicable (at least all those with an applicable morality) and this is seen in that the Apostles call many of the same things as sin in the NT. This is most sussicntly expressed in the 10 commandments, but could also be applied to things like homosexuality, bribery etc. except without the punishments, because those were for covenant breakers in a covenant which has now been fulfilled.

​@@logansweet4190, thanks for the reply. A few comments: i.) I'm not too sure what you mean by your remark on "civilisations" and "escalating punishment." Perhaps you can clarify? ii.) You write that the "punishments under the Mosaic Covenant are [solely] for covenant breakers." This is problematic on several grounds: a) Earlier, I used a couple of examples to highlight how penal sanctions generally are moral in character. Thus, I think that we are prima facie justified in believing that stipulations concerning civil punishments are moral in nature, unless we are faced with evidence for the contrary. If so, one must demonstrate from the Scriptures that the civil punishments were uniquely designed for "[Old] covenant breakers." b) You say something to that effect, "... since the whole nation was under the Mosaic Law." However, as I pointed out earlier, we know from Deut. 4:5-8 that God's civil law (including the penal sanctions) was a righteous model for the nations of the world to emulate. Furthermore, it must be spoken before kings (Psa. 119:46; cf. 2:9f). It is a "light" to the whole world (Isa. 51:4), despite the fact the entire earth has transgressed it (Isa. 24:5). The Canaanites were judged for its breach (Lev. 18:24-27; Deut. 12:29-31). By it all the wicked are condemned (Psa. 119:118-119; Rom. 3:19). Therefore, whilst it's correct to say that ancient Israel was "under the Mosaic law," the Scriptures conspicuously teach that God's law was not to be limited to national Israel. c) Consider the fact that both the civil laws and the relevant penal sanctions were applied to citizen and stranger alike (eg., Nu. 15:16). This is sufficient to defeat the claim that the "civil punishments" were somehow reserved for Jewish "covenant breakers." Without going into other arguments, this by itself should put to rest the broader objection to theonomy that says the Mosaic code was only for that covenanted people. iii.) You write that, "The US or any other nation is simply not under this covenant, so no the punishments are not morally binding. However, the morality behind those laws absolutely are applicable." Unfortunately, this just seems to beg the question. We can play the game of "no, this is moral!", "no, that is moral!", until the cows come home. In my earlier reply, I think I already demonstrated that penal sanctions are a moral matter. If you want to dispute my reasoning, go ahead. But repeating the line, "the punishments are not morally binding", isn't very compelling. iv.) You write, "[T]his is seen in that the Apostles call many of the same things as sin in the NT." Question. Do you believe that an Old Testament command is morally binding if, and only if, the New Testament repeats it? v.) You write, "... except without the punishments, because those were for covenant breakers in a covenant which has now been fulfilled." Notice the problem with this line of reasoning. According to these premises, I can easily argue: "Forget about the prohibition on homosexual behaviour because those were for covenant-breakers in a covenant which has now been fulfilled." Of course, both of us would agree that argument is flawed; we recognise that certain instructions are moral in nature and, as such, they transcend particular covenants. I simply contend that God's instructions concerning the civil punishments were also moral in nature, and I think that's the most reasonable position to hold. What's your argument for saying otherwise? I hope to continue this dialogue!

@@chrismathew2295, I can clarify sure. Would you admit that ancient Rome would have a decent law system even though, at least during the days of the republic, they had literally no clue the Mosaic Law? If so then the 1st use of the law, think something like the conscience or the natural law written on the hearts of all, keeps us in line very close to what God desires. This is without the prescribed punishments given in Exodus or Leviticus. 2. I don't deny the law was righteous. I do deny that it is some sort of template for how to run a country. It was part of the covenant given to Israel as a guardian until the time of the Messiah (Gal. 3:24). I also don't deny that there is some morality tied to punishments. However, be careful how you apply this. On a personal level even the whitest of lies deserves death on a moral level. As a response to Deut. 4:5-8 it basically just says that the law is righteous and Israel will prosper if it follows the law. Again, I don't deny it's righteousness I deny the template part. It is focused entirely around Israel and people marveling at Israel at how much God is making them prosper, but I would argue this is so more people become part of Israel not so that we can sprout bunches of theocracies. Towards the objection of it applies to gentiles, yes gentiles weren't allowed to murder people in Israel to protect the covenant people, but I would ask you to look at the context of Num. 15. It is clearly about if a gentile wants to give an offering to God this was not required of all gentiles in Israel, so I don't think it really makes your point. 3. No it is pretty clear which parts are moral and which aren't. The church has understood the difference between the moral and ceremonial law for most of its history, and as I said before the moral law can be summed up with the 10 commandments. Anyone who tries to split hairs is at best missing the point of the moral law but trying to break it into nit-picky commands and restrictions, or they are trying to deny things it says. Using the homosexuality example, someone may try to argue that if homosexuality is monogamous it isn't adultery, but even a cursory reading of Leviticus, Romans, and 1 Cor. shows this to be wrong. 4. No I believe the moral aspects of the law are binding in that breaking them is sin. However, Christ came to forgive sins, so when I do break it I have mercy from Christ instead of being without mercy under the judgment of Moses Heb. 10:28-29. 5. No you can't say forget about the prohibition on homosexuality. That is a moral issue and it is sin to break that moral law. I would object to taking a gay couple out into the street and stoning them to death. How would you apply the death penalty? Stoning? That's what Leviticus says to do. Would you give them time on death row to hear the gospel so there is the hope of mercy? Would you also do so to those who aren't Christians? Being an Israelite and pagan were incompatible would you make it so for America? What about the RCC? They are Trinitarian with proper Christology. By every right they are Christian with wrong theology on Justification. This is one of the problems with a Theonomy. Either you will basically remake ancient Israel (in which case you may find some friends among dispensationalists), or you will make arbitrary lines that aren't found in the Torah in which case I would just point you to James 2:10, and Gal. 5:2,9.

Amen. Plus, have you ever noticed, when he laughs, he sounds just like Barney Rubble from the Flintstones?

Lol