Vine&FigTree

I agree with every proposition above, with reservations about the one that begins "God intended...."

The word "intended" is ambiguous.

I agree that God "predestined" the events of 1 Samuel 8. But it sounds like you might mean God "commanded" Israel to elect a king.

Surely you would agree that Deut 17 is describing the events of 1 Sam. 8: As you said above, 1 Sam 8 is against setting up a king "like all the nations," which is precisely what is happening in Deut 17.

I see Deut 17 not as an example of pure statutory law, but also of a predictive curse, like those that dominate the last few chapters of Deuteronomy: There are certainly elements of law in Deut 17, but like other commandments in Deuteronomy, Israel was not predestined to obey them, and so the book of Deuteronomy serves as a witness against them. The specific commands in Deut 17 only heap more judgment on Israel for wanting a king, then tolerating a king who multiplied horses, and everything else that was forbidden. I don't believe God "intended" Israel to do all these things, including demanding a king "like all the nations," in the sense of "commanded," "approved," or "legitimized," but only in the sense of "predestined" as part of the Old Testament history of failure and rebellion that nevertheless graciously produced types of Christ (e.g., Psalm 72) and ultimately led to the True King.

Also, I think Enyart's system of monarchy does have an element of "divine right" to it.

But perhaps a discussion of monarchy is more appropriate on another thread.

I don't know what Enyart's monarchist views are. Have had little reason to study him.

However, 1 Samuel 8 is not condemning them for desiring "a king like all the nations," but desiring "a king to judge us like all the nations." Deut. 17 speaks of God's intention for a king to "write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel." Big difference. The latter’s standard of judgment will be God’s word, not the humanist standard of the nations.

Furthermore, it was God's plan from before the foundation of the earth to give them a king after his own heart to represent His rule on earth and the coming rule of the King of kings. How else could he condemn the kings of the earth in Psalm 2, who challenged the rule of His anointed in Zion. Yes, it was the rule of Christ; but this was prefigured and represented in the rule of David and his sons.

__________________
The duty of magistrates...extends to both tables of the law, ... those laws are absurd which disregard the rights of God, and consult only for men.

- Calvin, Institutes, IV:20:9

But, Jesus Christ was and is an earthy king, the King of kings and Lord of lords. He was God's plan before the foundation of the world. He is prefigured in the house of David and their throne in Jerusalem. Others are commanded to submit to him (Ps. 2:12).

However, we're probably quibbling over semantics here. A king by any other name is still a king. Kings can be and have been elected. Elected Presidents are little different from constitutional monarchs. I can let the point rest.

However, I will not concede that monarchism is somehow unbiblical; not that every form of monarchism is legitimate.

__________________
The duty of magistrates...extends to both tables of the law, ... those laws are absurd which disregard the rights of God, and consult only for men.

- Calvin, Institutes, IV:20:9

The only reason THIS earthly King was legitimate was because He is God. No other earthly king is legitimate. Agreed. No, I think there's a very real, substantive issue here. I agree. Why do we -- why does anyone -- want a king (by any name) other than Jesus? Why do Christians vote for king-by-any-other-name George Bush? Would the men who signed the Declaration of Independence be more happy with not-called-a-king George Bush than they were with called-a-king George III? Is there any doubt that the greatest attempt to restrain politicians -- the Constitution of 1787 -- failed to do so? What lessons can be learned from this failure, and from the apparently misplaced optimism of the Framers? Your unwillingness to concede what the Bible says about Israel's act in 1 Samuel 8 gets us closer to the real issue. What kind of form of monarch could Israel in 1 Samuel 8 have asked for that would not have been a rejection of God?

You answer will be: A Godly king who observes God's Law. My response is that this was always an impossibility. The law of God only serves to condemn all kings and point us to the King of Kings. God was already their King. There was no legitimate reason for asking for an earthly king -- even one who ostensibly would observe God's Law. What deficiency in God's Kingship was he supposed to correct?

Why didn't God make Abraham a king? Why did God allow so many thousands of years to go by with no king? Why did God wait so long before correcting this "social defect?" (And even in 1 Samuel 8, it wasn't God that initiated the "needed corrections," it was the People.) What was God not getting accopmlished as King that could only be accomplished by an earthly king? What is it that an earthly king can and MUST do that King Jesus cannot do through an army of kings and priests? Where does God command human beings to fill in the gap by setting up an earthly king? (Not in the prophecy of Deut. 17)

The real issue here, I suspect, is, Does Christ exercise His Kingship through a Free Market, or only through some form of socialism?

Is not Exodus 18 a template for the fundamental principles of the early Hebrew republics, i.e., decentralization and tripartate separation of powers, clearly opposed to the "monarchism" attempted by Moses and corrected by God's man, Jethro, the first of many such adjustments by our Chief Magistrate?

I have always understood that orthodox (small 'o') or Calvinist Presbyterians considered the American constitutional republic as the legacy of the Torah teachings on civil governance, as clarified by Christ, the aspostles, Geneva, much of the Reformation and the ongoing American experiment in biblical and constitutional liberty.

Today, however, most Christians are Statists, baptized humanists, as a result of government education and weak ecclesiastical equipping, thus:

Caesar is savior and king; follow the money!

Of course, whatever the form, it all begins with biblical or humanist self-government; and here on TAV we have regular opportunities to examine our individual epistemelogies on this and other timely and vital topics.

I suggest that the Trinity, in many respects, holds the answers to the Kingdom civil structures which most glorify our King -- and they're not to found among earthly monarchies among nation states, including church-supported imperial presidencies in the U.S.

I second Centurion's post.

I would clarify this line: I trust that Centurion would agree with me that the system in Exodus 18 was not designed to move Israel away from Patriarchy and down into Politics (e.g., monarchy, statism), but rather to move a politicized Israel back to Patriarchy and upward from there.

Israel came out of Egypt infected with the slave mentality of Pharaohism. This is why the first generation out of Egypt was causing Moses so many problems and had to be destroyed in the wilderness.

Jethro and Moses were, I believe, motivated to restore Israel to the way she was (or should have been) when Abraham went down to Egypt four hundred years earlier.

I have analyzed Exodus 18 here.

Having reviewed your references, I discovered that we indeed are far apart on the topic of biblical government, not just civil, but in all spheres. However, we're drifting off-topic so I'll just stand on my earlier opposition to national monarchies while supporting limited, separate and decentralized constitutional republics, in covenant with Christ, our only sovereign King.

One reference I have found instructive: Gary DeMar's Ruler of The Nations, Biblical Principles of Government (1987, Dominion Press), in which he discusses all four primary institutions of government: self, family, church and state/civil. I suggest that "Patriarchy" as you present it leads quite readily to familiocentrism at the neglect of both church and state. Neither do I support anarcho-capitalism, which appears to be part of your Libertarian worldview (note the capital L). The civil magistrate has a God-ordained role to protect the innocent, private markets, honest weights and measures, and to render the sword under God's law; e.g., to maintain peaceful and just order in God's plan of restoration of all things, before Christ returns (Is. 9:6,7; Ps. 2; 110; Matt. 28:18-20; Rom. 13:1-4).

Murderers of innocent, defenseless children in all stages of development should be tried and executed by local civil law officers -- and the Church should say so, meaning all who follow Christ, equipped by rigteous elders, fathers, deacons and other stewards of Truth, in the Holy Ghost.

I'm not offended, but I think you're wrong to ask. I will answer your questions about my church membership in complete detail with exhaustive (if not exhausting!) Scriptural support. But let me give you an analogy.

Suppose you lived in the early 1500's and were a member of the church. Some fellow gets you into a converstation about "justification" and wants to show you some verses from Romans and Galatians. You ask him about his church membership, and he replies that he was recently excommunicated, was once a priest but now is married to an ex-nun. You're horrified, and you tell him that you will not listen to his arguments about justification.

I think that would be a mistake.

I can almost certainly predict that the church you're a member of will not allow me to become a communicant member precisely because it does not want me to talk to you (or other members) about my views concerning church and state. So it's a vicious circle: you won't listen to my views because I'm not a member of your church, and your church won't allow me to become a member because I want you to listen to my views.

And it's not just YOUR church, it's churches in general, or churches you approve of or churches in which you would approve of my being a member.

So here's my ecclesiastical situation in a nutshell:

I was being personally tutored by Greg Bahnsen for ordination in the OPC. He was going to use me as a test-case to see if someone could get ordained in the OPC without a seminary education, but rather by the older "apprentice" model. He didn't realize that I was already well on the way toward 100% laissez-faire capitalism on the political side, and home-church anabaptism on the church side. Soon enough we came to loggerheads on these issues, and he excommunicated me. Prof. John M. Frame mediated the dispute, and the ban of excommunication was lifted. I did not return to Bahnsen's church, though I still consider myself as much a Theonomist as Jim Jordan.

Up until this year (2008), I had been in the choir of a local baptist church, and even won attendance awards. I was never a member of the church because I don't believe immersion is Biblical. Even if the church did not make baptism an issue for membership, I doubt I would have wanted to become a member. I had very little in common with this baptist church; I just wanted to sing. I did not promote my libertarian views at all among the congregation. I just sang. When the choir director left for another church, I decided I'd had enough singing at this church (after five years).

I am not an official member of any church. I doubt seriously any church anywhere would let me become a member.

I don't think this should be an excuse for you repudiating a "Berean" outlook toward the Bible passages I propose to examine.

More details here. I've started a new thread where we can discuss the compatibility of Christianity and Libertarianism here.

I agree. Sorry, I can't accept or agree to your hypothesis as stated. Too much presumption and not enough fact. Thanks for the privilege of knowing you better, for your candor. No excuses sought or intended. I discerned your "independence" -- your humanist "liberty" -- before this dialog, and I grieve for your displeasure and disconnection from the Body of Christ in a local assembly. I have solid faith that the Church will be restored, not by "attendance" or "official members" but, rather, by born-again, Spirit-filled, resurrected servants of the King who envision a pure Bride made ready for the Wedding Feast and eternity beyond. This is a bottom-up scenario, in history, bible-designed and ordered, governmental proposition, with ecclesiastical structure (e.g., Eph. 4), constructed one stone at a time, supernaturally joined by the Holy Ghost to the Chief Cornerstone whose name is Jesus.

There is no alternative, and there can be no lone rangers -- individuals or families -- in this covenantal, koinenia institution.

Praise God for the brothers I know who have been restored from excommunication, who have come home, not to "attend" or "to sing", but to repent in tears of grace and joy, forgiven, and to take their rightful place among the saints who rule and reign and worship with their King in heavenly places and on earth where we have been assigned.

I am fully aware that Southwest Missouri is a tough challenge for those who have the kind of background you describe. By personal acquaintance, however, I know that God is faithful and He'll make things right in any locale for those who humbly seek Him -- or, He may have a depoyment in store -- with appropriate elder authority, in any case (Matt. 6:33)

I suspect that might be a sticking point for you to acknowledge, but I prefer to be wrong.

It's not a sticking point for me at all. It's obviously a sticking point for you. You're the one who can't go on to discuss a subject without getting past this sticking point. I wouldn't even have raised it. But as I've said, I respect your point of view, and I've tried to help answer your questions.

Anyway, I've continued this subject (monarchy, and what church one must belong to to discuss the subject) on the other thread, here. I'm leaving this thread to the discussion of Dobson and the Colorado Personhood Amendment.

Postscript to my Post #96: Kevin, as I re-read the last two sentences regarding "sticking point", I can be more specific by clarifying that the object in my last sentence was the "elder authority' (under Christ) in the preceding sentence.

In my view, there can be no true liberty for believers absent that authority, by Word and Spirit.

I'm still posting on this thread because I believe these principles have relevance to FOF or any other parachurch or ecclesiastical congregation which professes to be an instrument of King Jesus who rules and reigns over all creation.

I presume that is as true in TAV as it should be for FOF.

In other words, I am asserting that Christians who flail and labor as culture warriors -- independently -- absent submission, covering, communing, tithing, eqipping and serving in the Church of Jesus Christ are exercising a non-biblical/anti-Christ "liberty."

Moreover, I suggest there would be no need for non-bilical parachurch organizations if the Church would assume her proper role in society.

Meanwhile, we who are joined have work to do as His agency of restoration -- inside-out; not the reverse, as so many would prefer.

The latter is a common causal feature of our post-modern culture and the Christianity intended to restore it, to the glory of God.

North calls this Edenic malady "baptized humanism", and I concur.

Maybe I like rocks. Maybe I'm the DiscussionBoard equivalent of a rock climber. I don't want a rock-free forum! Gadzooks! I can't imagine such a hybrid is even possible! I haven't given up on the Capital "C" Body of Christ Church. I have given up on the lower-case "c" institutional church, but that institution has also given up on me, and I think it's a satisfying relationship for both of us.

You speak of "rocky starts." Any half-awake church official would be able to see that I'm not just a rocky start, but a rocky middle and a rocky ending just waiting to happen. That's because of my anti-neocon, libertarian position . . . and much much more.

I think 99% of the Christians I know will tell you that I'm a reasonable, friendly, well-mannered, helpful, cooperative, pleasant person. Some of them don't know I'm a radical libertarian. The ones who do know lean toward libertarian themselves. Like I said, I sang in the choir of the local baptist church for 5 years, and probably only a couple of people know even a little about my libertarianism, or my preterism, or my way-beyond-paedobaptism (which is why I could not become a member of a baptist church that required me to repudiate my infant baptism and agree that only their baptism is valid). I wasn't there for fellowship. I wasn't there for the sermons (to put it mildly). I just wanted to sing.

No institutional church in its right mind would want me to show up under any other circumstances: "sing and shut up"; "sing and be invisible when you're not." If that works for me, that's fine. If I'm in a talkative mood, it obviously won't work out. Call me a "stubborn libertarian." But call them something too.

I was actually at Focus on the Family headquarters in Colo.Springs last month. I really like those guys. I think they made a mistake by thinking Alito and Roberts would change things, but I think everybody who's not a libertarian makes a mistake, and I think most libertarians are mistaken too! Anyway, it would be an enjoyable experience working at Focus for a few years, even if only in the mail room (bigger than many city post offices). I'd have a good feeling of helping hurting, struggling, or even growing families. They have regular chapels, lots of good fellowship. Tell me why that couldn't be my church?

We disagree. Now what? Do we stop talking? I'd love to explore our disagreement and engage in some "iron sharpening" (Proverbs 27:17). Unless your position is, "I don't talk to people who don't agree with me on the doctrine of church." Please see my previous post to Angela. The last line was for you. "Anti-Christ" -- them's fightin' words! Or at least they're pretty strong words. Of course, when you say you don't mean doing all those things every day working in the Focus on the Family ministry. You mean showing up once a week at a struggling little "church" with people who don't talk to anyone who disagrees with them. (If we were talking in person you'd see I have a smile on my face and a twinkle in my eye.) I suggest that there would be no need for non-biblical "churches" if "parachurch" organizations were equipping families.

By the way, I call churches "para-ministry" organizations, because they meet on Sunday to encourage Christians to get involved in the work of the ministry (Ephesians 4:12) the other days of the week. "Baptized humanism" is the way some people describe North's church in Tyler, Texas. (-1-, -2-, -3-, etc.)

I'm willing to analyze your side point by point. Berean style. Slinging sound-bites, sticking bumper-stickers over each other's bumper-stickers, and pronouncing mutual anathemas on each other will not be very productive.

I've just started a new blog. It's only been going a few days, and the first few days have not been controversial. But if you'll give me three months, I guarantee that you will be a better Berean. You won't agree with everything, but you'll be more knowledgeable about the Bible and you will have a better understanding of your own position. The blog is a Biblical defense of my radical libertarian, no-church, no-state society. You can comment all you want on my blog, here, or in the other thread I started. I call it 95 Theses 'til Election Day.

So, Centurion; I believe the ball is in your court.

I think I've answered your questions, even though (as I said) my answers to your question have no relevance to your answers to my questions. But I've told you all about my ecclesiastical background.

Regardless of what my ecclesiatical background is, the question still remains: Does God anywhere command human beings to set up what we call "the State?"

Romans 13, I mantain, is not such a command. It is a command for believers not to resist States that have already been formed and are extorting revenue. The example I gave was Iran invading Israel and setting up a military occupation force, exacting tribute from the Israelis. Romans 13 commands Israelis to pay the tribute, but does not justify the Iranian invasion, any more than it justified the Italian invasion of Israel under Caesar.

Romans 13 does not justify any acts that are otherwise prohibited by God's Law, e.g., "Thou shalt not steal ("tax" "revenue enhancement")" or "Thou shalt not kill ("bold foreign policy in Iraq")." Biblical Law applies to all people, and Romans 13 does not grant some form of exemption for certain people who call themselves "the State" or who get their friends to call them "the State."

Romans 13 continues the ethical exhortation of Romans 12, which is basically the message of Matthew 5: "resist not evil." The message of Romans 12-13 can be summed up as: "Resist not evil (Rom. 12), not even the greatest of evils, the State (Rom. 13)."

This is not a complicated argument. It's just that the implications of this relatively simple choice are truly staggering.

I've started a website with more on the subject: Romans13.com

If you would rather reserve this thread for a discussion of Dobson, I have set up another thread where we can continue this conversation:

Can You Support a Libertarian?

You're right; I've been dribbling and passing at mid-court, almost napping, while waiting for you to repent of your rejection of the biblical roles of church and state.

Meanwhile, having referred at half-time to samples of your gazillion blogs, articles, teachings, etc., I realize that you're a prolific hoopster I had not anticipated. So I'm off to another pick-up game that wont take "three months" or "ten years" to play. Just a time-management issue.

Most seriously, I respect your extensive labor as a man of conviction and scholarship and, again, I appreciate your transparency and invitation to extend our interaction on worldview fundamentals.

But here's the old "sticking point" for me, by Word and Spirit: the centrality of the church in restoration, exemplified by the covenantal principle of representation through my local congregation.

This is the living, breathing Body of Christ in my community, the immediately-accessible, temporal and institutional illustration of "... church of the the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth," according to apostolic doctrine communicated by God's prolific church planter, St. Paul, to his disciple Timothy at Ephesus.

There, 2,000 years ago, just as we are doing here and elsewhere today, they both faithfully labored to build the local church (as a link in the emerging global network), to the glory of Christ in supernatural and practical submission to Him.

As I have already written or implied, I believe that the healthiest Christian families are those who, in a Spirit-filled, obedient lifestyle, are regular communicants, servants, tithers and worshippers in every biblical fashion, joined to other households, and to the equipping and governing ecclesiasical officers assigned to cover them -- a work in progress, being sanctified to illuminate the Kingdom, on earth as it is in heaven -- being made ready for the Bridegroom at His final advent.

I am similarly convicted about the separate and limited role of the state, according to scripture and the mission of the Holy Spirit, as well as covenant church-equipped families, and covenantal self-government as the basis for all of the preceding, under Christ.

This is a simple snapshot of my vision and my faith --no "bumperstickers", "soundbites" or "mutual anathemas" -- just onward Christian soldiers, following the great "white horse" of Rev. 19!

Again, I thank you, and I pray for your success, in Christ, in all that you do for Him. Hope to meet you personally on the court some day.

I appreciate your eloquent courtesy, Centurion. I'll leave you with this thought: Lutherans in Germany were "regular communicants," while their government slaughtered millions. What kind of reception do you think they had when they met "the Supreme Judge of the world?"

It's not that they were actively on Hitler's side. In fact, they privately condemned him. There may have even been a pub in Berlin called "The German View," where they privately criticized their Führer. But they really did nothing to stop him.

It could well be that the only thing God wanted them to do was -- not to conspire to assassinate Hitler, but -- simply to "search the Scriptures" to see if God had really "ordained" Hitler (in the sense not just of providentially raising up Hitler, but in the sense of affirmatively commanding Germans (and all human beings) to create a "State" -- as well as a "church").

When you're ready to play ball with the Bereans, just let me know!