Christian Reconstructionism:

[Esaias]

"Oh, but wait, people will fight over Bible interpretations and so society will not be governed perfectly! It will be a nightmare!"

People are imperfect, rebellious, sinful, corrupt, evil. That is a given. And it is a given not only in this argument, not only within the "theonomy" debate, but within the Bible itself. So, no matter what rules are used to govern society, there will be problems and even corruptions.

But consider a family. It is composed of sinful, corrupt, fallen humans. So then should the family decide to categorically REJECT trying to follow the Bible, and instead adopt say humanism or Dr Spock's crazy ideas as the template to follow? Or would it not be better for that family to look to the Bible, and try to follow God's Word as the guiding light for it's direction? Sure, we want that family to be regenerated, so that the Spirit within would produce obedience to God's Word. But to suggest that because they may or may not be regenerate they should therefore just abandon the Bible altogether as a guidebook for the family is crazy and a total surrender to evil and wickedness!

All law is moral. All legislation is a legislation of morality. Morality is simply "what people ought to do, or ought not to do". And law is exactly that, rules determining what people ought, and ought not, to do. Therefore, all law is moral, all legislation is a legislating of morality.

The question for society is "Whose morality is going to be legislated? God's? Or man's?"

"Oh, but fallen corruptible man is liable to misinterpret or abuse God's legislation!" As if fallen corruptible man isn't liable to misinterpret or abuse corrupt, fallen humanistic legislation?

God has already legislated. He is the Lawgiver, in fact He is the ONE Lawgiver (James 4:12). All "legislators" of human governments therefore are duty bound to simply enforce the legislation that is already on the books, that is to say, already in The Book, the Bible. And it is the church's job to tell human governments exactly that:

To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:
(Ephesians 3:10-11)

The church's job is to make the manifold wisdom of God known to the principalities and powers. God's wisdom is manifold, it covers all sorts of things, applies to everything, and provides guidance to all, in all situations.

But the wisdom of God begins with the fear of the Lord (Provrbs 9:10), and the fear of the Lord is to hate evil (Proverbs 8:13). What is evil? Who defines what is good and evil?

All legislation concerns good and evil, because all legislation is moral, and morality has to do with good and evil. Good is what men ought to do, and evil is what men ought not to do. So all legislation, all law, all politics, concerns good and evil. But again, who defines good and evil? God? Or man?

If God defines good and evil, then all legislation that promotes what God calls evil is itself evil. And the fear of the Lord is to hate evil and every false way. Therefore, anyone who has the fear of the Lord will hate any and all legislation and rulemaking that promotes what God calls evil. And remember, the civil power is ordained by God for the express purpose of punishing evil and rewarding good:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
(Romans 13:1-4)

[Esaias]

Wow, I literally cannot see the last post I made on this topic, and everytime I try to repost it I get a message saying "this is a duplicate" blah blah blah. so here it is again, in case it disappears:

"Oh, but wait, people will fight over Bible interpretations and so society will not be governed perfectly! It will be a nightmare!"

People are imperfect, rebellious, sinful, corrupt, evil. That is a given. And it is a given not only in this argument, not only within the "theonomy" debate, but within the Bible itself. So, no matter what rules are used to govern society, there will be problems and even corruptions.

But consider a family. It is composed of sinful, corrupt, fallen humans. So then should the family decide to categorically REJECT trying to follow the Bible, and instead adopt say humanism or Dr Spock's crazy ideas as the template to follow? Or would it not be better for that family to look to the Bible, and try to follow God's Word as the guiding light for it's direction? Sure, we want that family to be regenerated, so that the Spirit within would produce obedience to God's Word. But to suggest that because they may or may not be regenerate they should therefore just abandon the Bible altogether as a guidebook for the family is crazy and a total surrender to evil and wickedness!

All law is moral. All legislation is a legislation of morality. Morality is simply "what people ought to do, or ought not to do". And law is exactly that, rules determining what people ought, and ought not, to do. Therefore, all law is moral, all legislation is a legislating of morality.

The question for society is "Whose morality is going to be legislated? God's? Or man's?"

"Oh, but fallen corruptible man is liable to misinterpret or abuse God's legislation!" As if fallen corruptible man isn't liable to misinterpret or abuse corrupt, fallen humanistic legislation?

God has already legislated. He is the Lawgiver, in fact He is the ONE Lawgiver (James 4:12). All "legislators" of human governments therefore are duty bound to simply enforce the legislation that is already on the books, that is to say, already in The Book, the Bible. And it is the church's job to tell human governments exactly that:

To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:
(Ephesians 3:10-11)

The church's job is to make the manifold wisdom of God known to the principalities and powers. God's wisdom is manifold, it covers all sorts of things, applies to everything, and provides guidance to all, in all situations.

But the wisdom of God begins with the fear of the Lord (Provrbs 9:10), and the fear of the Lord is to hate evil (Proverbs 8:13). What is evil? Who defines what is good and evil?

All legislation concerns good and evil, because all legislation is moral, and morality has to do with good and evil. Good is what men ought to do, and evil is what men ought not to do. So all legislation, all law, all politics, concerns good and evil. But again, who defines good and evil? God? Or man?

If God defines good and evil, then all legislation that promotes what God calls evil is itself evil. And the fear of the Lord is to hate evil and every false way. Therefore, anyone who has the fear of the Lord will hate any and all legislation and rulemaking that promotes what God calls evil. And remember, the civil power is ordained by God for the express purpose of punishing evil and rewarding good:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
(Romans 13:1-4)

[Esaias]

"But you theonomists want to take over the government and force the Bible on everyone!"

Regardless of what society you have, somebody's morality will be "forced upon" you. So should it be man's morality, or God's? It is amazing how many "Christians" object to living by the Word of God! The humanists, atheists, Muslims, new agers, wiccans, sodomites, adulterers, fornicators, liars, and everybody else are certain to be opposed to God's Word. but Christians are supposed to be the ones TEACHING THE NATIONS TO OBEY CHRIST! But in reality, most of them want nothing to do with such things. Why? Good question, I'll let the reader figure that one out.

Christians are not called to violently overthrow any governments. All governments are ordained by God, there is NO POWER THAT IS NOT ORDAINED BY GOD (Romans 13:1). However, Christians are commanded to teach the nations to obey God. That of course means obeying God's Word, the Holy Bible. All men everywhere are to repent:

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
(Acts 17:30-31)

That's ALL men - from the Queen or King, President, Prime Minister, Governor, Mayor, Congressman, Judge, Dogcatcher, Mailman, or grocery clerk. ALL are to repent. All are to CEASE FROM SIN (which is transgression of God's law)/ Therefore, all are commanded to begin obeying God in all things, all areas. This means the judge must rule in accordance with the Word of God. The king must lead in accordance with the Word of God. The Congressman must perform his duties in obedience to the Word of God. The dogcatcher must perform his duties in accordance with the word of God. And so on and so forth for everyone.

When people begin to obey God, on a national level, that is nothing less than national repentance and national revival.

"The nation needs revival!" This just means the nation, as a nation, needs to stop sinning and start obeying the Bible, God's Word.

The idea of "Christian Reconstruction" involves the RECONSTRUCTION of society in accordance with the Word of God. It means the preaching of the Gospel of GOD'S KINGDOM (DOMINION and AUTHORITY) to all, including to the nation as a nation, and by the propagation of the Gospel securing the conversion of sinners to Christian obedience to God. And by this means, the society is transformed and brought to obedience to God.

Will it be perfect? The church itself isn't "perfect", but does this absove the church from it's responsibilities to follow Christ and His Word? Of course not. Neither does it absolve the nations from their responsibility to repent and submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

So, "Reconstruction" involves Revival, then Reformation. A revival in the church, to get it's act together and start promoting Christ's Gospel instead of some goofy man made religious hokey nonsense. A revival in society stemming from a revived and empowered church that knows what it's doing and why. A revival in society will lead to a reformation of that society.

And suppose society rejects the revival? Says no to reformation? Persecutes the church? AS history shows, usually God brings reformation to that kind of antichrist society the hard way, usually by destroying that society or enslaving it in bondage to another. This punitive action, if it does not destroy said society, will often set up conditions later on for a potential revival.

As examples: Judea, AD 70 - rejected Messiah and the Gospel, and wiped out by the Romans.

Rome, 1st-4th centuries: Rejected and persecuted the church until christianity became influential enough to convert the Imperial family and producing at the least a Christian-based society rather than a pagan devil worship based society that lasted for several centuries (in the East for a millennium).

Just look at Eastern Europe: Formerly communist, now communism overthrown and Christianity becoming more and more the basis for society, with the gospel being more freely preached there than EVER BEFORE since the days of the early Roman empire!

It has nothing to do with Christians "forcibly taking over government". It has to do with the church teaching all men to obey God in all areas, including government and politics. And by the power and grace of God, His Kingdom will advance (and has been):

Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.
(Daniel 2:35)


And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
(Daniel 2:44)

Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works. All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy name. For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone.
(Psalms 86:8-10)

And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.
(Revelation 15:3-4)

[Esaias]

"But trinitarians will burn Oneness people at the stake!"

The mission of the church is to teach. The mission of the state is to punish evil. But the state cannot fulfill its mission unless it has been taught. The more perfect the teaching, the more perfect the fulfillment of its responsibilities.

It is the sphere of the church to handle doctrine. It is not the sphere of the state to handle doctrine. A state that claimed the authority of Christ to burn Oneness people (or trinitarians, in a reversed condition) at the stake would be in violation of the very theonomy it claimed to operate under.

And suppose something like that happened?

These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me. But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you.
(John 16:1-4)

It is strange that so many professing Christians think that they can make a bargain with the devil to let the devil run society, so they the Christians can be safe from persecution! Is there anything new under the sun? So what if a claimed theonomic state persecuted "true believers"? Would you rather your persecutors do it in the name of Satan, or Allah, or Lenin, or "The Constitution", or "democracy"? What difference would it really make?

And in a genuinely theonomic society, a matter of dispute like "trinity vs Oneness" would be settled in CHURCH, not the county court or federal court.

What people lose sight of is the fact that a theonomic society DOES NOT COME ABOUT EXCEPT through a very specific process: the evangelisation of the people with the Gospel. So these kinds of objections are really silly and unfounded, and based in ignorance of what theonomy, indeed, of what the Gospel itself, is and how it operates.

A bunch of Presbyterians and Dissenters seizing control of DC in an armed coup (what essentially happened in 1775-1783) is not necessarily "the establishment of a theonomy".

I also find it curious how many people harp about the Founding Fathers and the American Revolution, as if that were some kind of objection to a Bible based society. When America in that period and for almost a century afterward was a generally Bible based society anyway!

[Esaias]

The primary source of objections to theonomy (the idea that God's Word is normative and obligatory for the nations) is dispensationalism.

Dispensationalism promotes the false ideas (some of which are downright heretical) that the church is a distinct entity from Israel, that "the Jews" are Israel, that the Kingdom is for "the Jews" but not the church, that the world is destined to be overrun by evil and under the control of Satan until the end of the supposed future "Great Tribulation", that there will be no advancement of the Kingdom of God until after the Return of Jesus, that the laws of God were for "the Jews" only and have nothing to do with the church whatsoever, that the nations will be submitted to the laws of God only after Jesus returns and establishes a global Jewish dictatorship over the whole planet, and that the laws of God which will then be established are in fact the Old Covenant.

These ideas lead people to think their only purpose is to wait for the rapture or die and go to heaven if the rapture is delayed. As a result, they withdraw from all civic responsibilities (like influencing society in a more godly Bible-based direction), fail to have enough children to replace their numbers (and thus guarantee they will be demographically replaced, reducing any possible influence they might have from one generation to the next), and generally become wholly useless in advancing the Kingdom of God. In fact, they become rather strongly opposed to any efforts to advance the Kingdom.

Now, one should be asking: Where does this neutralising, castrating, disempowering theological system come from? Obviously, it benefits those who wish to ensure an antichrist satanic control over society. Perhaps that is it's origin...

[TGBTG]

First off, your posts 21 & 22 are duplicates, so yeah..lol

Now, on to the main thing -

1. How can a theonomy be realized in practical terms?

Originally Posted by Esaias

What people lose sight of is the fact that a theonomic society DOES NOT COME ABOUT EXCEPT through a very specific process: the evangelisation of the people with the Gospel. So these kinds of objections are really silly and unfounded, and based in ignorance of what theonomy, indeed, of what the Gospel itself, is and how it operates."

So basically, evangelizing the nations is what will bring about a theonomy. But evangelism has been going on for ages. Has it not?

Also, when you say evangelism, do you mean specifically ONENESS evangelism, or are you including TRINITARIAN evangelism? and if I may add all the other strands of christianity's evangelism (JWs, mormons, catholics, etc)

The reason I ask is all these different groups claim to be preaching for Christ, but have different messages. So can a theonomy really be actualized when there are varying evangelism gospels being preached?

2. On the issue of governing & law enforcement -

Originally Posted by Esaias

"But trinitarians will burn Oneness people at the stake!"
The mission of the church is to teach. The mission of the state is to punish evil. But the state cannot fulfill its mission unless it has been taught. The more perfect the teaching, the more perfect the fulfillment of its responsibilities.

It is the sphere of the church to handle doctrine. It is not the sphere of the state to handle doctrine. A state that claimed the authority of Christ to burn Oneness people (or trinitarians, in a reversed condition) at the stake would be in violation of the very theonomy it claimed to operate under."

a. It sounds to me that in your theonomy model, the human design of court systems and such would still be in place except the laws would be interpreted and enforced from a biblical perspective, right?

b. If humanly designed institutions are still in place within the theonomy, what does the design of the state look like in practical terms? in other words, do we get a monarch to enforce the biblical laws? or the nation remains republic and the president/legislature/judiciary enforce biblical laws?

c. How would the state punish sinners in a theonomy? because no matter how much we evangelize, there will still be sinners in the world. The bible clearly shows that sinners will still exist in the world until the very end of the world.

***note, my definition of sinners in this context are folks that do not believe in Jesus Christ in any way, shape or form (not JWs, catholics, mormons, etc).
So, in a theonomy, what are the options for sinners:
i. Repent or be killed?
ii. Repent or we leave you to do whatever you want (pretty much today's model)?
iii. Something else, please articulate.

3. Now, on to the issue of doctrine.

Originally Posted by Esaias

And in a genuinely theonomic society, a matter of dispute like "trinity vs Oneness" would be settled in CHURCH, not the county court or federal court.

Ok, an example is the issue of the Sabbath. I have seen you put forth a case to observe the Sabbath numerous times on this forums using scriptures. I have also seen people on this forum, who subscribe to Oneness, argue against observing the Sabbath using scriptures.

So, in practical terms, this is what I'm gleaning from you -
a. Government waits for the church to decide if the Sabbath is to be enforced
b. Pro-Sabbath christians win the debate
c. Law mandates everyone to observe Sabbath

So what are the consequences for the non Sabbath observers? in this case, at least they are oneness christians. They just have a different interpretation of doctrine. Is their punishment the same as the sinners I mentioned above?

[Esaias]

A secondary source of objection to the spread of the Kingdom of God is standard Baptist theology of the church and state. Baptists, having been persecuted in England for failure to conform to the Anglican Church by royal edict, picked up the Anabaptist predilection for a curious theory called "separation of church and state". This idea, that the state is somehow "neutral" in regards to religion, was also promoted rather strongly by humanists during the Renaissance. Why? Because both the humanists, and the Baptists and Anabaptists were all "underdogs" in their respective societies. If you are the underdog, and have no political power, then you are invariably "persecuted" or at least suppressed by the ruling party. So of course it is only natural that such persons should dream of a "separation of church and state" because such a situation would ensure they were no longer underdogs, it would end suppression or persecution.

In regards to the humanists, they rallied around the "neutral non-religious state" idea until by and by they became the ruling party. And then what happened? Why, they then began to suppress all potential rivals! Here in America, the humanists likewise picked up the "neutral in religion" view of the state, and gradually promoted it through government run education systems, the media, and eventually the courts. So now we have a system where Christian influence on government has been stripped away (this was pretty much completed just recently with the legalisation of "same sex marriage"). Please note that the secularisation of American society which began before the ink was dry on the Declaration of Independence has been a 200 year long, slow process, that has only recently succeeded in finally displacing Christian religious influence from about 95% of the "public sector" ie government.

The "separation of church and state" is the feel good slogan of those who are interested in wresting control of society away from religious influence so THEY can be in charge. And as always, once they get in charge they then begin suppressing religion and eventually will outright persecute it.

So there is no genuine "separation of church and state". There is no such thing as a genuinely "neutral" state or political system when it comes to religion. Those who promote such myths are no different than communists promoting the myth of "worker's rights" or "the people owning the means of production." It's simply a slogan used by people whose real motivations are not a separation of church and state, but a replacement of one religious group's dominance of in society by another's.

Unfortunately, most Americans have bought into the idea of "separation of church and state", and therefore have acted accordingly - they have surrendered the society to the secular humanists, the enemies of both church and state.

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by Esaias

"And in a genuinely theonomic society, a matter of dispute like "trinity vs Oneness" would be settled in CHURCH, not the county court or federal court.'

I think this is one huge concept that remains a stumbling block.

This statement assumes trinitarians are part of the CHURCH. Are they really though? (based on other threads on this forum, you do not count them as being part of the church).

In a theonomy, we have to first decide who is PART of the CHURCH before we can even settle issues in the CHURCH.

I would think any law that must be enforced by the state, which requires input from the church MUST BE DECIDED BY ONLY ONENESS believers. Any other religious group (trinitarians, JWs, mormons, muslims) are not part of the church and will not be included in interpreting biblical laws under a theonomy.

I'm just thinking in practical terms...

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

Now, on to the main thing -

1. How can a theonomy be realized in practical terms?

So basically, evangelizing the nations is what will bring about a theonomy. But evangelism has been going on for ages. Has it not?

Also, when you say evangelism, do you mean specifically ONENESS evangelism, or are you including TRINITARIAN evangelism? and if I may add all the other strands of christianity's evangelism (JWs, mormons, catholics, etc)

The reason I ask is all these different groups claim to be preaching for Christ, but have different messages. So can a theonomy really be actualized when there are varying evangelism gospels being preached?

Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.
(Philippians 1:15-18)

Evangelism in one form or another, and with varying degrees of "correctness", has been going on for 2000 years. And everywhere it had been going on, societies became more biblical than they were before. They restructured their laws to conform (more or less) with the Bible, and their societies reflected that Christian, biblical influence. Thus, all "western civilisation" for the past almost 2000 years has been "western CHRISTIAN civilisation".

Since the Renaissance, however, there has been a retrograde motion. The rise of humanism and "classical liberalism" has produced rather well funded and ardent evangelists of the new religion (secularism). At the same time, Christians of just about every stripe have been infected with that humanism as well, and like suffering from an immune deficiency disorder have been for all practical purposes helpless against the onslaught of antichrist secular humanism, socialism, liberalism, communism, etc. Keep in mind, this deterioration of "Christian society" has been a relatively recent phenomenon (considered in the light of the larger scope of history).

As for the role "Oneness" evangelism plays in all this, considering the vast majority of modern day Oneness evangelism is all about getting people on the bus to heaven and abandoning any concern for society in anticipation of the rapture, the effects of Oneness evangelism over the last 100 years have been rather negligible upon the larger society. I do however see the iron claw of dispensationalism falling. As more and more people question dispensationalism, they become open to understanding Scripture and the subject of the Kingdom in a more realistic, Bible based way. The recent foohaw over "preterism" in the last two decades was a symptom of that demise of dispensationalism's tyranny of the mind. And now that the "preterist wave" has pretty much subsided, many many Oneness Pentecostals are open to other non dispensationalist understandings.

I believe Oneness Pentecostals have an opportunity to shed a lot of the man made isms and get into a deeper, more apostolic, understanding of the KINGDOM. If they do so, and they maintain holiness and stay close to the power and true anointing of God, they will probably accomplish more for the Kingdom of God than any generation of religionists since the first century church, and maybe even more. But, if on the other hand, they get caught up in megachurching, shmoozing with Bill Clinton and the like, or trying to make a name for themselves, they will be bypassed by God who will raise up someone else to do His will.

2. On the issue of governing & law enforcement -


a. It sounds to me that in your theonomy model, the human design of court systems and such would still be in place except the laws would be interpreted and enforced from a biblical perspective, right?

God's Word says that courts/judges should be established, but did not specify a bunch of specifics about systems. So each nation's courts would be expected to use God's Word as the "supreme law of the land". And if you look at what the Bible actually says, there isn't much to be objected to. For example, nobody can be held to answer for a crime unless there are two or more witnesses (or a confession of course). So hearsay evidence in the absence of actual eyewitnesses would be inadmissable. Guess what? That's pretty much how it already is, or at least was.

b. If humanly designed institutions are still in place within the theonomy, what does the design of the state look like in practical terms? in other words, do we get a monarch to enforce the biblical laws? or the nation remains republic and the president/legislature/judiciary enforce biblical laws?

Seems to me the Bible doesn't specify that every nation must have a monarchy, or a representative republic, or some other system, only that rulers must submit to Christ and do righteously. And if rulers did that, then the particular form of government would be irrelevent except in regards to questions of expediency and financial cost.

c. How would the state punish sinners in a theonomy? because no matter how much we evangelize, there will still be sinners in the world. The bible clearly shows that sinners will still exist in the world until the very end of the world.

Murder, kidnapping, adultery, sodomy, fornication for example are capital offenses. So is criminal anarchy (outright rebellion against law and order - outlaws are just that - OUTSIDE the protection of law). (These things actually used to be the way it was in large measure. We just have trouble wrapping our minds around it because all of us were born and raised in a decidedly NON Bible based society since the early 1900s, each generation getting further and further away from the Word.) It's all there in the Word. There would be no prisons or jails except to hold prisoners until trial has been completed. Property crimes or crimes against persons (other than capital crimes) would require restitution. Etc.

***note, my definition of sinners in this context are folks that do not believe in Jesus Christ in any way, shape or form (not JWs, catholics, mormons, etc).

Sin is the transgression of the law, therefore "sinners" are those who transgress the law, regardless of what religion they claim. Since the church's job is to TEACH and make disciples, whether a person becomes a believer in Jesus or not is a matter for the church to handle, via evangelism. And the WORD instructs the church that if any will not believe the message, then the church is to MOVE ON. Nothing about executing wrath upon those who do not believe the Gospel.

Again, the state is to punish evil (sin), but is not given authority to usurp the church's role (such as evangelism). So a Wiccan who hears the Gospel, and says "no thanks", remains a Wiccan. Now, does his or her religion lead the Wiccan to commit a sin that comes under the purview of the state? If the Wiccan is out publicly evangelising and promoting Wicca, then I would say YES (as they are promoting idolatry in defiance of God).

Keep in mind, the church isn't even ready at this point to even explain everything, because the church has a lot of unlearning to do and a lot of learning to do. So that means the church needs to have these discussions, and search out "how to obey God's Word in today's world". but I would suggest these discussions will only have merit within a theonomic context. For example, discussions about how to properly perform a baptism only have merit within a shared context of belief in the needfulness of baptism to begin with.

3. Now, on to the issue of doctrine.

Ok, an example is the issue of the Sabbath. I have seen you put forth a case to observe the Sabbath numerous times on this forums using scriptures. I have also seen people on this forum, who subscribe to Oneness, argue against observing the Sabbath using scriptures.

So, in practical terms, this is what I'm gleaning from you -
a. Government waits for the church to decide if the Sabbath is to be enforced
b. Pro-Sabbath christians win the debate
c. Law mandates everyone to observe Sabbath

So what are the consequences for the non Sabbath observers? in this case, at least they are oneness christians. They just have a different interpretation of doctrine. Is their punishment the same as the sinners I mentioned above?

The Sabbath is a great question. And theonomists have debated this issue for the last several centuries, actually. Not only the question of "seventh day vs first day", but just what exactly is allowed and what is prohibited on the Sabbath? And guess what? Sabbath laws were in force in most if not all colonies and later states in America up until rather recently. I still remember as a kid we had "blue laws" which mandated numerous businesses had to be closed on Sunday, and in the case of car delearships they had to be closed either Saturday or Sunday (I think that one is still on the books, actually). So the idea of having the state enforce the Sabbath (in one form or another) is anything BUT a "new idea" for these united states!

Legislatures which pass laws should be made up of men who are godly Bible believing Christians. The issue of the Sabbath ought to have been decided already in their lives by study of the Scriptures and the teaching of the church. but when the church at large itself can't come to a biblical understanding of the issue, then I seriously doubt anyone has to worry about a theonomic state suddenly appearing and mandating Sunday or Sabbath observance.

Also, reconstruction is not promoted as an overnight, all of a sudden change. We didn't become what we are today overnight, it took generations (centuries, actually). So the reconstruction will likely take generations as well. Reconstruction actually involves the church "coming to a perfect man", for "judgment begins at the house of God". From there, the knowledge of God spreads abroad, as it is written:

And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the LORD.
(Isaiah 2:2-5)

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

I think this is one huge concept that remains a stumbling block.

This statement assumes trinitarians are part of the CHURCH. Are they really though? (based on other threads on this forum, you do not count them as being part of the church).

In a theonomy, we have to first decide who is PART of the CHURCH before we can even settle issues in the CHURCH.

I would think any law that must be enforced by the state, which requires input from the church MUST BE DECIDED BY ONLY ONENESS believers. Any other religious group (trinitarians, JWs, mormons, muslims) are not part of the church and will not be included in interpreting biblical laws under a theonomy.

I'm just thinking in practical terms...

I do not think it is really a matter of government officials sitting around, debating a proposed law, and then the teleprompter comes on with Pastor Jeff Arnold onscreen who says "now, here's what you guys need to do..." lol

I believe the church is to influence society by influencing the people in society. As the church influences the people, those people begin to mold and shape society in certain directions. Because, after all, society is just the people conglomerated together. It's not like "the church" is sitting there giving dictation to the civil government. Nobody wants Hazelwood to sit as Pope over society.

And most theonomists understand that - well, except for the roman Catholic types, but then again they don't accept the basic theonomic premise, that the WORD of God is the LAW which is obligatory upon man. Rather, they think the CHURCH DOGMA is the Law of God. Hence, their opposition to "sola scriptura".