Theonomist quotes on war, statism, and Ron Paul

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not a theonomic reconstructionist, but I am sympathetic to the form advocated by guys like Rushdoony and North, even though I have some differences of opinion from them. The form that is often seen on this website is way too statist, and particularly pro-war, for the actual reconstructionists.

Greg Bahnsen:

5. The potential cost to be incurred by warfare should not be a greater evil than that which is to be remedied. Bahnsen explains,

Just stop and think about it: there are probably some bad things happening in the world that we might be able very successfully to take care of, but the cost of taking care of them would turn out to be a greater burden, a greater evil to us than the remedy of those evils themselves. That has to be taken into account.

6. Finally, the means of violence employed must be both discriminate and proportional. The means must not be “an all-out war, do whatever you can, to obliterate the enemy. . . . The violence that is employed must be only that which is sufficient to restore the peace that has been destroyed by the aggressor nation.”

Further, this means it should be “a war that carefully distinguishes civilians from combatants.” Collateral damage of innocents, for example through drone strikes, Bahnsen therefore probably would not have sanctioned.

http://americanvision.org/9926/bahnsen-war/

More Bahnsen (Same Source):

For those who take an antagonistic position to that will be very quick to tell us that the Bible cannot be our guide, because when we look at the Bible, we see what has come to be called “holy wars” of Jehovah. And do we really wish to say that we are in the same position as Old Testament Israel, that special nation chosen by God to be His redeemed people; that elect, holy nation being sent by God into war? Do we really wish to say that we, perhaps because we’re a “Christian nation,” have the right to go out and destroy communism anywhere on the globe? Do we really want to take that mantle upon ourselves of “holy war”?

Bahnsen refutes this position: there is a “special place for holy war provisions, the crusades of God, in the Bible.”

It is true that God gave positive commands for a particular time and place to impose a special curse of mass capital punishment upon the Canaanite tribes as Israel occupied the land. And I believe that this guidance from God has a unique role in the history of redemption. That is to say, what we read in the Bible about God’s provisions of holy war has a unique place—not a normative, not a common, not an ongoing nor a valid place—in our reasoning about war.

More Bahnsen:

In the course of such siege/war, or even subsequent war itself, Deuteronomy 20:19–20 demands that you shall not destroy the fruit trees of that land; the non-fruit trees only could be cut down, and only for the war effort. Bahnsen explains: “What this tells us is that total destruction of a culture, and total destruction of its livelihood, is not the godly way to wage war. There are to be no wars of annihilation. . . . War is to be waged against combatants and not against the earth, and thus destructive power must be used discriminately.”

(I highly recommend reading the whole article, there's so much good stuff in it)

Joel McDurmon:

These laws calls us to war only in just causes, for defensive wars only, with voluntary militias, only after every possible avenue of peace is exhausted, only in measured responses, only when feasible physically and financially, and only where we have legitimate jurisdiction to do so. These laws, according to Bahnsen, forbid standing armies, wars of aggression, and interventionism. Bahnsen’s non-interventionist principle would have us as a nation, most of the time, minding our own business, pursuing peace, and sending missionaries instead of soldiers.

http://americanvision.org/11359/rushdoony-on-war/

RJ Rushdoony:

We see here as elsewhere that there is nothing outside of God’s government. Work, worship, war, eating, sanitation, and all things else are subject to His laws. He is totally the Governor of all things. The marginal note to this text in the Geneva Bible tells us, “God permitteth not this people to fight when it seemeth good to them.” We are in all things totally under His government.

God’s laws of warfare view legitimate warfare as the defense of the family and the land. Modern warfare is waged for political, not covenantal, reasons. Moreover, nonbiblical wars are waged more and more against civilians, as were pagan wars. Thus, there is a great gap between political wars and those permitted by God’s law.

Bojidar Marinov:

Neo-cons should have read Murray Rothbard, but they are afraid of Rothbard’s implications because they worship America, and its place as a god-state. The left does this too, and has done so since Rousseau (heck, since Hobbes). The left, however, doesn’t pretend to have Christian social ethics, so they are not bound by deference to abortion, homosexuality, and other travesties of morality. In that respect, and only in that respect, Republicans, neo-cons, and most conservative leaning people, are marginally different than the left. (I state that with a huge grain of salt, mostly because since the “right” has accepted the left’s argumentation on government and society, they are only 30-60 years behind on social issues. They have not taken a principled stand, and will eventually come to the left’s position, while the left progresses onward. I cannot address that here.)

And also this:

To prove this I will point out two examples of selective biblical ethics. Rush Limbaugh, “conservative” radio talk show host, and Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House and Presidential candidate. Both these men have been married multiple times, and divorced just as many. Gingrich has sold his opinion many times to the highest bidder, as well as his principles. Gingrich and Limbaugh, who are wealthy, rightly oppose government theft in the form of welfare, but not because they don’t believe in stealing money from some to give to others, or accepted money stolen themselves (I’m thinking especially of Gingrich here, and not so much Limbaugh). The two do accept welfare when they don’t perceive the money as having come out of their pocket, or when they feel they will see a return on investment, such as international nation-building, largely in the Middle East. They oppose welfare because they are in a higher tax-bracket, not because they feel it is always wrong (vis-a-vis the nation building, which is exported welfare). So two of the major leaders of the “conservative” movement in the U.S. have stated they wish to affirm classic (or traditional) values, especially those forged by Christianity. But they are unwilling to apply them consistently to their own lives. As the book of James says, he who has erred in one law has erred in them all.

And later in the article he endorses Ron Paul (as I know McDurmon has), the article is here: http://bojidarmarinov.com/blog/neo-conservative-betrayal-and-cowardice/



The theonomic movement was initially a reformed movement, and has many similarities with libertarianism. Indeed, many theonomists call themselves libertarians: despite several differences between Ron Paul style libertarianism and reconstructionism, there are far more similarities than there are between reconstructionism and neoconservatism. Rushdoony also once said theonomic theocracy is "the closest thing to a radical libertarianism that can be had."

Those of you who are pro-war and think they are theonomists, what movement are you in again?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Oh, and here's an interesting one from this website's own Bob Enyart:

I care about the Christians and the conservatives who spread this moral relatavism, this lie, that says even if you oppose the war, you should support the troops. So what, is that only valid for this decade or only in America? Is that a general principle that's true? So if your troops were Nazi soldiers going in to destroy the nations around them and to round up all the Jews and put them in concentration camps..."Well, I'm against the war but I support the troops." What does that mean? The troops are the one's who are implementing the evil policy of the government if it's an unjust war.

If your troops are doing something evil, you should oppose the troops and oppose the evil and oppose the war and oppose the government that's conducting the war. That's what you should do if you know right from wrong. But if you're a moral relativist, you don't understand that we're in a battle between right and wrong, then you undermine truth, you undermine morality and you say even if you're against the war you should support the troops. It's inane.

Enyart is right. There are only two logical positions to take on this. I support neither the wars nor those who fight them...

 

[Christian Liberty]

So, any pro-war theonomists want to argue with me about this?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Bump for a belated "Memorial Day" bump..

 

[Granite]

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any kind of pro-war theonomist, really--to be consistent they'd generally take a more isolationist approach to foreign affairs.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any kind of pro-war theonomist, really--to be consistent they'd generally take a more isolationist approach to foreign affairs.

Well, consistent theonomists are reformed, usually Presbyterian (though there are some Reformed Baptists) and... well... consistent. In which case, yes, non-interventionist.

But there are a bunch of "theonomists" on this site who aren't very consistent and who are much more in favor of war and the military (like Bob Enyart) hence the thread.

I'm curious if most of the "theonomists" here actually know where their theology comes from

 

[Granite]

Well, consistent theonomists are reformed, usually Presbyterian (though there are some Reformed Baptists) and... well... consistent. In which case, yes, non-interventionist.

But there are a bunch of "theonomists" on this site who aren't very consistent and who are much more in favor of war and the military (like Bob Enyart) hence the thread.

I'm curious if most of the "theonomists" here actually know where their theology comes from

I doubt it.

Enyart that I'm aware doesn't associate himself with the likes of van Til, Bahnsen, Rushdoony, North, De Mar, Grant, and the rest. And Christian Reconstructionists would have nothing to do with Enyart in return, so I guess that makes them about even.

Anyone here who's a member of the Enyart fan club follows his lead but, in my time on TOL, usually shies from associating with CR by name, even if they inadvertently or unwittingly agree with CR's theology and proposed social changes. Reconstruction's gotten a very nasty rap in many circles, even by those who call themselves "dominionists."

So: For a theonomist on TOL who really knows where the theology comes from would be unusual, but not unheard of. And Reconstructionists and Enyart have a very, very similar end game in mind, although the theology they use to justify their own unique take on things differs substantially (CR is almost always associated with five-point Calvinism and post-mil eschatology).

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I'm not a theonomic reconstructionist,

Back to Libertarianism so soon?

Regarding war: Do your buddies at American Vision not study history?

Over a million slaves were taken out of Europe

The theonomic movement was initially a reformed movement, and has many similarities with libertarianism.

Drug pushers and pornographers are one thing that they both have in common (Libertarians want them both legal, theonomists see no reason why they should be illegal, as neither are specifically prohibited in the Bible...or so theonomists think). I've seen many similarities between the two cults while studying both.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

It is possible for the civil magistrate to establish an official religion that isn't Christianity. To simplify things then, I assume the WCF definition of the Establishment Principle in an attempt to explain the difference.

The Establishment Principle is: The civil magistrate is required by the Bible to apply the Ten Commandments to civil laws and protect Christ's Church, as the WCF Chapter 19 and Chapter 23, lays out.

Admittedly, there are variations of theonomy. Small "t" theonomy (Gillespie, Rutherford, etc) is not against natural law, though they are better known as theocrats and establishmentarianism. Recent big "T" theonomy (North, Rushdoony) is against natural law because they see it as compromising with fallen man (and Rushdoony said nature is fallen, whatever that means).

One I'm most familiar with says that the moral law and the OT moral case laws—along with their penalties—continue. There is some intramural debate over whether the penalty described is a maximum penalty or whether the penalty itself is circumstantial, for example, someone might be allowed to be executed by some other painful, public method instead of stoning.

This particular brand of theonomy recognizes that some laws were specific to Israel and no longer continue. The difference between this and other views of how the OT law applies to today's civil laws is that this version of theonomy includes the moral case laws and their penalties under the category of "general equity," along with whatever laws non-theonomists include in that framework. While the confession says that the OT legal system, the "sundry judicial laws" which "expired" with the conquest of Judea, the WCF Divines went on to hold that some of those laws may still be valid today provided "the general equity thereof may require" despite the change from Judea under the Sinai covenant to today's nations not in covenant with God. Hence it is the rational-moral equity of the law which remains in force. On the other hand, the theonomic approach seeks to create an intuitive appeal to Scripture in justification of ethical principles. Traditional social and political ethics required a discursive process in which appeal is made to the nature of things and to what was universally right.

Accordingly, it is not a mere option to use the OT moral case laws, but each nation is required and bound by the Bible to use them. Some theonomists will then use Sola Scriptura to say that not only are nations required and bound to use these case laws, they are not to add to or subtract from them.

A simplistic way of looking at theonomy is that whatever civil law cannot be proved to be specific to Israel and so have ceased continues because then it must be an application of the Ten Commandments and so a moral case law. I think this is opposed to another seemingly popular scheme that we must prove that such a civil law is moral in order for it to be binding. Non-theonomists are not always opposed to using the OT laws if the circumstances of the nation require it, and some would argue that the penalties given are as harsh as we are allowed to use, but they do not see the nations as bound to use them.

Theonomy and reconstruction are the result of an American mindset which seeks to limit social statism. Establishmentarianism was a European movement which was concerned with reformation of religion. Theonomy arose out of the neo-Calvinist concept of sphere sovereignty whereas Presbyterian establishmentarianism—a qualification which must be made here in view of the fact that there are Erastian establishments—is grounded on a two kingdom foundation. In the former there is no secular-sacred or nature-grace distinction. In the latter these distinctions are fundamental.

Given the above distinctions seeing the difference should be straightforward. The Establishment Principle requires the magistrate to protect Christ's Church and apply the Ten Commandments in making the civil laws of a land, while Theonomy is one way of making those civil laws. Accordingly, it is possible to have the Establishment Principle without Theonomy. And it might even be possible to have Theonomy without the magistrate protecting one Church denomination, though I am hard-pressed to find a good example other than good old Presbyterianism.

AMR

 

[Christian Liberty]

I doubt it.

Enyart that I'm aware doesn't associate himself with the likes of van Til, Bahnsen, Rushdoony, North, De Mar, Grant, and the rest. And Christian Reconstructionists would have nothing to do with Enyart in return, so I guess that makes them about even.

Anyone here who's a member of the Enyart fan club follows his lead but, in my time on TOL, usually shies from associating with CR by name, even if they inadvertently or unwittingly agree with CR's theology and proposed social changes. Reconstruction's gotten a very nasty rap in many circles, even by those who call themselves "dominionists."

So: For a theonomist on TOL who really knows where the theology comes from would be unusual, but not unheard of. And Reconstructionists and Enyart have a very, very similar end game in mind, although the theology they use to justify their own unique take on things differs substantially (CR is almost always associated with five-point Calvinism and post-mil eschatology).

I've never heard of a recon that wasn't Calvinist, though I've seen some that aren't postmillennial (who hold to the ethical system but aren't convinced it will happen.)

But, Enyart and his fan club use the term "theonomist" to describe themselves.

Back to Libertarianism so soon?

Check the dating please. I was a libertarian when I started this thread.

Regarding war: Do your buddies at American Vision not study history?

Over a million slaves were taken out of Europe

Well, I want to be a history teacher so...

Drug pushers and pornographers are one thing that they both have in common (Libertarians want them both legal, theonomists see no reason why they should be illegal, as neither are specifically prohibited in the Bible...or so theonomists think). I've seen many similarities between the two cults while studying both.

I haven't seen many theonomists who want to legalize porn or keep it legal. You are also ignoring the distinction between what the Bible teaches is SIN and what the Bible teaches should be CIVIL CRIME that is punished by the State. While all crimes should be sins, not all sins ought to be crimes.

 

[Granite]

I've never heard of a recon that wasn't Calvinist, though I've seen some that aren't postmillennial (who hold to the ethical system but aren't convinced it will happen.)

True, although that would be very much considered an exception to the rule.

But, Enyart and his fan club use the term "theonomist" to describe themselves.

His fan boys may not be aware of the roots behind theonomics and or be under the impression it's fresh from Enyart. Not really sure. The godfathers of what we'd call theonomics--the old-school Dutch Calvinists and then Schaeffer, van Til, et. al--would probably find Enyart's appropriation of the word bizarre, at best.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The beautiful thing about a proper Reformed theonomy (even if you disapprove of everything else) is that "pastor" Enyart and his "church" attendees couldn't even be citizens. See Gary North's quote below:

This same principle applies to the civil covenant. Christians are not to be unequally yoked with non-Christians. There is only one way to achieve this goal: withdrawal from politics. The question is: Who should withdraw, covenant-keepers or covenant-breakers? Pietists answer that covenant-keepers should withdraw; biblical theocrats insist that covenant-breakers should withdraw. One side or the other must eventually exclude its rival. (Political pluralists argue that both groups can make a permanent political covenant.) The long term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church’s public marks of the covenant—baptism and holy communion—must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. The way to achieve this political goal is through successful mass evangelism followed by constitutional revision.[1]

Enyart and his fellow hyper-dispies don't do baptism.

 

[Granite]

Yeah, the idea of an dispie theonomist is just...insane.:chuckle:

 

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah, the ideal of an dispie theonomist is just...insane.:chuckle:

It really, really is. I'll agree with you on that much

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Me, too.

http://www.shadowgov.com/Focus/focus.html

AMR

 

[Granite]

Me, too.

http://www.shadowgov.com/Focus/focus.html

AMR

Enyart calling himself a "theonomist" is as accurate as a phrenologist calling himself a shrink.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Granite, since you're an atheist who used to be a theonomist back when you would have professed Christianity, I am really curious as to your take on this. Do you believe theonomy is Biblical?

 

[Granite]

Granite, since you're an atheist who used to be a theonomist back when you would have professed Christianity, I am really curious as to your take on this. Do you believe theonomy is Biblical?

The best answer I can give is that a case can be made for it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The best answer I can give is that a case can be made for it.

Yeah, after I read this I realized "he's an atheist, so he probably believes the Bible contradicts itself"

So, I realize this isn't something you can give a straightforward answer to. I'm guessing your answer is "it depends on which passage" or some such.

 

[Granite]

Yeah, after I read this I realized "he's an atheist, so he probably believes the Bible contradicts itself"

So, I realize this isn't something you can give a straightforward answer to. I'm guessing your answer is "it depends on which passage" or some such.

It's a cobbled-together system drawn from a cobbled-together book. Theonomy is consistent on its own presupposed, internally-insistent terms, but you really need to make leaps and bounds in order to make it work. But really it's no different from another pet discipline or offshoot or sect or system. One can make a case for Calvinism or Arminianism or pre-, mid-, or post-trib rapture (or the rapture itself for that matter) as well as theonomy or the rejection of Christ's deity or the trinity and so forth.

So yes, theonomy is "biblical" in that it's taken from scripture. Is it accurate or sound or the only "true" interpretation to be taken from the Bible? Absolutely not--but then again, look who you're asking.:chuckle: