-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Any Theonomists here?
- Thread starter SerenaJoy82
- Start date
...but has the time of reformation arrived yet? For example, Yeshua said "in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Mat 19:28) Reformation and regeneration are from different Greek words, but there's definitely something of that sort that has not yet come to pass. Do we know that the reformation spoken of in Hebrews has happened already?
Concerning the the reformation in particular, we're yet in this tabernacle of flesh, so I would think that the carnal ordinances, especially those in Leviticus 18 and 20 still remain.
Also, we have the divers washings; specifically after having touched a dead body... "He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days. He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean..." (Num 19:11-12) The "it", I think was the apparent "soap" produced earlier in the chapter.
In Vienna, c. 1850, there was an obstetrician by the name of Ignaz Semmelweis. He was investigating why that around 1 in 200 women died after deliveries attended by midwives, but upwards of 1 in 10 in hospitals. In the hospital, the cause of death was invariably, childbed fever.
The physicians were performing bare handed autopsies on the women who had died of childbed fever the day before, they then proceeded to attend the day's deliveries in the maternity ward without washing after having performed those autopsies.
Dr. Semmelweis studied the matter and concluded that the physicians were infecting the healthy women by this practice, and concluded that they should wash their hands. As you might imagine, the physicians didn't take kindly to the idea that they were the cause of the death of those women. The story is somewhat more complex and sordid than I have related here, but I hit the details relevant to the discussion at hand. Needless to say, had those physicians been keeping the law of Moses, the lives of those women could have been preserved.
In another place it says; "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:13) If something is "ready to vanish away", that means it has not yet vanished away. The "that" in "in that he saith" I think refers back to the preceding where it talks about "I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts".
I don't see that as having happened yet, so I think the New is not yet complete, and thus why it says the Old has not yet vanished away. The word "ready" is interesting, it is G1451; nigh (13x), at hand (6x), nigh at hand (4x), near (4x), from (1x), nigh unto (1x), ready (1x). I think "nigh" or "near" might be better than "ready". The old being nigh/near vanishing away it somewhat different than being ready, but in both cases it has not yet happened.
The answer to that question seems to be patently obvious by the verses immediately following. (Chapter 9 & 10). Christ changed the entire format of sacrifice from animal sacrifice to human sacrifice thus abolishing the need for both. If thats not reformation I’m not sure what is.
I’ve had a minute to do some initial looking into theonomy. I found this link https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gotquestions.org/amp/dominion-theology.html
Which seems to align with your original post.
While I agree with the division of the law after Christ, I wholeheartedly reject the idea of dominion theology without Christ in the flesh ruling on earth. This is just a spin on Roman Catholicism, Noahidism, Islam and Protestantism. Where certain people try to rule earth (or their little corner of it) thru government and religion.
I’m all for voluntary submission to the applicable laws, but rabidly against any system that infringes upon a Melchizedek order. God, Christ, Husband, Wife. Anything else is a perversion.
I am a fledgeling theonomist as I am still trying to understand the whole concept more in-depth and its application Most theonomists are post mil, where I am amill in my eschatology. I used to be Premil, Rapture etc when I was first converted. I even belonged to a fellowship that treated the Left Behind series almost as canon. I personally do not see a full theonomy ever coming to fruition, but I do believe that our laws should reflect God's Law as much as possible. For example, a person should not be convicted of a crime, except by the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses ( Deuteronomy 19:15). A person or official who commits perjury to get an innocent person convicted will receive the penalty that the innocent party would have received ( Deuteronomy 19;16). A thief would pay restitution directly to the one they stole from verses going to jail or paying it to the state, where the victim would not see a dime of it (Exodus 22:1, 3-6, 14,Leviticus 6:2-5 ) Murders, kidnappers and rapist would be executed ( Genesis 9;6,Exodus 21:16) Perhaps a more accurate statement of my current position is that we should ideally be governed by theonomic ethics whenever possible. However getting back to my original post, I believe that to adhere to a theonomist world view or even a Messianic/Hebrew Roots view to say that God's Laws are stilling binding and yet call polygyny sin. Sadly, the majority of them believe just that.
Don't try to be any label. Just be a follower of God, in the Way of Jesus / Yeshua. Trying to fit into any package of views within that will mean taking on views you may disagree with just because someone else said so.
This^^^^
At the end of the day, that is all I am trying to be
It is nice to have a discussion on this issue and even if people disagree that they remain civil and Christ-like.It is interesting how compelling it is to be drawn to labels though. That’s one of the cultural predispositions I’ve had to purposefully move away from. It’s not easy, even when you recognize it. We all wanna belong.
C
Cap
Guest
Just think, one day we can be considered BFomists and adhere to the religion of BFomy.
When people ask what religion I am, I tell them I'm a biblicist. It opens the door to an opportunity to present the Bible as the foundation for all I believe and do. It also provides the opportunity to point out difference between religion and the Bible.
Often the label is not about belonging but shorthand for a set of beliefs one largely adheres to.
I've tend to think similarly to this, except that the world will follow Christ's rule in the millennium and beyond. Some are concerned about how harsh the OT Law seems, but in comparison to ours, it is far more kind. Under the OT law, potential criminals feared immediate proportional punishment. God was to be praised and lawlessness was mocked. Now, lawlessness is praised and God is mocked.
How much better would it be if a nation followed God's revealed will in terms of marriage and family relationships? How much more safe would our neighborhoods be if murderers had to fear a single penalty: removal from the face of the earth? How much better would it be if there was no interest on personal loans to citizens, debts were cancelled every seven years, and farm land returned to its family after fifty? How much more just would our laws be if they had to read and follow God's standards daily as a requirement of office (Deut 17:19)? How much better would it be if those in high position were treated equally under law as those of low estate? If leaders were not allowed to accept kickbacks, pay-for-play, or bribes?
To the concern that such a society would bring about a dark-age papacy, I would suggest that the papacy has done the exact same thing as every other oppressive regime: substituted their own traditions and morality in place of God's law of liberty for the purposes of maintaining its own power and privilege. If we reject the "law of liberty" (James 2:12) to rule over us as some have stated above, then what do we prefer instead -- our own secular ideas that have always led to decay and tyranny? Therefore, I agree that to the maximum extent possible, a nation should accept God's standards. For, "blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD..." (Ps 33:12) I truly don't understand how we can supposedly have a Christian majority in the west and continue to tolerate, vote for, and even actively support wickedness in government and free enterprise. Something is seriously wrong.
Really, how many times do we have to find out the hard way that God's ways are better? Evil is never satisfied; it must be vigilantly resisted and brought into subjection so that righteousness can thrive (both publicly and personally). The two cannot coexist without one side (usually evil) gaining the ascendancy. Under such a system, fewer would be ensnared by sinful lifestyles and potentially more could be saved. Alas, Jesus states that, "My kingdom is not of this world..." (John 18:36) and "...the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light." (Luke 16:8), and "Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first..." (2 Thes 2:3), and "as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man..." (Luke 17:26). So, I don't think we can reasonably expect any society to seek God's will in this day and age. In my opinion, we should certainly support goodness -- as God defines it -- in our laws, but our main focus should be to seek personal holiness and do our best to help others to follow His narrow path.
AMEN!!