All righteous civil laws ultimately, I think, find their origins in God's word. In a perfect world of righteous people, Libertarianism probably would work. In the world we live in, pure libertarianism is bound to fail, since the civil law would be grounded not in God's word, but in whatever seems right in the eyes of those in power.
My use of the words "so-called" was in reference to what passes as Christian theonomy today, not in historic Christian theonomy.
I am not well qualified to debate much on this subject, since my only real exposure to anything like it has been in a non-Reformed, Charismatic-style "Kingdom Now" theology, and in evangelical efforts to "hasten the Lord's coming" which were aimed at getting Republicans elected rather than being salt and light and "conquering the culture" by means of the gospel lived out and demonstrated.
My further contributions to this thread would be the fruitless ramblings of a kid making uneducated guesses more than informed debate. Thus I won't attempt to justify any position, but rather ask questions to clarify things that seem unclear to me.
For example, the observation I made earlier:
I have always thought that the only major difference between Postmils and Amils is in their views of what the Lord will find on the earth when He returns: Postmils say He will find a world largely converted to Christ and governed by godly men - a "Christian culture" being predominant on the planet; and Amils say He will find a tiny, persecuted remnant "purified" by their suffering, and rescue them.
Is that an accurate summary of the difference, or have things changed in the common definitions of Amil and Postmil? Apparently the common understanding of the word "theonomy" has been changed by to refer to the views of more recent writers like Gary North. It looks like it has changed to one of more political activism in recent times than one of the "cultural conquest by the gospel." Is that correct as well?
Respectfully retreating so as not to confuse myself any further,
Robin
