Oddbean

@freeborn | ἐλεύθερος @b2e3a57d I'm not on board with you with natural law/R2K. There is no kingdom in which God's revealed will isn't the ethical standard. As far as theocracy, it's not a question of if you're in one. It's a question of which god is worshipped in the nation.

Respectfully, God's will for the common (not "neutral") kingdom is revealed in general revelation (creation [Rom. 1], conscience [Rom. 2], and providence [Acts 14:17]), and in special revelation (Genesis 9). "Here we have no continuing city," brother, and the church is to extend the kingdom by persuasion (the word), not coercion (the sword). We are pilgrims in exile and will be until our King returns. Until then, the church is Rahab in a cosmic Jericho, praying "thy kingdom come"--she does not "bear the sword," nor should she grasp after it. I agree that there is no epistemological dualism at play here, but there is an eschatological "dualism" of sorts: there is the "already" and the "not yet." We should not "immanentize the eschaton" -- that has gone very, very badly in the past and for good reason: it is error. I'm not sure what your confessional commitments are, but the Westminster Standards (American Revision) make it clear that the church and the civil powers are distinct governments with different powers, means, methods, and ends. Perhaps you've already done a ton of reading in the "opposition," but if you haven't, I'd encourage you to engage with Vos, Kline, Clark, Hart, and especially VanDrunen on this question. Either way, it is most certainly not a "hatred of God's law" that fuels opposition to theonomy/theocracy--it's theological conviction.

@freeborn | ἐλεύθερος @b2e3a57d Why do you get the idea that theonomists want a church wielding the sword? Ever one I've seen has an understanding of sphere sovereignty as explained by Kuyper. I'd be interested in who you've heard the opposite from. I hold to the 1689. "The church and the civil powers are distinct governments with different powers, means, methods, and ends". Can you find me a theonomist/reconstructionist that denies this?

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.