The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Moral Law

A friend of mine asked me to go through the following 10 questions
and get back to him.
He added that after thinking through all 10, he answered yes to all of them.
He believes that to respond no, is to give into “cultural relativism”.
He adds that in his studies of the Puritans, they would all respond yes to all 10. Giving examples such as Thomas Shepard, John Cotton, Thomas Watson.
Also mentioning Rutherford and Gillespie.


Tom

And how did you answer his questions, Tom?

I am still thinking through them. However, I think all of them are correct on how God thinks about sin.
However, I believe only in a theocracy would this work.

I wonder however, if that sounds like a neutral position?
If there is one thing I am seeing in the last 5-6 years, is what happens when
we go against God’s law.

Thinking through these issues, at present I feel like I am sitting on the fence.
But I am not comfortable sitting there.

Something else my friend said:


Tom

What no takers? ????

Let me add something to this.
I was in discussion with another friend today, that
reminded me of this thread.

He said he disagreed with the pastors in Calgary Alberta that got themselves arrested
for refusing to close their Churches during Covid.

He said, there are better ways to get around these mandates.
He went onto say that part of the problem with many in the Church
are trying to do today.
Is trying to make a moral people without proclaiming
the Gospel first and letting the Gospel change them.

He went onto say that, it is not that they are not proclaiming the Gospel as well.
Rather he believes that even if our nation got Christian ethics back and it became
comfortable to live in our nation again.
It would still mean they are living comfortably, without salvation.

I for one, believe that this is a bit short sited.
Though it is true, the salvation of people is the most important.

Nevertheless, I think the Alberta pastors were correct to defy government mandates. Not talking about
the one Calgary Polish pastor that was not respectable to authorities, calling the police gestopo and NAZIs.

The government overstepped their bounds and I believe they the pastors did the correct thing. Regardless of the fact many pastors condemned them.
He also added, he thought it was wrong that Pastor John MacArthur stood against the Governor of California.

I also believe that with the Gospel, Christians should talk against things like abortion, euthanasia,
Woke and Cultural Marxism.
Civilization cannot survive long without the healthy family structure and things that go with it.

Tom

I really don't want to get involved in this... the questions are classic Theonomic Reconstructionist bait and too many 'bite'. God as by prescription requires that all men must keep His moral law. God ordained that only Christ would and could keep the moral law. God by providence and predestination called a remnant of mankind to be renewed into the likeness of Christ via the Holy Spirit's work and consequently they and they alone would and could love the Lord God and His law. Israel was raised up and given the law but would not and could not keep it and constantly rejected God and His holy law and consequently suffered the consequences of their enmity against all that was good and the One who is only Good. The moral law is eternal for it is the expression of the very nature of the Holy God. The ceremonial law was temporary since it's purpose was to point to the Messiah/Christ to come. And thus, at His coming it was abrogated and surpassed in Him. The civil law was given to Israel politic and died with their rejection and their being 'cut off', but the principles of righteous judgment are applicable to all nations.

It is nowhere written that God intended that a permanent theocracy be established upon this earth with strictly regenerated men as leaders who perfectly kept the holy moral law of God. The fulfillment of all the types and shadows is only to be found in the New Heaven and New Earth where the elect, being glorified and given their new incorruptible bodies and perfectly holy nature dwell. That God holds all human beings accountable to keep the moral law, none, NOT ONE, can do so and NO ONE can expect that such a thing will nor can exist in this fallen world. To demand that the OT body politic given to Israel is applicable today is nonsense for it makes No Sense since it was ordained to be temporary and an example of those who were to come thereafter of 1) the impossibility of perfect law keeping, 2) the horrible punishment coming upon all who do not keep the holy law of God perfectly, 3) the Savior of sinful men Who was given that those who God gave Him will come and be justified in Him and His perfect atoning work in their behalf, 4) the hope of the New world to come where righteousness dwells.

Thus, NEVER take the "bait" for it is illegitimate on its face and not worthy of one's time and very dangerous to get ensnared in its faulty 'logic' the end of which is to be carried away from the truth taught in Scripture concerning the law, the Gospel, and the salvation which is in Christ.

My

Hard pass … above my pay grade. But I’m leaning toward fine in principle but difficult (bordering on impossibility) to execute in this fallen world.

A few thoughts,

1. Are the societal motivations of various secular and governmental entities often aligned with the principles and priorities of the Christian? Probably not often.

2. Should Christian leaders discern the proper, well-intended and good faith emergency measures of our public officials? For sure.

3. Should The Church maintain their spirituality and just disobedience based on 1. & 2.? Yes. While maintaining proper mission & motivation.

4. I think Pilgrm responded very well.

Just so you know, my friend is not a Reconstructionist. He is a 1689 Federalist like myself.
Reconstructionism, is not compatible with 1689 Federalism.

My friend however, is tired of taking people’s word for what Reconstructionists believe. He wants to read them himself and he is telling me in some cases, he believes they are being misunderstood.
He went on to say, that he has found very few people who call themselves “Theonomists”, that are actually “Reconstructionists”.

He is a very good Christian friend, who is an elder in his Church. His Church is Confessional Reformed Baptist, holding to the 1689 LBCF, that was started up, when the Baptist Church he belonged to closed down for the duration of the Covid mandates, imposed by the government.
He was an elder in training there also, but found himself at odds with the other elders because of this issue. One other elder (who is now the head pastor of his Church) and others left and started up the new Church.

Him and I often talk to each other on various issues. In fact, during Covid, we helped each other to navigate the rough waters. What I found, is often how someone understands Romans 13, played a big part in their stand on the government and the Church. He was helped greatly, by watching a sermon series by Dr. Samuel Waldron on Romans 13.

To be honest, this particular topic although I have done a lot of research on it (referring to the 10 questions). Seems way above my pay grade.

Those 10 questions he asked, I really had trouble answering. Mainly because in principle, I want to answer yes to all of them. Yet, I do not believe it is easy as saying yes. Pilgrim thanks for your 2 cents.

My friend does not believe in a theocracy like Israel was in the OT. Yet, still believes we should answer “yes” to the questions.
He believes regardless of whether we will not see these things until the New Heavens and the New Earth.
Scripture indicates that no matter what sphere we are in (family, Church, government), they are under God and will answer to God for not taking their responsibility seriously.

I keep hearing two extremes. Or variations of the two.

1.) We need to primarily be concerned about giving people the Gospel. If we don’t we may succeed in making a moral people, where it will be comfortable for Christians to live. Yet, people will still be going to hell.
Let change happen, because of changed hearts.
Pastors getting arrested for defying government mandates, is not the way to do this. Pastor John MacArthur was wrong to take the stand he did during Covid.
Whether they know it or not, they are advocating for “Christian Nationalism”.

(Personal note) I have heard people in this group, condemn people like Voddie Baucham for advocating for “Christian Nationalism”, despite Voddie saying: “Why would I not want America to be Christian? Yet, when I hear the term “Christian Nationalism”. I suspect, I am not that. It really depends on someone’s definition of “Christian Nationalism.” In fact, that statement made one Calvinist Baptist dig in on his condemnation of Voddie Baucham.

This group seems to believe politics and the Gospel should be kept separate. Definitely never from the pulpit.

(Personal note: While I am against endorsing political candidates or parties from the pulpit. I believe we can’t get away from the fact, the Bible does indeed talk about politics. Especially when it comes to the policies of candidates and parties.)

2.) Law and Gospel needs to be proclaimed, equally.
The law cannot save, but it is still God’s moral standard.
We need to proclaim God’s sovereignty, in the government, the Church and the family.
Issues like abortion, euthanasia, Woke, etc.., need to be called out for what they are. Yet, done in a manner that is according to 1 Peter 3:15-16.
The whole council of God needs to be proclaimed, not just the Gospel.
The whole counsel of God includes, talking about issues such as abortion, and many of the issues of our culture.
The culture is doubling down on these things, we ignore them at our peril.

Charlie Kirk and Voddie Baucham are examples of how we should engage the culture.

(Personal note) I have seen both Voddie Baucham and Charlie Kirk, being interviewed together.
Charlie Kirk said he is extremely grateful, to Voddie Baucham for his wealth of knowledge that helped him
to understand how to communicate truth.

—————

I am still trying to wrap my mind around this whole topic and although I know the topic better than before.
I am not certain I am closer to coming up with a solid position.
I am sure that this is to the consternation of my friend. ???? He is a bit more of a black and white person than me.

Talking to many Christians, including family and some in my own Church.
If you bring up politics, they quickly get agitated and shut the conversation down. Some have never even heard of things like Woke, the WEF, and CRT.

By the way, i hear Christians that appear to be solid where the Gospel in concerned. I have even seen good fruit in their lives. However, it appears they have bought into the left media lies concerning President Trump.
Often I just bite my tongue, when such conversations get brought up.
I have been bit a few times, for a contrary opinion on Donald Trump, as them.
Even saying things like: “If you like Donald Trump so much, why don’t you move to the USA?”



Tom

True, but there are things I believe we as Christians need to fight against.
Our culture has already declared war and some even in Reformed circles are compromising because of it.

During Covid for example, the Church was divided over whether or not the government had the right to regulate Churches.
Some even condemned John MacArthur for standing against the government.
In Alberta Canada, 3 pastors spent time in jail, for the same thing. Many Christians actually said they deserved to go to jail.

Woke is another thing, that has divided a lot of people.

Tom

I do think church leaders need to discern whether to take the ordinance of public officials at face value. There appears to be a rise in false justification and overreach in areas that the state has no business promoting or facilitating. In a best case scenario, the Christian Church and the Christian citizen is left alone to obey God and conscience. But an attempt to Christianize an official territory (land or nation) is an overreaction that would just make matters worse in a multitude of ways. I think Doug Wilson represents/reflects a cult of personality in which such things may go wrong in motive and fidelity.

I did a bit more thinking through this issue and I have definitely not answered all these questions.
However, I have written some of my thoughts out.

Should Christians try to push for God’s laws on society?
Actually in some ways, God’s law is already influenced on society. Although, new world views are pushing against this and we are seeing the direct results of that.
God’s laws are part of the founding of North America.
Even our founding fathers, some being Deists, recognized the truth of these laws, because they wanted a moral society. Regardless of whether or not they wanted to be under the authority of the “one true God” or not.
Examples of this are: “Penalties for crimes to be dealt out by the magistrate for murder, rape, adultery and homosexuality, and other crimes.”
People must borrow from the Christian world view, to have an objective moral view. Otherwise everything is subjective.
Can we expect our society to agree with this?
I believe that the answer is yes and no.

Yes, we should try to push God’s sovereignty over every sphere of life. When we look at passages, like Romans 13, we notice that even Government is under the authority of God. The power that the Government does have is given by God.

No, in the sense that this truth will not be completely lived out, until the New Heavens and the New Earth.
The New Heavens and the New Earth however, will be the only real theocracy, made up of the elect from all time.

I find no place in Scripture that God has commanded that the visible church on earth is to "Christianize" the earth, i.e., demand that all men obey God's law as a prerequisite for some government office or even any secular job. In short, it appears that there is a misuse of the "law" in all this such as those 10 Questions. It is God who demands that all men REPENT AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL. And, the fundamental issue is "what IS the Gospel?". My response is that the overwhelming 'message' being preached, taught and heard today is a FALSE gospel which speaks of "another Jesus" and "a different spirit" (2Cor. 11:1-4). And the "conversions" that result are a FALSE conversion that promises a false assurance of "salvation" at best, but more often it is a call to live a 'good life" and/or a "means to cure all one's ills in life". The law of God is definitely to be a part of the Gospel and a means to bring CONVICTION of sin and the reason why all men are under the wrath and condemnation of God. It is AFTER genuine regeneration and conversion that a person comprehends the beauty of God's holy law and the desire to obey it comes to life. This new nature that desires to please God and live after holiness is what transforms one's life and has an influence upon society. But demanding that all men who hate God and all that is good suddenly obey God's law without regeneration is silliness at best. Again, as I have often stated here, it is NOT God's decree and purpose to make this fallen world into a theocracy. This world is going to be destroyed by fire and a New Heaven and New Earth created. Now, it is God's purpose to call the elect OUT OF THIS WORLD and not be conformed to this world nor to love the things of this world. And these transformed lives will be a testimony and judgment to all who remain enemies of God and are worthy of eternal punishment at God's hand. Remember well, only a REMNANT will be saved out of the masses of the entire human race, albeit it that the number will be as the sands of the sea. It is individuals and not nations nor society at large that the Church should be trying to get to bow to God's law, but rather individuals to flee to Christ and avoid the wrath that is to come. The micro example given in Scripture is found in marriage where a believer, who is woman, is wed to an unbeliever. She is not to try and force the husband to be a good man, but rather it is her responsibility to live a life that reflects that new nature given her through gentleness and her rightful obedience. It is THAT Christlike life that God says will have the most effect on bringing about any change which if God has so willed results. Bottom line for me is such "10 Questions" are a clever trap which is meant, whether the person who brings them intends them to be so, to take a believer's eyes off of Christ and the simple truth of the Gospel and to this: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself." (Lk 10:27).

Tom, yeah, natural law. The binding extent to which God’s preserving grace restrains men (to not be as bad as they otherwise would as in Noah’s day). If God doesn’t restrain sin, especially outside of the faithful Church, things will get worse. I don’t see any attempts to Christianize the state thwarting these realities.

I’m sure this is sobering if we apply to the Canadian context, but I think these are biblical and theologically based realities.

Also, Tom, at the end of the day, your friend is promoting a Social gospel, no matter how orthodox it sounds. It is a social agenda. It is socially driven and socially motivated. It is a social project, absent of the gospel.

Here’s where Christian’s Reconstructionism gets a bum rap. We, I being included in that number, do not teach that Christians are to push God’s law on society. We are to try to win them to Christ via the gospel, not by coercive means. It is the civil magistrates’ job to enforce the civil penalties prescribed in God’s law.

Look at the death penalty for instance. Those who oppose Theonomy are sure quick to turn into Theonomists when someone is murdered. And we should demand justice for a murderer, his (or her) life for the ones they killed. At the same time, we are to pray for their conversion. These are consistent with the Christian Reconstructionist construct.

I hope this hasn’t made a rabbit trail in the thread. If it has, please delete it.

Can you show me where the decalogue has been annulled via scripture?

Are we free to have other idols to worship?
Are we free to take the Lord's name in vain?
Are we free to not observe the sabbath?
Are we free to dishonor our parents?
Are we free to murder others?
Are we free to lay with our neighbor's spouse?
Are we free to steal from others/
Are we free to lie?
Are we free to covet our neighbor's spouse or his belongings?

By free, I mean able to do so w/o punishment by God. If you answer "no", then the moral law is still binding upon all our consciences. If you answer "yes" to any of them, Houston, we have a problem.