BY THIS STANDARD-Greg L. Bahnsen

[Amanah]

What does the OT say about spiritual authority:

well it says that we are to obey the commandments or we will be rejected.

God has a proper order of authority based on the His Word.
And, if we want the blessing of God on our lives we should obey His commandments.

1 Samuel 15:10-35 New King James Version (NKJV)
10 Now the word of the Lord came to Samuel, saying, 11 “I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments.” And it grieved Samuel, and he cried out to the Lord all night. 12 So when Samuel rose early in the morning to meet Saul, it was told Samuel, saying, “Saul went to Carmel, and indeed, he set up a monument for himself; and he has gone on around, passed by, and gone down to Gilgal.” 13 Then Samuel went to Saul, and Saul said to him, “Blessed are you of the Lord! I have performed the commandment of the Lord.”

14 But Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?”

15 And Saul said, “They have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the sheep and the oxen, to sacrifice to the Lord your God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed.”

16 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Be quiet! And I will tell you what the Lord said to me last night.”

And he said to him, “Speak on.”

17 So Samuel said, “When you were little in your own eyes, were you not head of the tribes of Israel? And did not the Lord anoint you king over Israel? 18 Now the Lord sent you on a mission, and said, ‘Go, and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are [a]consumed.’ 19 Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord? Why did you swoop down on the [b]spoil, and do evil in the sight of the Lord?”

20 And Saul said to Samuel, “But I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and gone on the mission on which the Lord sent me, and brought back Agag king of Amalek; I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. 21 But the people took of the plunder, sheep and oxen, the best of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal.”

22 So Samuel said:


“Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,
As in obeying the voice of the Lord?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
And to heed than the fat of rams.

23
For rebellion is as the sin of [c]witchcraft,
And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
He also has rejected you from being king.”

24 Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. 25 Now therefore, please pardon my sin, and return with me, that I may worship the Lord.”

26 But Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you, for you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you from being king over Israel.”

27 And as Samuel turned around to go away, Saul seized the edge of his robe, and it tore. 28 So Samuel said to him, “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. 29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man, that He should relent.”

30 Then he said, “I have sinned; yet honor me now, please, before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may worship the Lord your God.” 31 So Samuel turned back after Saul, and Saul worshiped the Lord.

32 Then Samuel said, “Bring Agag king of the Amalekites here to me.” So Agag came to him cautiously.

And Agag said, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.”

33 But Samuel said, “As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.” And Samuel hacked Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal.

34 Then Samuel went to Ramah, and Saul went up to his house at Gibeah of Saul. 35 And Samuel went no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul, and the Lord regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Amanah

What does the OT say about spiritual authority:

well it says that we are to obey the commandments or we will be rejected.

God has a proper order of authority based on the His Word.
And, if we want the blessing of God on our lives we should obey His commandments.

1 Samuel 15:10-35 New King James Version (NKJV)
10 Now the word of the Lord came to Samuel, saying, 11 “I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments.” And it grieved Samuel, and he cried out to the Lord all night. 12 So when Samuel rose early in the morning to meet Saul, it was told Samuel, saying, “Saul went to Carmel, and indeed, he set up a monument for himself; and he has gone on around, passed by, and gone down to Gilgal.” 13 Then Samuel went to Saul, and Saul said to him, “Blessed are you of the Lord! I have performed the commandment of the Lord.”

14 But Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?”

15 And Saul said, “They have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the sheep and the oxen, to sacrifice to the Lord your God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed.”

16 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Be quiet! And I will tell you what the Lord said to me last night.”

And he said to him, “Speak on.”

17 So Samuel said, “When you were little in your own eyes, were you not head of the tribes of Israel? And did not the Lord anoint you king over Israel? 18 Now the Lord sent you on a mission, and said, ‘Go, and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are [a]consumed.’ 19 Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord? Why did you swoop down on the [b]spoil, and do evil in the sight of the Lord?”

20 And Saul said to Samuel, “But I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and gone on the mission on which the Lord sent me, and brought back Agag king of Amalek; I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. 21 But the people took of the plunder, sheep and oxen, the best of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal.”

22 So Samuel said:


“Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,
As in obeying the voice of the Lord?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
And to heed than the fat of rams.

23
For rebellion is as the sin of [c]witchcraft,
And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
He also has rejected you from being king.”

24 Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. 25 Now therefore, please pardon my sin, and return with me, that I may worship the Lord.”

26 But Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you, for you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you from being king over Israel.”

27 And as Samuel turned around to go away, Saul seized the edge of his robe, and it tore. 28 So Samuel said to him, “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. 29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man, that He should relent.”

30 Then he said, “I have sinned; yet honor me now, please, before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may worship the Lord your God.” 31 So Samuel turned back after Saul, and Saul worshiped the Lord.

32 Then Samuel said, “Bring Agag king of the Amalekites here to me.” So Agag came to him cautiously.

And Agag said, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.”

33 But Samuel said, “As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.” And Samuel hacked Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal.

34 Then Samuel went to Ramah, and Saul went up to his house at Gibeah of Saul. 35 And Samuel went no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul, and the Lord regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel.

That's good sis!

[Amanah]

churches have leaders. The Apostles appointed leaders in every town and they had the authority to guide and discipline the church members.

Titus 1:7-14 New Living Translation (NLT)
7 A church leader[a] is a manager of God’s household, so he must live a blameless life. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered; he must not be a heavy drinker,[b] violent, or dishonest with money.

8 Rather, he must enjoy having guests in his home, and he must love what is good. He must live wisely and be just. He must live a devout and disciplined life. 9 He must have a strong belief in the trustworthy message he was taught; then he will be able to encourage others with wholesome teaching and show those who oppose it where they are wrong.

10 For there are many rebellious people who engage in useless talk and deceive others. This is especially true of those who insist on circumcision for salvation. 11 They must be silenced, because they are turning whole families away from the truth by their false teaching. And they do it only for money. 12 Even one of their own men, a prophet from Crete, has said about them, “The people of Crete are all liars, cruel animals, and lazy gluttons.”[c] 13 This is true. So reprimand them sternly to make them strong in the faith. 14 They must stop listening to Jewish myths and the commands of people who have turned away from the truth.

***************

Notice in the above passage, there were some who were teaching circumcision. That is ceremonial law. the ceremonial law has been done away with, but not the Ethical/Moral teachings of the Old Testament.

the difference between the OT and the NT, is that in the NT, God writes the laws on our hearts when we receive the Holy Ghost.
***************

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Amanah

churches have leaders. The Apostles appointed leaders in every town and they had the authority to guide and discipline the church members.

Titus 1:7-14 New Living Translation (NLT)
7 A church leader[a] is a manager of God’s household, so he must live a blameless life. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered; he must not be a heavy drinker,[b] violent, or dishonest with money.

8 Rather, he must enjoy having guests in his home, and he must love what is good. He must live wisely and be just. He must live a devout and disciplined life. 9 He must have a strong belief in the trustworthy message he was taught; then he will be able to encourage others with wholesome teaching and show those who oppose it where they are wrong.

10 For there are many rebellious people who engage in useless talk and deceive others. This is especially true of those who insist on circumcision for salvation. 11 They must be silenced, because they are turning whole families away from the truth by their false teaching. And they do it only for money. 12 Even one of their own men, a prophet from Crete, has said about them, “The people of Crete are all liars, cruel animals, and lazy gluttons.”[c] 13 This is true. So reprimand them sternly to make them strong in the faith. 14 They must stop listening to Jewish myths and the commands of people who have turned away from the truth.

***************

Notice in the above passage, there were some who were teaching circumcision. That is ceremonial law. the ceremonial law has been done away with, but not the Ethical/Moral teachings of the Old Testament.

the difference between the OT and the NT, is that in the NT, God writes the laws on our hearts when we receive the Holy Ghost.
***************

A church without a leader would be a mess! It would last maybe 6 months, and saying 6 months is being super generous.

[Amanah]

I am continuing to read BY THIS STANDARD by Greg L. Bahnsen

What follows below are exerpts from an article discussing the history and debate surrounding Theonomy, many felt that Bahnsen pressed his case too strongly, the resulting debate came to the following conclusions.

Theonomy: What Have We Learned?
John Haverland
Extracted from Ordained Servant vol. 4, no. 2 (April 1995)

In an attempt to clear away misunderstandings and misconceptions, the study committee discussed and defined areas of agreement with respect to the law. These may be summarized as follows:
1.We are saved by grace through faith and not by works of the law.
2.There is no conflict between law and love.
3.There is no conflict between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law.
4.All believers should be concerned to know and obey the law of God.
5.All believers should have a concern to study the details of God’s law, both in the Old and New Testament.
6.All believers should seek to apply God’s law in their own lives and in society.
7.The ceremonial and sacrificial laws were fulfilled in Christ and no longer need to be practiced by the New Testament believer.

https://www.opc.org/OS/html/V4/2b.html

[Amanah]

Theonomy: What Have We Learned?
John Haverland
Extracted from Ordained Servant vol. 4, no. 2 (April 1995)

Continuities and Discontinuities

Having said this, we now turn our attention to the question that lies at the heart of the theonomy debate: the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. Much of the discussion in relation to theonomy centers on the continuities and discontinuities between the Testaments. Reformed theology has always assumed a continuity between the Old and New Covenants. This is the heart of covenant theology over against a dispensational understanding of the Bible. The real issue in relation to theonomy is how this works out in terms of Old Testament law.

Bahnsen argues for “the abiding validity of the law in exhaustive detail.” Yet this puts his case too strongly. This type of overstatement has muddied the waters and hampered a proper understanding of the issues. A close reading of his book reveals that many of the details of the law do not carry through. His statement, therefore, needs careful qualification.

In defining the way the Old Testament law carries through we should “presume continuity between the ethical principles of the Old Testament and those of the New.”[10] The key word here is the word principles. While the principles continue through, many of the details do not.

The Committee spent a lot of time trying to define just which details did not continue and eventually agreed that most of the aspects of the Old Covenant which are not authoritative for today could be covered under the following:

1.Localized Imperative. These are the commands God gave to Israel for specified use in a concrete situation. For instance: the command to go to war and gain the land of Canaan by the sword.

2.Cultural Details. Cultural details are mentioned in many of God’s laws so as to illustrate the moral principle it required. What is of permanent authority is the principle and not the cultural detail used to illustrate it. This means that we are not bound to the literal wording of the Old Testament case laws.

3.Administrative Details. Certain administrative details are not normative for today. For instance: the type of government, the method of tax collection, the location of the capital.

4.Typology. These Old Testament types were fulfilled by being replaced with the realities they typified. The laws God gave Israel included ceremonies and symbols that prefigured the graces, actions, suffering and benefits of Christ, as well as containing various moral instructions. These ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament, “so that the use of them must be abolished among Christians; yet the truth and substance of them remain with us in Jesus Christ, in whom they have their completion.”[11]

5.Geographical Changes. Israel as a nation was promised the land of Canaan, and they lived as a political body within the borders of their land. However, the people of God in the Church inherit the whole world as it is redeemed by Christ. This means that laws relating to the political and geographical organization and administration of Israel are no longer applicable to the Church. For instance: the division of the land according to tribal and family groups; cities of refuge; the levirate institution.

The committee felt comfortable affirming the continuity of the principles of Old Testament law while laying aside the details described above. Yet they were conscious that to interpret the Old Testament law, distill the principles out of all the detail and then make a modern day application is not a simple matter. Much careful exegetical and interpretative work needs to take place if we are to understand the central principles of God’s law and their application to our situation.

[Amanah]

Theonomy: What Have We Learned?
John Haverland
Extracted from Ordained Servant vol. 4, no. 2 (April 1995)

Theonomy, Church and State

One of the important issues in a discussion of theonomy concerns the relationship between church and state and the responsibility of the civil magistrate with respect to God’s law.

Bahnsen regards Old Testament Israel as a theocracy in the sense that Israel was a country under the moral rule of God. He contends that all nations today should be under the moral rule of God except that in the New Testament this has become the moral rule of Christ—a Christocracy. He speaks of “the Older Testament Theocracy becoming in the New Testament a Christocracy with international boundaries.”[14]

He then argues that the magistrate today “is required by God’s abiding law to enforce justice and righteousness in social affairs.”[15] In line with his general thesis he says: “Every detail of God’s law has abiding validity from the time of Christ’s advent to the time of his return.... Just as the magistrate of the Old Testament has divine imperatives which he was responsible to carry out, so also magistrates in the era of the New Testament are under obligation to those commands in the Book of the Law which apply to civil affairs and social penology.... Because the penal sanctions of God’s law are imperatives delivered with divine authority and approval the follower of Christ should teach that the civil magistrate is yet under moral obligation to enforce the law of God in its social aspect.”[16]

In light of the complexity of this subject it is important to review the major views that have been held in history regarding the relationship between the Church and the State.

Historically the Roman Catholic Church has held that the State should be subordinate to the Church. This view, which was dominant throughout the Middle Ages, maintained that the Church was the supreme power and that the civil ruler is the servant of the Church. The Church, and especially the Pope as head of the Church, should have authority and control in civil matters.

The Erastian view holds that the Church ought to be subordinate to the State. The Church is regarded as being part of the State with ministers of the Church being officials of the State. Under this view the Church has no right to bar people from the Lord’s Table nor any right to excommunicate anyone. This view began to be influential following the establishment of a state religion by the Emperor Constantine. It gained ground in England and Scotland following the Reformation and is held today by Anglicans in Britain and the Lutherans in Scandinavia.

Those holding the Voluntary view believe that the Church and State should be entirely separate. Civil rulers should not use their influence or power to interfere in religious matters, nor should they use their position to promote the cause of the Church or kingdom of Christ. This was the view of the Anabaptists after the Reformation. It is advocated today under the concept of pluralism; i.e. we live in a pluralistic world with many different opinions. The State should not promote any one view or religion. This view of the relationship of Church and State has until recently dominated the evangelical Church in the West.

None of these views do justice to the biblical teaching regarding the relationship between the Church and State. In placing the State under the power of the Church the Roman Catholic view does not give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but rather takes away from the civil authorities what rightfully belongs to them. In subordinating the Church to the state the Erastian view does not give to God what is God’s. The Voluntary view denies the sovereignty of God over the affairs of all people in the world.

Historically Reformed and Presbyterian people have argued that the Church and State are essentially different and rightfully independent authorities. They should be kept distinct and separate from each other. Yet “it is both possible and right for the Church and State to meet in amicable alliance, for the purpose of friendly cooperation.”[17] Most Reformed and Presbyterian theologians have held that civil rulers have an obligation “to aim at the promotion of the honor of God, the welfare of true religion, and the prosperity of the church of Christ.”[18] This is the view of the Reformed Confessions.[19]

This view “gives to God what is God’s in the Church, and to Caesar what is Caesar’s in the State, while also acknowledging the supreme sovereignty of God over all the affairs of men and the obligation of all men to keep his law.”[20]

Comparing Bahnsen’s views with the historic Reformed view it is clear that there is a basic agreement about the relationship between Church and State. “The debate does not center around whether or not the magistrate should apply God’s law, but to what extent God’s law applies in its detail.”[21]

The committee believed it was both beyond their mandate and their ability to offer a definitive solution to a problem that has exercised the minds of able Reformed theologians and thinkers through the centuries. Instead they formulated statements regarding the Church, the State and God’s law which they could all agree with. The areas of agreement are as follows:

1.That the Church and State are separate and distinct authorities both instituted by God.
2.That the authority of the Church is spiritual (i.e. the keys of the kingdom, cf. Heidelberg Catechism Q. 84 and 85), being confined to the exercise of spiritual discipline. The ultimate exercise of that discipline is excommunication.
3.That the authority of the State is physical (i.e. the power of the sword, Rom. 13:4). The State may use physical means to enforce obedience to the law. Its ultimate exercise of that authority is the use of capital punishment. The sphere of its authority is that of justice. It must punish social violations of God’s law. The State is not an agent of evangelism and must not use its power to that end.
4.That civil authorities are set up by God and are responsible to Him. To oppose them is to oppose God (Rom. 13:2). They have a duty to rule according to the law of God. God’s law is the ultimate standard for all mankind.
5.That all societies should honor God and obey His law, and that we ought to pray and work towards this as salt and light in society, irrespective of how far we expect to see this realized before the return of Christ.
6.That the means the Church must use in promoting godliness and righteousness in the nation is the preaching of the gospel of Christ. Only through the working of the Holy Spirit and faith in Christ will people begin to live according to His laws (Rom. 8:1-14). The Church should speak prophetically to our nation about injustices and evils in society. Christians should seek to persuade men and women in society from Scripture by reason and argument of the value and good sense of God’s laws.

These statements did not answer all the questions regarding the relationship between Church and State and the application of God’s law to our present society. Yet it was hoped that these statements would draw the Church together on this issue and give us sufficient common ground as a Church to interact with the world and the State concerning God’s law.

[Aquila]

How would Christian Reconstructionism apply the laws governing the Year of Jubilee? (Leviticus 25:23-55)?

According to the Law, the Year of Jubilee was to include:

- Release from all indebtedness.
- All prisoners and captives were to be set free.
- All slaves were released.
- All debts were canceled.
- All durable property and land was returned to the family line of the original owners.
- All labor was to cease for one year.
- Those bound by labor contracts were released from them.

Would Reconstructionism reinstitute the Jubilee?
If so, how would this work socially?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

How would Christian Reconstructionism apply the laws governing the Year of Jubilee? (Leviticus 25:23-55)?

According to the Law, the Year of Jubilee was to include:

- Release from all indebtedness.
- All prisoners and captives were to be set free.
- All slaves were released.
- All debts were canceled.
- All durable property and land was returned to the family line of the original owners.
- All labor was to cease for one year.
- Those bound by labor contracts were released from them.

Would Reconstructionism reinstitute the Jubilee?
If so, how would this work socially?

We should not be misled by the cries of the socialists that we must somehow reinstitute the specific land legislation of Old Testament Israel, or anything comparable to it. They appeal to this law because it is one of the very few laws in the Bible that appears to give power to the State to redistribute property. But the Year of Jubilee was not a case of "socialism after the fact." It was the requirement laid down by God in advance of the conquest of Canaan. God was the original owner of the land, and He established land tenure in a land which He gave to His followers through military conquest. Those who wanted the land had to agree in advance to the terms of ownership established by the covenant with the Owner. They knew exactly what these terms were. These terms were comparable to private building codes or other permanent restrictions on real estate(still called "covenants") which are inserted into the deeds by the developer of the property prior to his offering it for sale to the general public.


https://www.garynorth.com/public/14676.cfm

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

We should not be misled by the cries of the socialists that we must somehow reinstitute the specific land legislation of Old Testament Israel, or anything comparable to it. They appeal to this law because it is one of the very few laws in the Bible that appears to give power to the State to redistribute property. But the Year of Jubilee was not a case of "socialism after the fact." It was the requirement laid down by God in advance of the conquest of Canaan. God was the original owner of the land, and He established land tenure in a land which He gave to His followers through military conquest. Those who wanted the land had to agree in advance to the terms of ownership established by the covenant with the Owner. They knew exactly what these terms were. These terms were comparable to private building codes or other permanent restrictions on real estate(still called "covenants") which are inserted into the deeds by the developer of the property prior to his offering it for sale to the general public.


https://www.garynorth.com/public/14676.cfm

So, they'd refuse to obey the law regarding the Year of Jubilee.

Thanks.