If you are going to accept one civil law from Scripture and seek it’s civil enforcement, on what basis do you reject another? The burden of proof is on the libertarian to show how/where some OT civil laws still apply and others do not.

I almost fell into the anarcho-libertarian trap until I quickly discovered the brilliant theonomic thinkers. I will add that a major misunderstanding among non-theonomists is not knowing how the OT civil laws actually worked. For example: Just because homosexuality was outlawed didn’t mean soldiers were knocking down doors. Private property laws were still enforced. People could indulge in homosexuality in private and get away with it, just like people privately smoke weed even though it’s outlawed in the States. However, when displayed publicly or found out (with proper evidence) is when punishment is necessary. The two forms of OT punishment were death and restitution, there was no such thing as a prison system. If the men were married, committing adultery against their wives, then the wives have the control to either demand death or restitution. This is just since all crimes and sins are primarily against God, humans are God’s representatives, therefore the OT case laws are all about victim’s rights. So, it’s not as if all homosexuals were just stoned no questions asked. The option was always left up to the victim of the crime. The pagan prison system instead punishes the victim (making them pay for the criminals food, entertainment, education and shelter with tax dollars). And the criminal never has the opportunity to better himself. I would suggest “Victim’s Rights” by Gary North for an excellent explanation of how the OT case laws would be applied today.

A proper theonomic civil government would provide the most free, protected, private-property-affirming, free market, godly society we’ve ever seen. An “extreme libertarianism” as Rushdoony said – with modifications.

If you are going to accept one civil law from Scripture and seek it’s civil enforcement, on what basis do you reject another? The burden of proof is on the libertarian to show how/where some OT civil laws still apply and others do not.

I almost fell into the anarcho-libertarian trap until I quickly discovered the brilliant theonomic thinkers. I will add that a major misunderstanding among non-theonomists is not knowing how the OT civil laws actually worked. For example: Just because homosexuality was outlawed didn’t mean soldiers were knocking down doors. Private property laws were still enforced. People could indulge in homosexuality in private and get away with it, just like people privately smoke weed even though it’s outlawed in the States. However, when displayed publicly or found out (with proper evidence) is when punishment is necessary. The two forms of OT punishment were death and restitution, there was no such thing as a prison system. If the men were married, committing adultery against their wives, then the wives have the control to either demand death or restitution. This is just since all crimes and sins are primarily against God, humans are God’s representatives, therefore the OT case laws are all about victim’s rights. So, it’s not as if all homosexuals were just stoned no questions asked. The option was always left up to the victim of the crime. The pagan prison system instead punishes the victim (making them pay for the criminals food, entertainment, education and shelter with tax dollars). And the criminal never has the opportunity to better himself. I would suggest “Victim’s Rights” by Gary North for an excellent explanation of how the OT case laws would be applied today.

A proper theonomic civil government would provide the most free, protected, private-property-affirming, free market, godly society we’ve ever seen. An “extreme libertarianism” as Rushdoony said – with modifications.

After reading the two wiki pages, it appears that the l.C. page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Christianity) is not merely making an issue out of mere labels. It also appears that the l.C. page is trying to do more than merely distinguish both l.C. & C.l. from the now largely discredited theonomic reconstructionism (http://www.bjp-tiaj.net/1_Helps/1_4_Memo_on_Contracts_R.htm). The links and comments given above by Indigomyth make it clear why both l.C. & C.l. would be prudent to treat theonomy as a dud. I think the l.C. page is trying to point at solving a really serious problem (beyond treating theonomy as a dud), a problem made exponentially more serious by the circumstances that the visible Church is now facing.

We all know the visible Church in America is split into a gillion factions. This country, including the visible Church, is now being threatened with a breed of totalitarianism that would make the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist varieties look harmless. (Anyone who doesn’t believe this should start waking up by watching “Fall of the Republic” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU) and ”Endgame” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-CrNlilZho).) If the visible Church doesn’t start working together, like, this afternoon, the bankster elites will probably fulfill Jefferson’s prophecy within 10 years: “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, … their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” So the biggest problem facing socially conscious Christians in this generation is this: How do we get all these factions working together to defend the visible Church against these criminals who have already taken so much and are threatening to take everything? Of course, force is not an option in developing this coalition, but only persuasion. This may sound like Humpty-Dumpty. But the founders of this country were able to put it together. So can we if we understand what they understood.

The visible Church is split up over myriad theological issues. But only one of them is crucial to forming a viable coalition: the “continuity-discontinuity problem”. (What from the Old Testament continues into the New, and what doesn’t?) This is because, according to the line of reasoning suggested by the l.C. wiki page, a viable (meaning biblical and rational) solution to the continuity-discontinuity problem is simultaneously a prescription for the division of labor between Church and State. Even if the visible Church stays divided over all other issues, if it were to discover a unified voice over the division of labor between Church and State, the banksters would be defeated before the end of the next day. Norman hints at this solution by distinguishing between a society whose members voluntarily submit to laws, relative to people who are outside that society. The l.C. wiki page points to a website (http://bjp-tiaj.net) that attempts to solve the continuity-discontinuity problem. In agreement with Norman, that website makes a distinction between a “jural society” (http://www.bjp-tiaj.net/1_Helps/1_0_Glossaries/#JuralSociety) and an “ecclesiastical society” (http://www.bjp-tiaj.net/1_Helps/1_0_Glossaries/#EcclesiastSociety). This distinction is crucial to that website’s solution to the continuity-discontinuity problem. This is because it defines a jural society as a society dedicated to enforcing laws against what traditional libertarianism calls “the initiation of force, fraud, or theft”. It defines an ecclesiastical society as a society dedicated to enforcing laws with which people voluntarily and contractually encumber themselves. This distinction is crucial to solving the Church-State problem. Because the founders’ generation was probably the most biblically literate generation in history, this solution to the continuity-discontinuity problem was probably inuitively obvious to them.

After reading the two wiki pages, it appears that the l.C. page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Christianity) is not merely making an issue out of mere labels. It also appears that the l.C. page is trying to do more than merely distinguish both l.C. & C.l. from the now largely discredited theonomic reconstructionism (http://www.bjp-tiaj.net/1_Helps/1_4_Memo_on_Contracts_R.htm). The links and comments given above by Indigomyth make it clear why both l.C. & C.l. would be prudent to treat theonomy as a dud. I think the l.C. page is trying to point at solving a really serious problem (beyond treating theonomy as a dud), a problem made exponentially more serious by the circumstances that the visible Church is now facing.

We all know the visible Church in America is split into a gillion factions. This country, including the visible Church, is now being threatened with a breed of totalitarianism that would make the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist varieties look harmless. (Anyone who doesn’t believe this should start waking up by watching “Fall of the Republic” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU) and ”Endgame” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-CrNlilZho).) If the visible Church doesn’t start working together, like, this afternoon, the bankster elites will probably fulfill Jefferson’s prophecy within 10 years: “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, … their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” So the biggest problem facing socially conscious Christians in this generation is this: How do we get all these factions working together to defend the visible Church against these criminals who have already taken so much and are threatening to take everything? Of course, force is not an option in developing this coalition, but only persuasion. This may sound like Humpty-Dumpty. But the founders of this country were able to put it together. So can we if we understand what they understood.

The visible Church is split up over myriad theological issues. But only one of them is crucial to forming a viable coalition: the “continuity-discontinuity problem”. (What from the Old Testament continues into the New, and what doesn’t?) This is because, according to the line of reasoning suggested by the l.C. wiki page, a viable (meaning biblical and rational) solution to the continuity-discontinuity problem is simultaneously a prescription for the division of labor between Church and State. Even if the visible Church stays divided over all other issues, if it were to discover a unified voice over the division of labor between Church and State, the banksters would be defeated before the end of the next day. Norman hints at this solution by distinguishing between a society whose members voluntarily submit to laws, relative to people who are outside that society. The l.C. wiki page points to a website (http://bjp-tiaj.net) that attempts to solve the continuity-discontinuity problem. In agreement with Norman, that website makes a distinction between a “jural society” (http://www.bjp-tiaj.net/1_Helps/1_0_Glossaries/#JuralSociety) and an “ecclesiastical society” (http://www.bjp-tiaj.net/1_Helps/1_0_Glossaries/#EcclesiastSociety). This distinction is crucial to that website’s solution to the continuity-discontinuity problem. This is because it defines a jural society as a society dedicated to enforcing laws against what traditional libertarianism calls “the initiation of force, fraud, or theft”. It defines an ecclesiastical society as a society dedicated to enforcing laws with which people voluntarily and contractually encumber themselves. This distinction is crucial to solving the Church-State problem. Because the founders’ generation was probably the most biblically literate generation in history, this solution to the continuity-discontinuity problem was probably inuitively obvious to them.