Brother, I get the idea because the civil power should not take up the religious cause of Christ, nor should the church take up the civil cause of retributive justice. Post-mil Theonomy, from what I understand of it (and I may not fully), confuses these kingdoms.

E.g., which of the 10 Commandments should the civil power enforce (if only their prohibitions)? If theonomy limits the civil power to enforcement of, say, # 6-9,  then I could probably agree with that, with the following caveat: why do we need our neighbors to affirm the *source* of "do not murder" *for civil purposes*? Can't we have a functioning society as long as we all agree *that* we shouldn't murder (regardless of  the "why")? When the civil power starts promoting the "why" we get into kingdom-confusing trouble. Should the civil power specifically acknowledge Christ as Lord, or is "Creator" and/or "Divine lawgiver" enough?

"Can I find you a Theonomist, etc." -- isn't that exactly the goal of  the Theonomist version of postmillennialism: dominion over "every square inch" before the return of Christ? (Honest Q).

Here is Kline's "[Comments on a New-Old Error](https://meredithkline.com/klines-works/articles-and-essays/comments-on-an-old-new-error/)" wherein he interacts with Bahnsen (and through him to Rushdoony), which might be of interest...

That said: it would be great if we agreed on this, but even if we don't -- I appreciate the engagement, and the "fellow-feeling" of interacting with a #bitcoin  / #nostr  pleb who has the added bonus of also being a brother in Christ. That's a pretty rare treat in and of itself. 

 One of the reasons I appreciate Rothbard so much is that he acknowledges the influence that religion (specifically, eschatology) has on political views. 

So many of these disagreements come down to eschatological views; and differences in eschatological views ultimately resolve into differences of understanding regarding the creation mandates and/or in relation to the Covenant of Works (i.e., Covenant Theology). Am I incorrect that Bahnsen was a mon-ocovenantalist?

Here's another helpful article from the brilliant Brandon Adams (a fellow 1698'er): "[Theonomy?](https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2020/09/18/theonomy/)" that may also be of interest.

Cheers.