BY THIS STANDARD-Greg L. Bahnsen

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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

Thanks.

it would not be practical without redoing our legislative and judicial systems. Theonomy is a process of gradually conforming to God's laws via a process. It is not an overthrow of the Govt

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

it would not be practical without redoing our legislative and judicial systems. Theonomy is a process of gradually conforming to God's laws via a process. It is not an overthrow of the Govt

I understand.

The tithe was specifically related to the land also, do they apply the same logic applied to the Jubilee to the tithe?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I understand.

The tithe was specifically related to the land also, do they apply the same logic applied to the Jubilee to the tithe?

that would be the logical conclusion in my mind.

[Amanah]

The thing I find most intriguing about Theonomy is that they would do away with prison/jails. If the crime was not worthy of capital punishment, then it would require restitution.

[Tithesmeister]

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.
***************

In general it is true that there is leadership in the church. All things are to be done in an orderly fashion. Where the church today misses the mark IMO is when we bestow authority upon a single man (pastor) and our belief that all others are to submit to him.

This belies the fact that Christ is the head of every man scripture found in 1Corinthians 11:3. Let's do an analysis of the scripture you quote above Sister Amanah. It does not conflict with what I'm saying, it rather reinforces it. I'll post it below . . .

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

Notice that it says leaders (as opposed to one leader) in every town. This points to plural eldership. They is plural as well which further reinforces the teaching. Notice, however that town is singular. Multiple leaders in every town. The church at Ephesus had elders (plural) that Paul requested a meeting with the elders in Miletus . . .

Acts.20
[17] And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.

It never mentions that Paul called for a conference with the pastor, or any other person with singular authority over the church. When we are sick we are to call on the elders of the church. In the fourteenth chapter of Acts . . .

Acts.14
[23] And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

Once again we have elders , plural, ordained in every church, singular. It is the instruction of the apostles that we by our thinking as well as our actions, fail to follow. And we think it won't work if we try it the biblical way. Is there any example in the NT of a the early church ordaining a singular pastor to be over a church? No there is not. Yet most of us have probably been to ordination services for a pastor. Most of us have probably NOT been to an ordination service for an elder that was not a pastor (as we define pastor today, think CEO).

Another interesting passage of scripture concerning judging, which is something we seem to think we should never do as Christians.

1Cor.6
[1] Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
[2] Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
[3] Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
[4] If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
[5] I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

Notice that the one to judge is specifically to be the ones (them, once again plural) that are the least esteemed among you (the church). Does this ever happen in our churches? Does this imply that the pastor (who is certainly not typically the least esteemed among us) or the board members (ditto) should be the one that should be judging matters in the church? This would be considered utter heresy in our apostolic churches today. Yet this IS the instruction of the apostles, whose doctrine (teaching) we are to continue steadfast in.

Lord have mercy.

[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

I think this answer is a bit weak. Because the Jubilee was about more than just redistribution of land. It was about setting free those in bondage (liberation), the canceling of debt (economic justice), the ceasing of labor to allow both worker and land to rest. In the context of this general theme, there isn't a "redistribution", it would be a return of the land to original ownership. As with all the other factors here the end result would be justice and the security of the nation.

Here's why...

In America today roughly 400 Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million combined. The aggregated wealth of the entire nation is being acquired by fewer and fewer people, leaving millions scrambling for what is left, and being beholden to the plutocracy that controls the wealth. This can lead to suppressed wages (which the Bible condemns), lack of benefits, etc. Imagine a nation wherein 1% of the population controls 80% of the nation's wealth. If you're not well versed in economics, that is a recipe for oppression and tyranny. If that 1% is perceived as being greedy and unjust, it is a recipe for violent revolution, which we've seen throughout human history.

God's law is superior. The stipulations of the Jubilee would prevent the majority of the nation's aggregated wealth from being hoarded by a minority. Every 50 years, basically a generation, all durable assets would be returned to those who originally owned it. This means that if 1% of the nation's population had a high percentage of the nation's aggregated wealth... upon Jubilee the entire Monopoly game would be... reset. Those families who washed out during that time would be released from abject poverty, and those wealthy individuals who aggregated such land and assets would be brought back within bounds. In addition, it levels the playing field every generation, preventing the need for revolution. It also limits any oppression imposed by a plutocracy to being within a short 50 year period. The Jubilee prevents plutocracy and the socio-economic forces that lead to oppression and revolution.

It safeguards the nation.

Isn't God awesome? lol

But Reconstructionists don't see this. As a result... it would be conceivable that a misapplication of divine law on account of the Reconstructionists could lead to a religio-political plutocracy, could it not?

If the Reconstructionists didn't sell their souls to the dominating economics of conservativism and embraced God's true vision of a nation... we'd realize that the Law of God is neither "left" nor "right"... but it is "just". There is something within it to relieve the fears and address the considerations of every side of nearly any political divide.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

that would be the logical conclusion in my mind.

Same here.

[Aquila]

What about laws condemning usury, interest or excessive interest (i.e., predatory lending)?

Would Reconstructionists prevent such economic exploitation?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

What about laws condemning usury, interest or excessive interest (i.e., predatory lending)?

Would Reconstructionists prevent such economic exploitation?

I would hope so, the OT certainly condemned it, I was reading Nehemiah this morning and it was talking about that very issue and how Nehemiah made the people stop charging their brothers interest.

I think that the laws of the OT are the laws of love right? the commandment is fulfilled by the law of love.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

In general it is true that there is leadership in the church. All things are to be done in an orderly fashion. Where the church today misses the mark IMO is when we bestow authority upon a single man (pastor) and our belief that all others are to submit to him.

This belies the fact that Christ is the head of every man scripture found in 1Corinthians 11:3. Let's do an analysis of the scripture you quote above Sister Amanah. It does not conflict with what I'm saying, it rather reinforces it. I'll post it below . . .

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

Notice that it says leaders (as opposed to one leader) in every town. This points to plural eldership. They is plural as well which further reinforces the teaching. Notice, however that town is singular. Multiple leaders in every town. The church at Ephesus had elders (plural) that Paul requested a meeting with the elders in Miletus . . .

Acts.20
[17] And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.

It never mentions that Paul called for a conference with the pastor, or any other person with singular authority over the church. When we are sick we are to call on the elders of the church. In the fourteenth chapter of Acts . . .

Acts.14
[23] And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

Once again we have elders , plural, ordained in every church, singular. It is the instruction of the apostles that we by our thinking as well as our actions, fail to follow. And we think it won't work if we try it the biblical way. Is there any example in the NT of a the early church ordaining a singular pastor to be over a church? No there is not. Yet most of us have probably been to ordination services for a pastor. Most of us have probably NOT been to an ordination service for an elder that was not a pastor (as we define pastor today, think CEO).

Another interesting passage of scripture concerning judging, which is something we seem to think we should never do as Christians.

1Cor.6
[1] Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
[2] Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
[3] Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
[4] If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
[5] I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

Notice that the one to judge is specifically to be the ones (them, once again plural) that are the least esteemed among you (the church). Does this ever happen in our churches? Does this imply that the pastor (who is certainly not typically the least esteemed among us) or the board members (ditto) should be the one that should be judging matters in the church? This would be considered utter heresy in our apostolic churches today. Yet this IS the instruction of the apostles, whose doctrine (teaching) we are to continue steadfast in.

Lord have mercy.

My experience with the Quakers shed a lot of light on this. The Quaker group I fellowshipped held committees to address issues brought before them. In addition, they established their own marriages, and acted as arbitrators in divorces. Even if those marriages were outside of the recognition of civil law. Their opinion was that they were a sovereign religious body who had the right to serve as mediators and establish their own customs regardless of the proclaimed authority of civil government. Those members who refused to heed any clearness committee were disfellowshipped.