So...What's Wrong with a Theocracy?

Nothing wrong with being prophetic - indeed the church and we Christians are positively called to be this - salt and light and all that. But to impose that by force or coercion - that's another thing. Paul and Jesus were, I believe. talking about the need to be obedient. You can be obedient and prophetic - it's called critical loyalty and is a bit of a delicate balancing act and art form but can and should be done.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Monergist,

Bahnsen was great on apologetics, and he should have stayed there. OT Law is certainly not a good area for him. Israel's Law was Israel's Law. God did not enforce that Law upon other nations, and he specifically excludes us from that Law today.

Secondly (to whoever wrote it), democracy is not every man doing what is right in his own eyes. That is anarchy. Democracy is the rule of the majority, which God did not condemn.

 

Cromwell personally was OK. By the standards of his time in fact he was remarkably tolerant. But his subordinates eg: Ireton were anything but, and he pretty much failed to control them; thus his regime as a whole represents one of the most intolerant times in our history.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I think Bahnsen fails to make the scriptural distinction between Israel as a nation, and church as a body. We are not a nation.

When Scripture says we are not longer under the Law, I don't know how much clearer it gets. I don't say that to be argumentative, please understand. I just think that out of all things Scripture says, this has to be right near the top of the clarity list.

I am not either. But recognizing that the church is not under the Law (with a capital L, the law of Moses) does not make one antinomian. We live under the law of Christ, not under the Mosaic Law. I think people fail to make that distinction.

Another problem with Bahnsen's position (and others of that general persuasion) is that the they try to separate the Law into parts (e.g. civil, ceremonial, moral). But the Law exists as a whole. I am quite sure that Bahnsen, for all his Law talk, wore garments of mixed materials, and didn't stone his children for talking back to him. YOu see, they want selective application of the parts of the Law they like, rather than all of it. But Paul (Gal 5) makes clear that the Law is a whole and is indivisible. If you keep one part, you have to keep it all.

As do I, but that does not mean it is intended for us to live under. Gal 3 talks about it being a schoolmaster until the time of faith. That is a temporal reference, I believe, not a reference to belief vs. unbelief, or ways of salvation. Paul said that the Law was good, the problem is in man ... He can't keep it.

Lastly, I do think there are probably some who have contempt for the Law, but I find them very rare. Saying that we are no longer under Israel's Law is not contemptuous, nor is it antinomian.

 

Bottom line, I'm all in favor of a theocracy. I can't wait.

But we're going to have to wait until God decides to establish it.

You won't have a Christian theocracy until then. What you'll have is a dictatorship by some religious cranks.

God will do it when He's ready.

 

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Exactly. or jailed, or fined. No thanks. I don't need or want the government dictating my religious beliefs to me.

Cromwell's era was by no means an era of religious liberty. It was an era of religious oppression. England was good at religions opression. Just ask the Puritans.

Can you imagine if the US were a theocracy? And who would decide the theological issues? Would be illegal for a Presbyterian to baptize their babies? Would it be illegal for a Catholic priest to hold confessions? Would it be illegal to use any Bible translation besides the KJV? Would it be illegal to be Buddhist, Mormon, Muslim or Jewish? Would churches be allowed to use emminent domain to acquire property? Would people be jailed or fined if they were not church members? If I believe that the Sabbath is on Saturday, will it be illegal for me to adhere to that belief? Will it be illegal for me to carve a face in a pumpkin? Will it be illegal for me to dance? Will I be required to take a religious test to apply or run for a government job? Will it be illegal for me to speak out against the church?

All these things were, at one time or another, forbidden in theocratic societies. DO we want to go back to that again??

Amen! What you said!

 

Galatian, that was a most excellent post !!!

 

Don't be fooled by Reconstructionists. See www.freebooks.com

Reconstructionists believe that only they are true Christians and only true Christians are controlled by the Holy Spirit. When they gain power they will impose the Mosiac Covenant upon everyone else but not themselves.

Only they will have the vote because only they are indwelt by the HS. Sorry bout you Baptists and Catholics.

 

[STOP DISCUSSION]

That was absolutely hilarious!! Once again, I have spewed coffee all over the place.
Thanks - I really needed that.

[CONTINUE DISCUSSION]

 

Well, given your definition, I would say that there is no question that every nation should be a theocracy. Note...I am speaking in terms of
THE DEFINITION GIVEN IN THE IMMEDIATELY PREVIOUS POST:

There are only two choices: follow God's law, or someone else's. The right answer is self-evident.

 

Good discussion!, I think I'm going to like this place.

 

Galation you have it right.When Jesus comes to rule the Millineal Kingdom That will be a theocracy.Until then they are all pretenders.

 

Besides the Taliban has taught us what a man made theocracy can do for people.

 

Bill, note the definition given a few posts ago. It's not the classic understanding of "theocracy", so you need to define terms, I think...because
"a state that strives to be in subjection to God and to submit to His revealed Law has no relation to the Taliban.

 

Billwald, I know numerous reconstructionists well. Your statement is not true.

 

To be technical - are we not discussing a "theocratic state" as opposed to a "true theocracy"?