The Greatest Threat

You say: "Every colony in America began as such a people in covenant with God."

I am no US history expert; therefore, I will not try and act like I am one.  However, I struggle with your above statement.  Correct me if I am wrong, when Israel as a nation formed a covenant with God, the people as a whole vowed to be in unity and single-minded.  They were not allowed to deviate from God's strict Law in any manner.

However, am I wrong in that many colonies included statements about freedom of religion?  If so, that does not appear to be the people forming a covenant relationship as a whole.  The freedom of worshiping no God or some false God was also protected in their mind.  The Biblical covenants never gave this freedom.  I do not question the people's respect for the LORD.  However, as Francis Schaeffer puts it, are we not so sure that the colonies and later the states were established on a "Christian memory" rather than a covenant agreement?

Agree and disagree. I can expand if need be, but this appears to be a Puritan's viewpoint. Check out the founding of Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Hampshire. Also, check out Roger Williams.

I could also explain on the separation of roles of priest and king.

I could also expand on the hopelessness of Bildad. He told Job that he was a "worm" but failed to mention the grace made available through Job's "redeemer".

But, I do agree that Americans need to repent.

In Ancient Near East, they had three major types of covenants: Royal Grant, Parity, and Suzerain-vassal.  Royal Grant was awarded for exceptional service, normally continued from generation to generation, and was unconditional.  Parity was a covenant between equals.  And suzerain-vassal established regulations between a king and subject and was highly conditional.

B8, you refer to Deut. 28.  If I am not wrong, this covanant can be grouped into the whole Sinaitic covenant and was highly conditional like suzerain-vassal.  However, apart from the conditional covenant made with Abraham (circumcision) and the Sinaitic, almost all the other covenants are like Royal Grants.  The covenant with Noah was unconditional (Ge 9:8-17), the first covenant with Abraham was unconditional (Ge 15:9-21), a covenant with Phinehas was unconditional (Nu 25:10-13), the covenant with David was unconditional (2 Sa 7:5-16), and the so-called "New" covenant is unconditional (Jer 31:31-34).

So if the early American colonies did establish a covenant with God (which I am questioning--this raises another question concerning who can actually establish a covenant: one who subjects or the subjected) why do we have to believe it was Suzerain-vassal and not Royal Grant?

Are you Greg Bahnsen reincarnate?  Of course I speak in jest.  However, with mentioning of covenants and the like, it reminded me to look into Covenant Theology.  Someone (possibly Joe) had mentioned this before and I had forgotten to look.  This discussion on covenants reminded me.  For no other reason than this, I went and looked it up in Wikipedia.  And who do you think I started reading quotes from-especially in terms of theonomy (which I did not really know fell into the Covenant Theology camp)-but Mr. Bahnsen.  And then I returned back to see your comment: capital crimes, punishment of the law, etc.  Have you become Greg Bahnsen? :-)

Well of course, I cannot mention Deuteronomy 21:18-21.  Theonomists have had to defend this Law for some time.  Therefore, I know how you would respond--now.  Yet, one aspect of the New Covenant is that "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." (Jer. 31:34 & Heb. 8:12)  Also, Paul writes that "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us." (Gal. 3:13)

Maybe this is where I struggle with the concept of the colonies being in covenant with God.  It appears under the New Covenant that we are referring to salvation.  Are you confident that the early colonies were 100% saved by grace?  If not, which covenant did they fall under--the Sinaitc?

Now, I know I am bouncing around from topic to topic.  I am just thinking out loud.  I'll explain why in my comment after this.  But, am I not wrong that the real Greg Bahnsen divorced?  If so, by the words of Jesus, was he not now an adulterer (sadly he also had children)?  I do not wish to destroy a man based on his sins, for I too am sinful.  However, I wonder if his long derived Bible theory he endorsed was shaken by this life changing event.  Would he consider being stoned?

I said I would explain my thinking out loud in a follow up comment.  My ideas have not been completely fleshed out, but here goes.

Stick with me for a little while on this analogy.  For three days I have been attending a workshop at Oak Ridge National Lab.  Some attendees from Japan showed evidence of cavitation damage and wished to discuss how to prevent this damage.  Therefore, to solve the problem, an understanding of what is happening in their vessel was needed.  Most of the other attendees were computer modeling experts.  I saw some very fascinating computer simulations.  However, we never came to a solution to the problem.  Why?  Because, even though the computer codes were very robust, detailed, and appeared to make sense, they could not duplicate the cavitation damage.  The meeting ended with us understanding some fundamental physics a lot better; however, we appeared to have forgotten that as good as the codes looked; they never gave complete results of reality--no cavitation.  But the Japanese had shown cavitation; it was real.

What is the point?  I wonder how often in "deriving" various "Biblical theory" that we end up learning a lot about the fundamentals but the "theory" (theology) does not really mimic reality completely.  Let us take Covenant Theology as an example.  From my reading, Covenant Theology says we have two large covenants: the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace.  While this sounds good and dandy, neither covenant is referenced directly in the Bible.  The supporters of this view would reply that it is the background of all Scripture and therefore not mentioned directly.  Weak argument in my opinion.

Now we add the theonomy of the Christian Reconstructionist to the theory.  In doing so we are faced with some very difficult issues.  In the end, if we try to apply this theory we have to (1) make a distinction between ceremonial laws and the non-ceremonial laws, (2) amend any law that is altered by the NT, and (3) speak about cultural discontinuities.  So far, I can find no reference in the NT that makes a distinction of the “types” of Law; it appears that the Law is always spoken of in completion.  In the end, I believe we gut the law and cause a need for strong human understanding on which law applies and when it applies and to whom it applies.  This human element is exactly what the theonomist is trying to avoid.

Therefore, like the robust computer simulations, I believe theonomy, covenant theology, and maybe even post-millennialism (which is closely connected) are nice sounding theories, but are not the best to model reality.  You have agreed on this on many occasions where you speak about hoping for that which appears impossible.  And just like post-millennialism breaks the repeating pattern throughout the Bible, I believe the idea of covenant theology is a forced issue and does not come out of a simple reading of Scripture.

A second example might be found with what Joe referred to with New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.  The covenant theory does not make sense in light of these realities as well.

*Note: I am no historian or theologian.  So I hope I have not taken lightly these respectable disciplines with my simpleton view.

Great point, Wesley. I agree wholeheartedly.

Check out this (yes, I copied and pasted. Sue me.):

"Consonant with his convictions about religious liberty, [Roger] Williams did not believe that civil government should enforce all of the Ten Commandments. He believed that Christians should observe all of the commandments, but he held that civil government should only enforce the 'second table' of the law -- the last six commandments. The commands of the 'first table' of the law -- the commands regarding religion and worship -- he believed should be left to private, individual conscience.

"Williams had a forceful and memorable way of making his point about the inviolability of conscience. He said that the authorities 'cannot without a spiritual rape force the consciences of all to one worship' and he came to the defense of the 'souls of men who by persecution are ravished into a dissembled worship which their hearts embrace not.'

"By asserting this Williams challenged the leaders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony at the point of their most fundamental conviction about the law. They believed that all of the Ten Commandments should be enforced by civil government. In their eyes, his rhetoric threatened the peace and order of the Colony. John Winthrop, then Governor of the Massachusetts Colony, records in his Journal that Williams was brought before the General Court in Boston on July 8, 1635 to answer this charge:

<blockquote>It was laid to his charge that, being under question before the magistracy and churches for divers dangerous opinions, viz. 1. that the magistrates ought not to punish the breach of the First Table, otherwise than in such cases as did disturb the civil peace;" Winthrop added that, 'Much debate was had about these things. The said opinions were adjudged by all magistrates and ministers (who were desired to be present) to be erroneous and very dangerous.'</blockquote>

"Williams also challenged the Massachusetts Bay Puritans most fundamental belief about their 'covenantal' relationship with God. They saw themselves as a 'new Israel.' 'Covenants' like the Mayflower Compact were viewed as the equivalent of the covenant between God and Israel at Sinai.   The nation of Israel enforced all the commandments.  Any nation that was a “new Israel” should enforce all of the commandments.  That was why, in their eyes, it was both heretical and treasonous for Williams to suggest that civil government should not enforce the commands of the "first table" of the Ten Commandments.

"Williams denied that colonies on the American continent could properly be viewed as a 'new Israel.' He argued that the relationship between the church and 'The state of the land of Israel, the kings and people thereof, in peace and war, is . . . figurative and ceremonial, and no pattern nor precedent for any kingdom or civil state in the world to follow.' (<i>Bloudy Tenent</i>, p. 3.)

"When Williams would not remain silent about his convictions, they banished him from the Colony in 1636. He went on to found the Colony of Rhode Island and the First Baptist Church in America.

B8, I do not mean to over-whelm your comment section of your blog, just putting in time and thought on the topic as you requested.

Very interesting information, Joe.  A similar individual was Thomas Hooker.  Hooker believed that any adult male who owned land should be able to vote and hold office.  This idea was contrary to idea that only church members could vote or hold office.  And this is what I meant by "freedom of religion."  Hooker appears to want to protect even the non-church members.  They should be represented as well.  Hmmm?  So Hooker left and aided in founding the Colony of Connecticut.  Here he helped create the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, which is considered the first constitution in the West and why Connecticut is called the Constitution State.  This document was probably some what influential on the US Constitution.  One key aspect was the right for every free, land owning male to be represented and to vote by secret paper ballot.

I agree that each colony and state was formed with an admiration and respect of God's Word.

But, I think that Rhode Island's foundation was more right. You envision a society where the government enforces God's law. I envision a society where each member has a choice and obeys God's commandments out of love, not fear of reprimand by the government's officials.

Bahnsen was divorced. Should we have stoned him?

"I do believe that the Massachussettes Bay Colony most closely approximated right application of the Word of God to starting a society."

No thank you.  Give me a Pilgrim or Puritan dissenter any day over a die-hard Puritan.  Do you believe the millenium will be like this early colony?  If so, may God rapture me.  Joking aside.

Like Joe, I do not want a government that leads by fear.  Or one where eight men vote to grant themselves all executive, legislative, and judicial power.  "She's a witch ... she's a witch."  :-)

"All"?!  I am going to have to think about that.  However, that is for a latter conversation.

Let us not get to far away from the statement of the post: "Every colony in America began as such a people in covenant with God."

This statement has been brought into question.  What is your reply to the statements raised by myself and Joe?

Okay ... I reread one of your earlier comments.  You did respond to the raised question.  It appears that we differ on the interpretation of the word covenant.  I believe your definition is an interpretive definition and is highly influenced by your Covenant Theology leaning rather than an exegesis of Scripture.  Nevertheless, let us focus on the Massachussettes Bay Colony.  Do you believe they were the "new Israel"?

I would agree we should be careful with "original thinking."  Yet, as I mentioned before, some thinking does not reflect reality.  Maybe reality is not the best word.  Let us use the current topic.  A perfect example is the Massachussettes Bay Colony.  If Joe's source is correct, this colony believed that the whole Ten Commandments should be enforced by the government.  Now, this view did not unify, rather it caused strong division in the community.  Interestingly, as we all seem to agree, the current community had a great respect for God's Word.  Am I now to believe a social and legal structure that did not work in a community of strong faith will work for 1000 years throughout the whole world?  Reality disconnect in my mind.

Actually, it was not this Puritan mind-set that has survived through US history, but William's and Hooker's idea.  While the Puritan view split the community, the idea of every free man (church member or not) appeared to some what unify the community and influenced the United States social philosophy.

Another reality disconnect surrounds the views of Greg Bahnsen.  He divorced in 1990.  I believe this to be a huge "reality" check, if I may say so.  I do not know the whole story.  But it appears his wife left him for another church member.  I wish I could find any writings after this event to see how strong his Law views remained, especially on divorce.  If he truly believed his views were correct, the punishment for his wife should be death.  But for a man who has loved a woman for so long, could he stand by his views?  It is easy to arrive at arm-chair theories (theologies), but they are no good to me if they are unpractical and disconnected to daily living.

"tolerance of the Puritans" Haha ... you are joking, right?  They were far from tolerant.

B8, due to your admiration for Bahnsen, I am surprised you cannot fill us in on the details of Greg Bahnsen's divorce.  I can assure you the Mass. Bay Colony would either banish him or put him to death, especially his wife and lover.  Are you telling me you endorse his message but have not examined his life?

B8, do you believe if the Massachusetts Bay Colony model was used today in the United States, legitimate, God-fearing Christians would be persecuted, punished, or banished?  Take Southern Baptists as an example.  This denomination would have to go under the Mass. Bay Colony model, right?

There are no smoke and mirrors, my friend. It may seem so because your love of dominion clouds many issues and causes you to embrace false histories.

In the Mass. Bay Colony, Puritans whipped, scourged, banished and imprisoned Baptists, Roman Catholics, Episcopalians and Quakers while they effected complete union of Church and State -- something that even the ancient Hebrew people didn't do.

You do read the OT. So you'll know that the positions of priest and king were separate. However, Jesus, being of the order of Melchizedek and being the perfect embodiment of God, is a priest-king. But in this sinful world, God knew that leader and priest should be separate entities. Hence, we have in our Constitution separation of church and state. It's not the separation as defined by the ACLU, but there is a separation of responsibilities.

With that said, I do have a question. And I hope you'll consider answering it instead of accusing me of non-speak. Should our government enforce the Sabbath? The Puritans thought so. I disagree.

I believe "pointing to supposed failures from the past" is not irrelevant.  Communism sounds great in the theory stage.  So does socialism.  It is when the theory is applied that both systems utterly fail.  The Mass. Bay Colony is an example where the leaders tried to enforce what you call the moral law (a smorgasbord approach as well).  But the system failed.  The community's oppression drove away opposing ideas.

Therefore, I believe this historical event is not irrelevant.  We have a some what isolated community where the majority (even those who were so-called 'original thinkers') had a great respect for God's Word.  The moral law from a covenant perspective was attempted and did not work.  Therefore, the theory does not work and we must return back to our hypothesis and see where the theory failed.  Could it be with the understanding of the role of God's Law (the whole Law)?

"Should our government enforce the Sabbath?" -Joe

Tsk, tsk, tsk. You're starting to sound like Redhatty.

Should the government force people to observe the Sabbath against their will? I say no. And, you, in not answering appear to be saying yes.

And pointing out past failures is very relevant. In ignoring them, you ignore reality and the sinfulness of man -- even the sinfulness of good-intentioned God-fearing Christian men.

Viva dominion! Right?

Give me some references on the civil government's responsibilities concerning the Sabbath.

Methinks you're avoiding the question. Should our government enforce the observance of the Sabbath? Should people be rounded up and stoned if they don't go to church on Saturday or Sunday? C'mon, man, get on with it.

"the theory does not work and we must return back to our hypothesis and see where the theory failed." -Wesley

I believe the assumption in the theory that is giving me the most trouble is the idea that the Law can be transposed into all institutions (we are currently speaking of civil governments).  VanGemeren, who holds a Reformed view, writes: "The law was not primarily intended as a document for the nations or for civil governments.  It was intended to bring the kingdom of God--that is, the will of God--closer to earth in the theocracy of Israel.  That kingdom was not, however, actualized in Israel.  Jesus Christ alone fully executed the will of God and was obedient in all aspects of the law (moral, civil, ceremonial).  He loosened believers from the guilt of the law and brought them into the freedom of the mature experience of sonship."

In the NT, the Law is not portrayed as a institutional guideline.  The Law is in connection with each individual believer.  And sin uses the Law to increase.  Paul writes: "you are not under law."  This would be foolish talk if he was referring to how a Christian responds to institutions.  So if a nation, community, family, etc. uses the Law, all will be found guilty.  All will have to die or be punished.

Daniel was placed as ruler over the entire province of Babylon.  Yet, I can find no place where David takes the Law and suggests Nebuchadnezzar to rule with its requirements.  And Jesus says: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's."  And Paul writes: "The authorities that exist have been established by God."

Therefore, I believe the assumption that a nation is required to implement the Law (which is always spoken of as a unit, not gutted like the theonomic Reformed view does--another comment I might have coming)uses the Law erroneously.  On the other hand, a institution would be wise to glean the message of the Law for it is perfect.

Quite the interesting discussion group in here!  I wondered where you three had run off to.  Just a reminder that there is about 2 more weeks before I am planning to send off our care packages to Istvan's son and Fleur's daughter... hint hint

"Methinks you're avoiding the question. Should our government enforce the observance of the Sabbath? Should people be rounded up and stoned if they don't go to church on Saturday or Sunday? C'mon, man, get on with it." -Joe

Joe, he cannot say 'Yes' because the Law establishes that we have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God.  If the government goes into the business of upholding the requirements of the Law, we will all be found guilty.  No one is righteous.  Error in the theory of domionism.

I might have sophomoric ideas.  But I am trying to be objective.  My fear is that you have adopted a view that sounds nice and complete but separated from reality and is unpractical.

So, this is what I have discovered.  Correct me if I am wrong: the theonomic Reformed view of the Bible makes distinctions within the Law.  One of the first distinctions is between ceremonial and non-ceremonial laws.  The theonomist needs this distinction because today there are no priests; as Gentiles we do not celebrate Rosh Hashanah, Feast of Trumpets, or Feast of Tabernacles; and the Nazirite vow is not practiced as well.  Interestingly, I cannot find in the NT where this distinction is made.  I can only find passages that refer to the Law as a unit.  We have to presume that the Law can be subdivided in this manner.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that we can break the Law into two pieces: ceremonial and non-ceremonial.  Well, Greg Bahnsen further subdivides the non-ceremonial law into “standing laws” and “particular directives.”  “Particular directives” were given to individuals at a certain time and place; therefore, these directives are descriptive and not prescriptive in nature.  However, the “standing laws” are moral obligations.

So now we have removed the ceremonial laws and the “particular directives.”  One would think we are now left with the laws that should be applied today.  Not quite: “Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.” (Lev. 19:19 KJV)  These are clearly “thou shalt not” laws.  But the theonomic Reformed view allows for change of application based upon cultural discontinuities.  Many of these cultural laws exist and I assume there is a wiser man than myself to transport them into the 21st century.  This is what I mean by gutting the Law.

Oddly, Greg Bahnsen subdivides the Law and removes application of large portions and at the same time adds that the moral law includes “general (unwritten) revelation.”  Wow!  This is starting to sound like the government forms I fill out to pay taxes.

So what are we left with?  Good question.  I do not know the answer yet.  But the theonomic Reformer will say it is easy: just follow the moral obligations of the Law (not the ceremonial ones or the particular directives or the cultural specific laws).  Confusing, if you ask me.

I also like to point out that when you list crimes or commandments we can avoid you always list what Williams called "Second Table."  You never mention the "First Table."  Should government be in the job of forcing the Sabbath, preventing individuals from misusing God's name, and making sure God is always first in every individual's life?  Williams appears to say this cannot be done.  Just like a mother or father cannot make sure that God is God of their children completely.  The children must make this choice, in the end, on their own.

B8, before going to bed I was just running some things through my head.  I paused and returned back to your original post.  I would like to echo Joe in saying that I believe Americans need to turn from their evil ways and repent.

This transitions into a topic we have never discussed--a very important topic in my opinion, and one that plays a huge part.  Missiology!  The Law is seen as pointless to an unbeliever.  Why should they care about what God wants?  Sadly, they don't.  This topic of missiology is very interesting.  The Law says very little (if anything) on evangelism; this fact is not true of the NT.  Evangelism is a key part of Jesus' teachings and Paul's mission.  So what say you on this topic?  Where does the Law mold a believer into an evangelist?  Isn't sharing the truth to unbelievers one of the first steps in forming a God-fearing, Law-abiding nation?

Oh, so in dividing the law and only following portions of it, the theonomist Reformer treats the law as a smörgåsbord like I have been accused of doing? Interesting.

B8, what do you believe the Law cannot do?  Can the Law save?  A related question is what was the young rich ruler who came to Jesus lacking?  He said he followed the commandments.  Another question: why is Judaism not very evangelical?

Upcoming blog post ... Watch for it.

Still showing your ignorance Wesley? C'mon, man, we've talked about that. Sheesh.

Yet, he's a tad less passive-aggressive than you? Hmmm? LOL!

I apologize if I have implied that your are a heretic or legalistic.  That is not what I have meant to do.  I know you have clearly stated that salvation comes only through faith in Jesus Christ, our perfect Savior, and no imperfect man can ever work his way to heaven.

My issue is with the application of the Law.  Maybe I am ignorant.  But I am trying to understand.  You say that we need to "vigorously apply the Law of God in every realm of life.  This is keeping covenant with God."  Maybe I am reading into this statement.  But taking the views of Greg Bahnsen, which you appear to uphold, and your support of the Mass. Bay Colony strategy, I wonder if you are trying to use the Law as a cookie cutter.  While we both agree that the Law is perfect and contains a message that is for all, I believe we disagree on how to apply the Law.  But we can agree to disagree.

With all that said, the United States is not going to wake up tomorrow and seek God's Law.  And if it does, are we any better off or is our nation just like the rich young ruler who held highly the Law yet missed the message?  So, if one holds the theonomic view, how does he see us getting from point A to point B?  Are we to sit around like hyper-Calvinists and be Law-abiding individuals and families and pray for change or should we be actively evangelizing/witnessing, sharing God's love to the unLawful?

Anyone considered moving this somewhere where it would be easier to read???

Hey, this isn't my blog. You're in someone else's house.

I just come in here and kick B8's dog and then leave.

That's mean, Joe... now if it were a cat...  Anyway, B8: go start a thread in the forum.  It's not hard or against the rules!!  I can't read this anymore!!!