BY THIS STANDARD-Greg L. Bahnsen

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The more I read about Christian anarchy, the more I tend to identify with it.

Doesn't matter. The Kingdom of God is moving forward, and you simply don't have a say-so about it. Your incessant pleas for Christians to surrender the field of battle are falling on fewer and fewer ears.

Twenty years.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Doesn't matter. The Kingdom of God is moving forward, and you simply don't have a say-so about it. Your incessant pleas for Christians to surrender the field of battle are falling on fewer and fewer ears.

Twenty years.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Doesn't matter. The Kingdom of God is moving forward, and you simply don't have a say-so about it. Your incessant pleas for Christians to surrender the field of battle are falling on fewer and fewer ears.

Twenty years.

Esaias, what you're advocating is not the Kingdom of God. It is the Kingdom of Rushdoony, and religio-statists who don't have the faith, nor power, to advance a kingdom without assuming the power of coercion. You're "Christian soldiers" are dying for an idol called "Christian Reconstructionism", which is only an interpretation of men.

The true Kingdom is within us. Ruled directly by Christ, through the Holy Spirit. We do live biblically, but we are not beholden to any earthly government... even if it flies a Christian banner.

Assuming that America were to become "Reconstructed" tomorrow, where would those like me, who oppose it, protest against it, preach against it, admonish obedience to Christ alone, and actively denounce it, stand?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Esaias, what you're advocating is not the Kingdom of God. It is the Kingdom of Rushdoony, and religio-statists who don't have the faith, nor power, to advance a kingdom without assuming the power of coercion. You're "Christian soldiers" are dying for an idol called "Christian Reconstructionism", which is only an interpretation of men.

The true Kingdom is within us. Ruled directly by Christ, through the Holy Spirit. We do live biblically, but we are not beholden to any earthly government... even if it flies a Christian banner.

Assuming that America were to become "Reconstructed" tomorrow, where would those like me, who oppose it, protest against it, preach against it, admonish obedience to Christ alone, and actively denounce it, stand?

Explain how you would oppose a social order founded on obedience to Christ alone while "preaching obedience to Christ alone"? That makes no sense. Does obedience to Christ alone mean that we should oppose the criminalization of robbery, rape, murder? That we should stand against the idea of people looking to the Bible for guidance?

Absurd.

[Wilsonwas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Explain how you would oppose a social order founded on obedience to Christ alone while "preaching obedience to Christ alone"? That makes no sense. Does obedience to Christ alone mean that we should oppose the criminalization of robbery, rape, murder? That we should stand against the idea of people looking to the Bible for guidance?

Absurd.

That society so long as its govenment remains limited to arbitrating between disputes, maintaining law consistant with just the ten commandments, maintaining interstate commerce and provides for comman defense even if theocratic would be fine.

It is the nature of humans with power to desire more, and since the fall of Adam, to corrupt....the limits would creep, much like the results evident in our current republic, to lean either toward a band of theocracy that limits eventually even thought to its dogma, and view of doctrine, or a band of Atheistic humanism that eventually leads to socialism.

It is the erosion of these limits on gooberment power over individual or group, that always leads to tyranny so long as those humans in charge remain Adam's seed in its failed state.

For this reason I oppose both theocracy and socialism, prefering a min-archist, volunteerist form. At least until Christ reigns in the absense of the enemy.

The US constitution, represents the closest humanity has come to a government that limited in power - it is imperfect but preferred to any other form exhibited on earth currently. The imperfection has allowed this to wane toward tyranny of the citified majority of voters, and the corruption of global corporatism....

A theocratic government will wane toward the kind of tyranny evident in areas controlled by the Taliban- which would be fine for you perhaps were you in the upper roles of the ruling class, but unfortunate if you are resistant to any particilar brand of interpretation or doctrine contained under the "brand" christianity thst may be different from your own.

Evidence of how this could be contentious is available within our churches, and even the microcosm of this forum where huge difference exists regarding Deut. 22, beards, etc. Such a society of imperfect men, and satan "going about as a roaring lion", would regress to civil war in a matter of generations.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

That society so long as its govenment remains limited to arbitrating between disputes, maintaining law consistant with just the ten commandments, maintaining interstate commerce and provides for comman defense even if theocratic would be fine.

It is the nature of humans with power to desire more, and since the fall of Adam, to corrupt....the limits would creep, much like the results evident in our current republic, to lean either toward a band of theocracy that limits eventually even thought to its dogma, and view of doctrine, or a band of Atheistic humanism that eventually leads to socialism.

It is the erosion of these limits on gooberment power over individual or group, that always leads to tyranny so long as those humans in charge remain Adam's seed in its failed state.

For this reason I oppose both theocracy and socialism, prefering a min-archist, volunteerist form. At least until Christ reigns in the absense of the enemy.

The US constitution, represents the closest humanity has come to a government that limited in power - it is imperfect but preferred to any other form exhibited on earth currently. The imperfection has allowed this to wane toward tyranny of the citified majority of voters, and the corruption of global corporatism....

A theocratic government will wane toward the kind of tyranny evident in areas controlled by the Taliban- which would be fine for you perhaps were you in the upper roles of the ruling class, but unfortunate if you are resistant to any particilar brand of interpretation or doctrine contained under the "brand" christianity thst may be different from your own.

Evidence of how this could be contentious is available within our churches, and even the microcosm of this forum where huge difference exists regarding Deut. 22, beards, etc. Such a society of imperfect men, and satan "going about as a roaring lion", would regress to civil war in a matter of generations.

So, because men are wicked and corrupt, we should seek that form of society devised by men, instead of that devised by God?

[Esaias]

Here is a trinitarian, Reformed theonomist answer to the charge "Theonomy doesn't work". If you can ignore the two virtue signals to trinitarian dogma, you may be able to understand what the "push for theonomy" has accomplished, and is accomplishing.

https://chalcedon.edu/magazine/what-...ng-of-gods-law

[Wilsonwas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So, because men are wicked and corrupt, we should seek that form of society devised by men, instead of that devised by God?

No, because humanity is fallen and corruption is in its nature, gooberment is a necessary evil, and shoild be limited as much as possible. Unless God himself is in charge- failure and tyranny will result.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

No, because humanity is fallen and corruption is in its nature, gooberment is a necessary evil, and shoild be limited as much as possible. Unless God himself is in charge- failure and tyranny will result.

What "necessary" purpose does government serve? Who instituted it, and why?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

That society so long as its govenment remains limited to arbitrating between disputes, maintaining law consistant with just the ten commandments, maintaining interstate commerce and provides for comman defense even if theocratic would be fine.

It is the nature of humans with power to desire more, and since the fall of Adam, to corrupt....the limits would creep, much like the results evident in our current republic, to lean either toward a band of theocracy that limits eventually even thought to its dogma, and view of doctrine, or a band of Atheistic humanism that eventually leads to socialism.

It is the erosion of these limits on gooberment power over individual or group, that always leads to tyranny so long as those humans in charge remain Adam's seed in its failed state.

For this reason I oppose both theocracy and socialism, prefering a min-archist, volunteerist form. At least until Christ reigns in the absense of the enemy.

The US constitution, represents the closest humanity has come to a government that limited in power - it is imperfect but preferred to any other form exhibited on earth currently. The imperfection has allowed this to wane toward tyranny of the citified majority of voters, and the corruption of global corporatism....

A theocratic government will wane toward the kind of tyranny evident in areas controlled by the Taliban- which would be fine for you perhaps were you in the upper roles of the ruling class, but unfortunate if you are resistant to any particilar brand of interpretation or doctrine contained under the "brand" christianity thst may be different from your own.

Evidence of how this could be contentious is available within our churches, and even the microcosm of this forum where huge difference exists regarding Deut. 22, beards, etc. Such a society of imperfect men, and satan "going about as a roaring lion", would regress to civil war in a matter of generations.

You do realize that God's law provides no penalty for facial hair decisions, and some other issues we debate here, right? Debate, discussion, etc are necessary and good. Political debates over interpretation and application of law occur all the time anyway.

Just about every charge against theonomy can be also levied against practically every other system of law and ethics. And that way lies Nietzsche and Ragnar Redbeard and Thrasymachus.