Any Theonomists here?

[SerenaJoy82]

This is not entirely marriage and family-related, but it does overlap with a theological topic. I consider myself a fledgeling theonomist and very much believe in the principals of ChristianReconstructionism. Essentially Theonomists believe that moral and civil laws of the Old Testament are still binding, while the ceremonial laws were nailed at the cross. However, most theonomist I have come across have bought into the mainstream teaching that polygyny is unbiblical and immoral. However, reading Exodus 21:10-11 that is clearly a moral/civil teaching and thus from a theonomic view, should still be applicable today. It was reading a bible from a theonomic lense, that I came to accept the practice of polygyny as still permissible. I am trying to grasp this theological inconsistency...

 

[PeteR]

I am trying to grasp this theological inconsistency...

I'm trying to grasp the inconsistency of 'moral and civil still apply, but ceremonial is nailed to the cross.'

Did not Yeshua/Jesus say,
For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished'?
Matthew 5:18 NASB

I just checked outside and heaven and earth are both still here....

[Putting on helmet and flak vest and heading for bunker...]

 

[Cap]

I'm trying to grasp the inconsistency of 'moral and civil still apply, but ceremonial is nailed to the cross.'

Did not Yeshua/Jesus say,
For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished'?
Matthew 5:18 NASB

I just checked outside and heaven and earth are both still here....

[Putting on helmet and flak vest and heading for bunker...]

I'm with you on this one Peter. Not sure how this works being divided.

 

[SerenaJoy82]

The ceremonial laws would be animal sacrifices to cover one's sins. Jesus's death on the cross was the once and final sacrifice for the remission of sin.

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe180.htm

 

[PeteR]

The ceremonial laws would be animal sacrifices to cover one's sins. Jesus's death on the cross was the once and final sacrifice for the remission of sin.

Did the animal sacrifices serve any purpose besides sin offerings? Are any animal sacrifices prophesied to be part of future (unfulfilled) prophesy?

 

[Cap]

Did the animal sacrifices serve any purpose besides sin offerings? Are any animal sacrifices prophesied to be part of future (unfulfilled) prophesy?

I know where you're going with this but this is were we part company.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

And therein lies the rub. It’s hard to say nothing changed when no one even bothers to sacrifice, for sin or anything else, or operate within a Levitical priesthood, yet they wanna claim Torah observance. (If this is you, you do you! I just don’t get it.)

It all comes down to understanding the laws that were contrary to us. I.e. everything related to a Levitical priesthood. In Other Words, ceremonial law.

Essentially Theonomists believe that moral and civil laws of the Old Testament are still binding, while the ceremonial laws were nailed at the cross.

I’m unfamiliar with the title Theonomists, but I’d align with the definition you gave. IMO theres just too many contradictions otherwise and too many theological and historical gymnastics and tortuous arm twisting interpretations otherwise.

@SerenaJoy82 Torah observance/relevance has been a major topic of debate on this site over the years.

For the rest of us, perhaps we should focus on the Theonomists issue in this thread and keep the normal TO debate to threads where its already debated or post links to those threads otherwise.

 

[SerenaJoy82]

Did the animal sacrifices serve any purpose besides sin offerings? Are any animal sacrifices prophesied to be part of future (unfulfilled) prophesy?

Some believe they will be resumed in the Millennium, others do not. We are in the church age, where animal sacrifices are neither practised nor required for us. Getting back to my original post, if the moral and civil laws of the OT are still applicable, then how does one justify a prohibition on polygyny. I have a dear friend that is a Hebrew Roots believer. She keeps the feast days and dietary laws, yet still believes that polygyny is a sin. So whether or not one is a theonomist ( which is rooted in Reformed theology) who believe that the ceremonial/dietary laws are no longer binding or a Messianic/Hebrew Roots observer that believes all are still binding, most believe only monogamy is valid, while polygyny is a sin. I can see how a Dispensationalist would believe that, but cannot understand how one who believes that God's Law is still binding has a theological basis for that position. Perhaps that is how rooted pagan Greco/ Roman forced monogamy has become in our society and in the churches.

 

[Cap]

In all the discussions that I am aware of in regards to law vs grace, not once (that I know of) has the subject of monogamy or polygamy in reference to the law been discussed. I think if you take the law only, polygamy could not be denied.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

No matter where one stands on those issues, calling polygyny a sin would be adding to God’s law, because nowhere in the Old Testament or New Testament is it referred to as a sin. It’s just that simple.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

I believe his point is how come so many who believe in keeping the Law (without the animal sacrifice part) still reject plural marriage when that is clearly part of the Law they still believe is valid.

 

[frederick]

No matter where one stands on those issues, calling polygyny a sin would be adding to God’s law, because nowhere in the Old Testament or New Testament is it referred to as a sin. It’s just that simple.

And since Paul wrote saying he would not have known sin except through the law, where is the law to know polygyny is sin?

I can see how a Dispensationalist would believe that,

I see most everyone believes that, no matter their position regarding the law because they reject the plain meaning of the many texts. It's not much different from the creation evolution debate. People read what they want into what is written and hold tenaciously to it. They find ways to argue around the obvious because of the so-called evidence to the contrary; evidence usually first established from outside of the Bible - like billions of years. If people want to believe in something, they'll find a way to support their belief, otherwise they'll have to change.

 

[Pacman]

The ceremonial laws would be animal sacrifices to cover one's sins. Jesus's death on the cross was the once and final sacrifice for the remission of sin.

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe180.htm

Numbers 6:13-14 NASB
[13] 'Now this is the law of the Nazirite when the days of his separation are fulfilled, he shall bring the offering to the doorway of the tent of meeting. [14] He shall present his offering to the LORD: one male lamb a year old without defect for a burnt offering and one ewe-lamb a year old without defect for a sin offering and one ram without defect for a peace offering,

Notice one of the offerings is a sin offering.

Acts 21:26 NASB
[26] Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.

apparently Paul missed the memo

 

[Cap]

Numbers 6:13-14 NASB
[13] 'Now this is the law of the Nazirite when the days of his separation are fulfilled, he shall bring the offering to the doorway of the tent of meeting. [14] He shall present his offering to the LORD: one male lamb a year old without defect for a burnt offering and one ewe-lamb a year old without defect for a sin offering and one ram without defect for a peace offering,

Notice one of the offerings is a sin offering.

Acts 21:26 NASB
[26] Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.

apparently Paul missed the memo

Or, Paul did it for appearances, to win the Jews.

The Son of God hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors but didn't condone such activities.

 

[PeteR]

Nice catch, @Pacman.

Paul did it for appearances, to win the Jews.

That is entirely unsatisfactory. Simply, if we can assign a pragmatic motive to Paul for this without Scripture explicitly declaring so, then we can explain away 1000+ other things in Scripture in the same way. And, we can then do whatever is right in our own eyes based on some unspoken underlying motive. The whole 'Paul did it to win the Jews' is a most despicable accusation and slippery slope. No personal disrespect, just calling that as I see it.

 

[Cap]

Nice catch, @Pacman.That is entirely unsatisfactory. Simply, if we can assign a pragmatic motive to Paul for this without Scripture explicitly declaring so, then we can explain away 1000+ other things in Scripture in the same way. And, we can then do whatever is right in our own eyes based on some unspoken underlying motive. The whole 'Paul did it to win the Jews' is a most despicable accusation and slippery slope. No personal disrespect, just calling that as I see it.

Without Paul's explanation we have no reason to make that connection. We cannot pull random verses out of the context of the passage they are in and build doctrines out of them. That's how cults get started.

The whole context of Paul's message is leading people to a relationship with Christ the ultimate sacrifice. To throw in one particular incidence that appears that Paul is reverting back to that of the Law only benefits those who try to pull Paul away from Grace and into Law. I don't see how any thing Paul did in his transition to becoming a follower of Christ is a what is required of us today. What about physical circumcision? Are we still to perform that requirement?

Paul participated in a sacrifice that probably many others did who are trying to learn the new relationship with God they were being shown. Where did Paul say, "Thus sayth the Lord, you are to continue sacrificing."?

 

[Pacman]

The whole context of Paul's message is leading people to a relationship with Christ the ultimate sacrifice. To throw in one particular incidence that appears that Paul is reverting back to that of the Law only benefits those who try to pull Paul away from Grace and into Law. I don't see how any thing Paul did in his transition to becoming a follower of Christ is a what is required of us today. What about physical circumcision? Are we still to perform that requirement?

Paul participated in a sacrifice that probably many others did who are trying to learn the new relationship with God they were being shown. Where did Paul say, "Thus sayth the Lord, you are to continue sacrificing."?

where does scripture tell us to stop?

 

[Cap]

Hebrews 10:8First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

Keep going if you don't feel this includes you.

 

[Pacman]

Hebrews 10:10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all

same question where are we told to stop? Because that verse doesn’t say that.

 

[Cap]

You replied before I was finished posting.

Hebrews 10:8First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

Keep going if you don't feel this includes you.

Please tell me where in this transfer of information it says we are to continue offering sacrifices that don't offer any benefit for sin.