In this third part, we shall look again at these controversial \u201cTheo-\u201d words and continue in our endeavour to show how the modern attitude, which generally despises these terms, is in fact a digression from Biblical truth and historic Christianity.<\/p>\n
Our first<\/em><\/span> answer in relation to the extent and application of God\u2019s law began by focusing upon our love for God. If we truly love God with all our being and God rules our hearts and minds, we can only be Theocratic and Theonomic<\/em> in our outward expression of His manifest love<\/span>. After all, if God rules our hearts and minds, we are already, as individuals, Theocratic and Theonomic, so it is only logical that the truth that governs the inner man ought to flow out through our words and actions.<\/p>\n This then hints at the first stumbling block \u2013 are we loving God so completely that He rules our hearts and minds? <\/em><\/span>The reason that Theocracy and Theonomy are a challenge for many Christians in regard to the public arena has to do with the fact that they are not yet Theocratic and Theonomic in the inner man. The inner man, truly yielded to Christ the King, will live out the Theo- words in all of life. In fact, unless he be an utter hypocrite, it is impossible to do otherwise. Conversely, the inner man, not truly yielded to Christ Jesus the King, will remain committed to and under the rule of the Auto- words.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n Another stumbling block seems to be that, for many Christians, we have succumbed to a lie which tells us that law and love are opposed to each other. Most find it odd to have obedience tied to love, fealty tied to surrender. Thus, we have trouble with Jesus\u2019 \u201cIf you love Me you will keep My commandments<\/span>\u201d because we try to rework our definition of obedience to fit with our skewed concept of love. Correspondingly, we have fallen for modern, erroneous notions that like driving wedges between concepts. Thus, obedience is opposed to love; law is opposed to grace; freedom is opposed to requirement, and so forth. This is what the moderns teach, but it is false. God loved us so much that He placed the requirement of the Law on Jesus so that He could show us grace and mercy. If we love Jesus, we will obey Him, just as Jesus loved the Father and obeyed Him. Our freedom from law is found in our obedience to God\u2019s law. God\u2019s law is grace because adherence to it keeps us safe[2]<\/a> and nurtures us in the life of Christ.<\/p>\n So, please, let us grasp the idea that a profession of love to and for God means that we love Him exclusively, explicitly, and absolutely. To love God after this manner means surrender to His will and standards, which can only mean obedience to His revealed Law. To reject this package is to follow apostate Israel into adultery and idolatry and to contradict Scripture\u2019s clear teaching.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n Moving on, a second answer comes from John. The apostle states that \u201csin is lawlessness<\/span>.\u201d[4]<\/a> What law<\/em>, then, are we \u201cless<\/em>\u201d in order to be considered a sinner? Is it Man\u2019s law or God\u2019s law? The Westminster Divines asked and answered this question thusly: \u201cWhat is sin? Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God<\/span>. (1 John 3:4)\u201d So, to be lawless is to sin and to sin is to be \u201cless\u201d the law of God.<\/p>\n If you are in doubt, consider the next verses from John: \u201cAnd you know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.\u201d Says John, \u2018God appeared to take away sin; God does not sin; the one who loves God does not sin; the sinning one does not know God.\u2019 Confused? No need to be. It is very simple. Sin is Lawlessness. Sin is the lack of conformity unto or the transgression of the Law of God. If we are God\u2019s, we are Lawful and sinless; if we are not God\u2019s we will be Lawless<\/em> and sinful.<\/p>\n Therefore, Biblically and historically, the Church, in the case before us the Early and Reformation Churches, has recognised that it is God\u2019s law alone that provides the standards by which all things are to be measured. The transgression of God\u2019s law brings sin and is sin, which equally equates to the fact that God\u2019s law must be and is<\/em> the only<\/strong> standard of righteousness.<\/p>\n Consequently, no individual, no family, no part of the Church, and no State can claim to be honouring God if they are not living under God\u2019s King and honouring God\u2019s law<\/span>.<\/em><\/p>\n A third answer would be in regard to the Ten Commandments. Most Christians, erroneously, state that the Ten Commandments are<\/em> the Moral Law of God, but importantly, most admit that this Moral Law is still binding<\/em> upon all men.<\/p>\n The question that springs to mind is, \u201cIf the Ten Commandments are the Moral Law of God and are still binding, why do we pick, choose, and discriminate between these Ten?\u201d<\/p>\n What do we mean when we ask this? Well, let\u2019s do a little survey. Below is an abbreviated list of the Ten Commandments. Please have a quick look and ask yourself, \u201cWhich of these are still valid for today?\u201d Place a tick beside those you believe are valid.<\/p>\n If we are consistent with the belief professed that these Ten Laws are equal to God\u2019s Moral Law and that they are, consequently, still binding upon all men, then everyone should have ten ticks. Do you have ten ticks? If not, why not?<\/p>\n Now, we will make it tougher. All of these Ten Laws had penalties applied to them. How many of these Laws do you believe are still valid and abiding along with the original punishments? How many ticks do you now have? Less than the first time? If so, why?<\/p>\n The point of the exercise is to demonstrate how we will give hearty approval to ideas and concepts, but often, when those concepts are to be applied, we become shaky and our resolve evaporates.<\/p>\n For most Christians, there will be an affirmation that God\u2019s Moral law is still binding. Christians will tell you that murder, thievery, and adultery are wrong. Some would even agree that the penalties given in the Law should still apply. Yet, here, we are already seeing the gap of opinion widen<\/span>. For example, most Christians would agree that capital punishment for murder is right, but few would agree that capital punishment for adultery is right. How then do we justify this difference?<\/p>\n Most Christians agree that God alone must be worshipped and that idolatry is wrong. Yet, how many Christians believe that mosques and Buddhist temples should be banned in Australia because God is God and false worship is incorrect? Not many, judging from conversations and experience. Why this inconsistency?<\/p>\n The fourth Commandment establishes the Sabbath as a day to be hallowed, but to this most Christians would say, \u201cSabbath! What Sabbath?\u201d Even though this is the Fourth of the Ten, Christians question it readily and they do so with no apparent reason. Why is this one Commandment not relevant any longer?<\/p>\n Again, these questions and points are not irrelevant. Experience has taught us that many Christians will give a hearty, \u201cYes! God is King. He must be honoured and obeyed!\u201d but when it comes to practice, they will not oppose the mosque because this is Secular Australia<\/span>. We will be told that we must accept homosexuality because God has either changed His mind on the subject or that we are no longer in Israel. These answers then entitle us to the privilege of once more listening to the hackneyed \u201clove and tolerance\u201d speech of the moderns.<\/p>\n Yet, we must ask, \u201cHow do we justify this type of double standard?\u201d If God is God and He is jealous for the integral holiness of His Character \u2013 reflected in and by His law \u2013 how do we dismiss, change, or denigrate the first or any of the Commandments? Equally, for those enslaved to the \u201cNew Testament Christian\u201d concept, we ask, \u201cWhere in the New Testament are we taught that God has abandoned His holiness, that God no longer cares about morality, that God has whittled the Ten Commandments to Four Plausible Proposals<\/span>? The answer is, \u201cNowhere!\u201d<\/p>\n It seems that we arrive at these points of inconsistency precisely because most Christians and most of Christendom are not committed to the Biblical concepts of Theocracy and Theonomy. Consequently, when we seek to live our lives we operate on principles that make us inclusive, implicit, relative or conditional, and plural, rather than being exclusive, explicit, absolute, and singular.<\/p>\n Turning again to the Church of the Reformation, we will find two snippets of wisdom that are very helpful and which will assist us to see that the principles of the moderns are new. The first is from the Westminster Shorter Catechism and asks, \u201cWhere is the moral law summarily comprehended<\/em>? The moral law is summarily comprehended<\/em> in the ten commandments.<\/span> (Deut. 10:4, Matt. 19:17)\u201d[5]<\/a><\/p>\n This first help comes in the word \u201csummarily\u201d. The Reformation Church did not believe that the Moral law was<\/em> the Ten Commandments; it believed that the Ten Commandments were a summary<\/em> of the Moral law.<\/p>\n Thus, the Commandment on adultery, for example, becomes case laws that proscribe fornication, bestiality, and homosexuality whilst conversely promoting and upholding marriage, family, and sexual purity. The Commandment on thievery becomes a command not to shift a boundary stone or to offer a bribe in order to pervert justice.<\/p>\n When understood in this manner, we see that the case laws are not irrelevant abstractions for the Old Testament people, which had no continuity to the Moral law, but were, rather, an application of God\u2019s holy character to life and were themselves Moral Laws<\/span>.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n The second help comes from the Westminster Larger Catechism and asks, \u201cOf what use is the moral law to all men? The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and the will of God, (Lev. 11:44\u201345, Lev. 20:7\u20138, Rom. 7:12) and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly; (Micah 6:8, James 2:10\u201311) to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives: (Ps. 19:11\u201312, Rom. 3:20, Rom. 7:7) to humble them in the sense of their sin and misery, (Rom. 3:9,23) and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, (Gal. 3:21\u201322) and of the perfection of his obedience<\/span>. (Rom. 10:4)\u201d[7]<\/a><\/p>\n The Reformation Church is most helpful in clarifying this point. As noted above, we today want to drive wedges between concepts. Consequently, we will not preach Law, contrary to Biblical commands, because we want Man to experience God\u2019s love. Because we will not preach Law, we must then try and invent ways to evangelise. When these manmade inventions fail, we simply move on to \u2018Version 2.0\u2019 rather than repent and seek God\u2019s wisdom. However, in contradistinction to the modern concept, the Church in former ages realised the validity of the Law as a God appointed instrument of righteousness by which men will see Jesus the Christ and His perfection as their only hope.<\/p>\n Therefore, if we want to see God in Christ glorified, we must understand the importance, centrality, and abiding validity of God\u2019s Moral Law, which is summarised<\/strong> in the Ten Commandments. If we would see a holy people and a holy nation that willingly bow before Jesus in heartfelt gratitude at the wonder of His salvation, then the one firm Biblical directive we have is, \u201cPreach the Law!\u201d (Galatians 3:24.)<\/p>\n God almighty is not divided; neither is His word; neither are the Persons of the Trinity; neither are His revelations. As God is One, so is all that He has given to Man for wisdom and instruction. The Old Testament does not teach one way to God and the New another. Jesus does not appear on the pages of the New Testament other than as the Messiah who was foreshadowed and promised in the pages of the Old. Jesus does not arrive with a different Law or set of principles, indeed Jesus could not, because He came to make known the Father; Jesus came as the exact representation of the invisible God![8]<\/a><\/p>\n Hence, any view that denounces Theocracy and Theonomy must be dismissed as attacks upon God\u2019s Kingship and Rule over His creation through Jesus Christ, His Son, and, by extension, through His saved people. The Church in history has understood these points and has given us sound wisdom and we will ignore it to our peril.<\/p>\n God is King! He does rule and He must rule. We, the Church, are redeemed that we might \u201creign with Christ\u201d[9]<\/a> and our apprenticeship is now. If we love God, we will honour and obey God\u2019s King, Jesus Christ, by living according to all that God in Christ has commanded.<\/p>\n Therefore, Theocracy and Theonomy are fundamental concepts that play an essential role in imbuing us with the essence of our identity as sons and daughters of the Most High God. We seem to forget that we were created and ordained as God\u2019s viceregents, those given rule over God\u2019s creation for God\u2019s glory \u2013 fruitful, multiply, subdue, rule<\/em>! We forget that our redemption is a restoration and re-empowerment to achieve this task. We forget that we are a people redeemed and called to worship (to declare the worth of God)\u2014Worthy art Thou, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for Thou didst create all things, and because of Thy will they existed, and were created!<\/span> (Revelation 4:11); called to display His wonder upon the earth by reflecting His Kingship; called to live in obedience as a witness to Man that God is rightly to be obeyed for He alone is the true Sovereign; called that the display of God\u2019s righteousness in us will convict men of their sin and show the exceeding wonder and perfection of Jesus, God\u2019s Saviour and King.<\/p>\n Controversial \u201cTheo-\u201d words (Pt. 1)<\/a><\/p>\n Controversial \u201cTheo-\u201d words (Pt. 2)<\/a><\/p>\n Controversial \u201cTheo-\u201d words (Pt. 4)<\/a><\/p>\n Footnotes:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n [1]<\/a> It would seem that too many have fallen for the heretical, \u201cTake Jesus as your Saviour, but the lordship of Christ is an optional extra\u201d line. Yet, the truth is that Scripture only knows a Saviour that can save because He is first and foremost God the King<\/strong>.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> My father spent a few years in the police force. He recounts a conversation with one old sergeant in which this experienced man said, \u201cIf you ever find someone at the bottom of the river, they will have fiddled with the till or with someone\u2019s wife.\u201d Thus, according to his observations, if we \u2018do not steal\u2019 and \u2018do not commit adultery\u2019, we have less probability of swimming with the fishes in an unhealthy manner.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> John 14:15 — If you love Me, you will keep My commandments<\/span>; John 15:10 — If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father\u2019s commandments, and abide in His love<\/span>; John 14:21 — He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him<\/span>; John 14:23 — If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him<\/span>; 1 John 5:3 — For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome<\/span>; 2 John 6 — And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it<\/span>. Please note the consistency of the theme: to love God is to obey or keep his commandments<\/span>.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> 1 John 3:4.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> Question and answer 41.<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> I do not wish to labour his point, but would beg your indulgence for a practical demonstration of this point. The Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 104, reads: \u201cWhat are the duties required in the first commandment? The duties required in the first commandment are, the knowing and acknowledging of God to be the only true God, and our God; (1 Chron. 28:9, Deut. 26:7, Isa. 43:10, Jer. 14:22)<\/span> and to worship and glorify him accordingly, (Ps. 95:6\u20137, Matt. 4:10, Ps. 29:2)<\/span> by thinking, (Mal. 3:16)<\/span> mediating, (Ps. 63:6)<\/span> remembering, (Eccl. 12:1)<\/span> highly esteeming, (Ps. 71:19)<\/span> honouring, (Mal. 1:6)<\/span> adoring, (Isa. 45:23)<\/span> choosing, (Josh. 24:15,22)<\/span> loving, (Deut. 6:5)<\/span> desiring, (Ps. 73:25)<\/span> fearing of him; (Isa. 8:13)<\/span> believing him; (Exod. 14:31)<\/span> trusting (Isa. 26:4)<\/span> hoping, (Ps. 130:7)<\/span> delighting, (Ps. 37:4)<\/span> rejoicing in him; (Ps. 32:11)<\/span> being zealous for him; (Rom. 12:11, Num. 25:11)<\/span> calling upon him, giving all praise and thanks, (Phil. 4:6)<\/span> and yielding all obedience and submission to him with the whole man; (Jer. 7:23, James 4:7)<\/span> being careful in all things to please him, (1 John 3:22) and sorrowful when in any thing he is offended; (Jer. 31:18, Ps. 119:136)<\/span> and walking humbly with him. (Micah 6:8)<\/span>\u201d Here the Divines are speaking of Man\u2019s duty to God as it is outlined in the first Commandment. We would simply like to draw your attention to the list of texts to which they refer in order to prove their statements.<\/span> The Moral Law, summarily comprehended in the Decalogue, is proved to be true for the whole of Scripture.<\/p>\n [7]<\/a> Question and answer 95.<\/p>\n [8]<\/a> See: Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:1-2.<\/p>\n [9]<\/a> See: Revelation 3:21; Revelation 20:6; 2 Timothy 2:12.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In this third part, we shall look again at these controversial \u201cTheo-\u201d words and continue in our endeavour to show how the modern attitude, which generally despises these terms, is in fact a digression from Biblical truth and historic Christianity. … Continue reading \n