Theonomist, Antinomian, or Supernomian?

If we are truly no longer under the Old Covenant, if we are dead to the Law, are the theonomists correct in labeling us “antinomian” (against the Law)? Or is this just a false dichotomy? If we are no longer under the Law, does that mean we can do whatever we want? What should our lives look like now?

Let’s start off with what the Bible tells us.

Rom. 6:14-15 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!

Well, this verse certainly does away with any notion of being free to sin. Since sin is lawlessness, and we are not to sin, then there must be a law, but what is it? This verse tells us that the opposite of being under the Law is being under grace. What does it mean to be under grace? To be under something carries a connotation of authority. The Law no longer has any authority over the Israelite and it never had any authority over the Gentile. So many of us, myself included, put ourselves under a law that never had any jurisdiction over us to begin with! Now that is bondage!

To be under grace simply means to be under the authority of the grace of God, to be joined with Christ. The Law represents the Old Covenant, while grace represents all that Jesus did for us under the New Covenant. If we are living under grace, we are living in Christ, we are walking with Him, we are abiding in Him, we are obeying Him, we are enjoying all His blessings that He bestows upon us daily.

So what is sin under the New Covenant then? If we have just determined that none of the Old Covenant applies to us as Christians, certainly we must have some sort of guidelines to follow. Look at what the Lord promised us:

Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

So we know that God has given us His laws and they are written on our hearts and they are in our minds. This is the beauty of the being under the New Covenant. We no longer have an external code of conduct to follow. We don’t have a list of rules that we need to dissect to find all the nuances and minutiae; we don’t have to be pharisaical in order to know if we are following God’s laws for us now. God has given us a new heart! That new heart is tender and desires to please God. It is not like those stone tablets that were inflexible and hard as rock. We are indwelt by the Holy Spirit now, the living Spirit of the Almighty God, and we have the mind of Christ. The nation of Israel was led by a pillar of fire by night and a cloud by day. They had long lists of rules which were impossible to keep. They lived under the yoke of a works-based covenant which brought them nothing but curses and death. We have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside us now, leading us. We live in the newness of life and can rest in Jesus! Our hearts have been regenerated and written upon with love. We don’t become perfect overnight; in fact, sanctification is a life-long process. But God has literally changed our hearts and He has written His laws on our hearts and our minds.

That sounds terribly subjective. What if I think something is a sin and you don’t? What if I think I am free to do something which would be quite offensive to you? Did God just leave us to a subjective interpretation of His laws written on our hearts? No. Of course not. I believe that He gave us some very specific written instructions in His Word, but that the underlying motive behind all those instructions is written deep in our hearts so that when we are truly regenerated, we will naturally desire to follow His laws.

The New Covenant actually uses several different terms to describe the laws that apply to us now. Let’s look at them briefly.

Romans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith.

Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.
Galatians 6:2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

James 1:25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.

James 2:12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.

It is not our purpose in this article to address these laws in depth, but do you see the contrast between these laws of the New Covenant and that of the old? The old covenant had laws that were works-based; the New Covenant’s laws are based on faith. The old covenant had the law of sin and death, while the New Covenant brings us the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. The old covenant was the Law of Moses, while we are now under the law of Christ. The old covenant was a heavy yoke of bondage which even the Israelites couldn’t bear, but we are under the perfect law of liberty.

James 2:8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well;

Both covenants had this royal law, however, the royal law of love. What was the difference? Was there any? Again, under the old covenant, this was an external constraint, written in stone. Under the New Covenant, this law is written on our hearts, providing internal motivation, but it is not the only law written on our hearts.

But first, let us determine how we are to know what our law is now. What rule of life are we under? We don’t have a list like the Ten Commandments in the New Covenant, so how do we know? It seems that while the Law of the old covenant came through Moses, the law of the New Covenant comes through both Jesus and His apostles, specifically Paul. Here are a few verses that tell us so.

Matt. 17:5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!”

Matt. 28:18-20 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Acts 1:1-2 The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen,

1 Corinthians 14:37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I [Paul] write to you are the commandments of the Lord.

I Thess. 4:1-2 Finally then, brethren, we urge and exhort in the Lord Jesus that you should abound more and more, just as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God; for you know what commandments we [Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy] gave you through the Lord Jesus.

II Pet. 3:1-2 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior,

So now we know that everything that Jesus and Paul and other apostles commanded are what we are supposed to obey. It is important to keep in mind the context of each specific command, though, and make sure that those commands were actually for us. For example, when Christ told the rich young ruler to go and sell everything he had, give the money to the poor and follow Jesus, we have to realize that He was not giving us that command. But the majority of the commands in the New Covenant are for us.

Now that we understand that Christ and His apostles have given us specific commandments, we need to realize that God actually expects us to obey them.

John 14:15 “If you love Me, keep My commandments.”

John 14:21 “He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me.”

And these commands to obey His commands are actually fulfilling a greater commandment — to love God. Notice how often God tells us to love God and love others, and this is just a tiny sample:

Matt. 22:37-39 Jesus said to him, “’You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

John 15:12 This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.

1 John 3:23 And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.

1 John 4:21 And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.

It certainly seems that there are two commandments written on our hearts: love God and love others. I am trying to find any commands in the New Covenant that don’t fall into these two categories. Under the old covenant, there were laws that pertained to diet or clothing types or pruning trees, etc. — lots of laws that didn’t specifically fall under the categories of loving God or loving others, other than the fact that obeying God’s commands was loving Him. But it seems that all of the New Covenant can be boiled down to loving God and loving others.

So what kinds of laws would fall under these two greatest commandments? Wouldn’t they be moral types of law? Let’s look at some examples of laws that we are given in the New Covenant.

Romans 13:8-10 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

I like this one because it tells us that not only were these five of the Ten Commandments based on loving your neighbor, but these five are commands in the New Covenant as well, as they are part of loving your neighbor. These sound pretty moral to me.

I Corinthians 10:14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.

1 Thessalonians 1:9 For they themselves declare concerning us what manner of entry we had to you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God,

Those look a lot like the first two commandments of those Ten Commandments to me!

Ephesians 6:2 “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise:

Another commandment repeated.

Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers.

The third commandment is about the words that come out of our mouth. While this is not a duplicate of that commandment, it is about the same topic. Mike tells me there are at least four New Covenant passages that speak against using profanity. Maybe someone can help me out here.

So far, I count nine of the Ten Commandments repeated as commands in the New Covenant. These are all moral commands. The Bible still tells us that we are to obey certain moral laws and it lays it out clearly which ones they are. Of course we still obey moral commands. We just need to understand where our moral commands come from, and it is not from the Ten Commandments.

We are also given a few lists of sins throughout the New Covenant as well. I will just list a couple.

Rom. 1:28-32 those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

Gal 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

There are many, many more lists that give us our code of law under the New Covenant such as the fruit of the Spirit and all the one another commands. If we look for them, they are as plain as the nose on our face.

Are there any laws in the Law of Moses that theonomists want to press upon us that are not repeated in the New Covenant? I can think of two off the top of my head. Tithing and the Sabbath. Now, if we remember our previous articles, we know that that Law was given only to Israel, not to the Gentiles. We remember that the Law of Moses, that old covenant, was abolished at the cross. We know that the law was always treated as one complete code of law, so everything in that Law was completed and fulfilled in Christ; no part of that Law applies to us anymore. It never did. But we have many of the same laws that were in that covenant.

Let me explain. We would all agree that stealing is wrong; it’s a sin. But why is it a sin? Because the Ten Commandments say “Thou shalt not steal”? Or because Eph. 4:28 says, “Let him who stole steal no longer”? They both say the same thing! But the law from Exodus has no jurisdiction over us. We are not under the authority of that Law. We are under the New Covenant, so stealing would be a sin based upon Eph. 4:28, not Ex. 20:15. We can understand it in light of our modern-day society as well. Stealing is a crime in America. Stealing is also a crime in Britain. If someone in North Dakota steals, which law are they breaking? Just because both countries have the same law does not mean that they both have jurisdiction over the same individuals. They don’t. And just because both covenants have some of the same laws does not mean that they both have jurisdiction over us as believers. They don’t. Only one code of law has authority over us — the New Covenant.

Let’s get back to tithing and the Sabbath for a minute. Even the theonomists agree that certain parts of the Law of Moses were done away with — what they call the ceremonial parts. Remember that God does not divide them up this way, but He does talk specifically in Hebrews about everything being associated with the temple system of worship being abolished. Let’s think about that for a minute. What was the purpose of the tithes? To fund the sacrificial system and the priests and Levites who carried out the sacrificial system. Sounds like that should be abolished on that basis alone, but remember that the Law of Moses was one complete code of Law that was fully abolished at the cross anyway. And for those wondering, cheerful giving from the heart is what we are commanded to do in the New Covenant.

How about the Sabbath?

Col. 2:14-17 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

The Sabbath was a part of that handwriting of requirements, which was contrary, but was nailed to the cross. The Sabbath was a shadow of what was to come — Christ. While there are other aspects of the Sabbath that we could talk about, such as entering His rest, do you remember what is different about the Fourth Commandment in comparison to other nine?

Ex. 31:12-17 “And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: “Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you. You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’”

The Sabbath was a sign of that old covenant between Israel and the Lord. That covenant is no longer. We have a New Covenant and that New Covenant has a new sign.

I Cor. 11:23-26 “that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.”

The Sabbath was the sign of the Old Covenant. It was there to remind the Israelites weekly of their covenant with God. The Lord’s Supper is the sign of the New Covenant. It is there to remind us of that New Covenant with God, that covenant which supersedes that old covenant. Why would we want to keep a sign of a covenant that no longer exists? The New Covenant does not ever tell us to keep the Sabbath, nor does it change it from one day to another. Why? Because the Sabbath has nothing to do with the New Covenant at all. Just as the sign of circumcision is no longer valid as a sign, so the sign of the Sabbath is no longer valid. Here is what we are told about it now.

Romans 14:5-6 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it.

That verse is talking about an area of the Christian life we call freedom, or liberty. It is not talking about the Sabbath, but about setting aside a day for a certain purpose, such as Christmas Day. It could also be talking about setting aside a certain day of the week to meet together for worship. Christians usually meet on Sunday, but this verse tells us that Sunday is not a special day in this way. Sunday is definitely not the Christian Sabbath.

Here’s an interesting command in the New Covenant:

Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.

What was that yoke of bondage? The Law of Moses. We are set free from the yoke of bondage under the Law of Moses and we are commanded to stand fast in that liberty. There is a caution, however, that goes with that.

Galatians 5:13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.

It always comes back to love, doesn’t it?

In my previous article, I asked what commandments Jesus was talking about in the Sermon on the Mount when He said, “Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Let’s look at the context. It’s really quite simple. In the Sermon on the Mount, immediately following this statement, Jesus begins a series of “You have heard it said … But I say unto you …” What were those “You have heard it said” statements? They were commandments from the Law of Moses. But Jesus changes each of those commandments into something greater, a higher degree, higher than even that of the Pharisees’ standards, as He tells us in the next verse: “For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus’ standards for loving God and loving others is higher than that of the old covenant, higher than the Pharisees’ standards. (Note that Jesus is still not talking about a works-based righteousness or salvation in this verse, however. The righteousness He is speaking of is Christ’s imputed righteousness in us.)

So Jesus uses the word “these” in relation to commandments in this passage. Which commandments? These commandments. Which commandments are these? The ones I am getting ready to explain to you immediately. These are the commandments that Jesus wants us to live by. These are the commandments which lift us up to a higher degree than that old covenant of death ever could. These are the commandments which demonstrate the love that God has written on our hearts. These, and all the other New Covenant commandments are actually more difficult to obey than that old written code, that letter of the Law that only brings death. They are difficult, nay, impossible, for those whose hearts have not had these laws written on them. But this law is a better law, a higher law that lifts us up a notch, a more loving law.

Are we antinomian? No. Absolutely not. Do we obey moral laws? Yes. We obey many moral laws, but they are the moral laws of the New Covenant. We are not theonomists in that we are no longer under the Law of Moses. We are not antinomians. We have successfully shown that that was a false dichotomy. So what are we in relation to the law? I propose that we are supernomian. Super means “of the highest degree.” Nomian comes from nomos, which is law, and here specifically is God’s law. God’s law of love lifts us up a notch. So a supernomian would be a Christian who follows God’s law to the highest degree — loving God and loving others.

The Law of Moses provided external constraints. The New Covenant has an internal motivation from the heart, the heart that has the law of God written upon it.

So some people call me a Nine Commandment Christian! That’s fine. Just don’t confuse which nine commandments I am obeying — those nine from the New Covenant, plus a bunch of others. Actually, I prefer being called a Two Commandment Christian — love God and love others. That pretty much covers it! I’ve got it! I’m a supernomian, Two Commandment Christian. How about you?

(Thanks, Mike! This teaching changed my life.)

Advertisements

58 Responses to “Theonomist, Antinomian, or Supernomian?”

  1. David M Zuniga, PE Says:

    What an edifying, liberating study of Scripture, for one who once laid swooning at the knee of Dr. Augustine, Dr. Luther, and Dr. Calvin!

    Mike’s trenchant exegesis of God’s Word on the primacy and jurisdiction of the New Covenant in Jesus Christ, is the best thing I’ve seen from him on this blog.

    Thanks for sharing it for the edification of the whole body. May it find open hearts in the Theonomist / ‘Reformed’ camps.

  2. Morgan Farmer Says:

    So THATS where we come together:

    Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with your God
    Love your neighbor as yourself.

    Pretty much sums it up. Super article. I was not quite sure about the Supernomian term in the title, but you really tied it all up very neatly.

  3. Jen Says:

    Thanks, David and Morgan. David, it seems as if we are still following the same paths in life!

    Morgan, I guess you’ve had it right all along. I appreciate it every time I see you write this:

    “Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with your God
    Love your neighbor as yourself.”

  4. Morgan Farmer Says:

    awwww sniff sniff

  5. Mike Says:

    Supernomian? Interesting term. I have another favorite name that I use: Christian.

  6. Morgan Farmer Says:

    Being presbyterian I have probably seen, heard and not understood most ofl the labels… however we still need a t-shirt to drive everyone totally nuts!

    Something like: My supernomian is stalking your antinomian. But then of course I am fairly warped in the humor department.

  7. Jen Says:

    Mike: “Supernomian? Interesting term. I have another favorite name that I use: Christian.”

    Yes, I was opposed to all labels once, too. But then I realized that they can be a useful tool in helping us to understand one another. While many claim the label “Christian,” it doesn’t really tell us much about what the other believes. Regarding this area of the law, I much prefer being called a supernomian than an antinomian. Since antinomian is one of your critics’ favorite names for you, I thought you might enjoy having an alternative to come back with. 🙂

  8. Mike Says:

    “Regarding this area of the law, I much prefer being called a supernomian than an antinomian. Since antinomian is one of your critics’ favorite names for you, I thought you might enjoy having an alternative to come back with. :-)”

    Of course, you realize they will never give up on the name-calling. It’s in their blood. You are forever to be known, now, as an antinomian, because you did not bow down to the TEN Commandments as our law.

    I came to the realization that a better definition of antinomian is: Anyone who wins an argument with a theonomist.

  9. Jen Says:

    Mike: “I came to the realization that a better definition of antinomian is: Anyone who wins an argument with a theonomist.”

    Have you ever won? 😉

  10. Lin Says:

    ““For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”

    When the people heard this they must have gasped. There was ONLY one way this could be possible. A regenerated heart. There is no other way. We cannot do it in the flesh.

    Matthew 5-24 is my favorite part of scripture because it describes what Christians are like and what they will NOT be like. When Jesus tells us we are to be salt and light…He gave us the ‘elements’ of that salt in the Beatitudes.

    Let’s face it, it is easier to be under the law with a check list. Now, we must die to self, to our flesh and have new hearts. We are Born Again. That term has become so cliche’ we hardly understand the magnitude of what it really means.

    Now, define what it means to ‘love others’. Not as clear as we may think?

  11. Morgan Farmer Says:

    “Now, define what it means to ‘love others’. Not as clear as we may think?”

    I don’t think clear is the word….the parable of the ‘good samaritan’ defines it. The problem is in the ‘doing’. Humans tend to make love a ‘conditional’ thing.
    That is: Do this, believe this, act like this and I will love you and be your friend. Step outside the boundaries and you will pay! (sound familiar??)

  12. Morgan Farmer Says:

    Clarification: ‘Clear’ is not the context for the way I think it its…someone else verbage will vary…

  13. Lin Says:

    Was Jesus ‘loving’ to the Pharisees?

  14. Mike Says:

    Mike: “I came to the realization that a better definition of antinomian is: Anyone who wins an argument with a theonomist.”

    Jen: “Have you ever won? ;-)”

    Every time. The problem is that when I stump them, they resort to name-calling. So the argument sort of stalls at that point. I tell them that if it depends on name-calling, I can call myself nasty things better than they can, because I know myself and my faults better than they do — so I win there, too.

    It’s not really about “winning,” anyway. It’s about truth-seeking. I gave up arguing with theonomists years ago, because I found that beating one’s head against a brick wall was unproductive.

  15. Morgan Farmer Says:

    Lin asks: Was Jesus ‘loving’ to the Pharisees?

    Morgan: Obviously Jesus has His own way of dealing with the pharisees. There is a good blog post about applying the ‘serrated edge’ to others as Jesus did over at Greenbaggins. However once again we are looking at (in my viewpoint) context.

  16. Jen Says:

    Lin: “Let’s face it, it is easier to be under the law with a check list. Now, we must die to self, to our flesh and have new hearts.”

    Lin, my Bible study group can attest to the truth of this. When I first learned these truths, I was very afraid of freedom and grace and I longed to run back to my list of rules under the Law. It was safe and easy and I didn’t have to think for myself. But Mike told me that only a child needs so many rules and that it was time for me to grow up. You’re right, Lin. It is harder to have to make decisions for ourselves and to be willing to be held responsible for them, but it is SO worth it! It’s the difference of external constraints vs. internal motivation.

    Lin: “Was Jesus ‘loving’ to the Pharisees?”

    Lin, is confronting sin loving? Is exposing hypocrisy and the false teaching of adding to the law loving? It’s hard, but I think it’s love. That’s why I’m here.

    Morgan, if you have a link to share with us, it’s easier to find it if you actually give us the link. ☺

    So, Mike, are you just redefining the term “antinomian” so that you can own it since it’s become almost like a nick-name for you? ☺ That’s kind of how I am with “Mrs. Binoculars.” I might as well own it!

    If you gave up arguing with theonomists years ago, why did you take me on? I know I was a Judaizer, but I was about as extreme a theonomist as they come as well. Thanks to you, I haven’t given up on theonomists. I know exactly where they’re at – in bondage. I pray they come to know true freedom in Christ one day.

  17. Morgan Farmer Says:

    http://www.greenbaggins.wordpress.com

    Sorry about that…me assuming that everyone knows about this blog….it is pretty much a discussion on Federal vision and New perspective on Paul. Things get ‘interesting’ over there.

  18. Mike Says:

    “If you gave up arguing with theonomists years ago, why did you take me on?”

    I don’t know. As you recall, I did quit at one point. I just don’t know why I kept on. You were certainly my biggest challenge ever.

    “I know I was a Judaizer, but I was about as extreme a theonomist as they come as well.”

    I’m surprised you weren’t into animal sacrifice!

  19. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Mike wrote: Every time. The problem is that when I stump them, they resort to name-calling. So the argument sort of stalls at that point. I tell them that if it depends on name-calling, I can call myself nasty things better than they can, because I know myself and my faults better than they do — so I win there, too.

    Mike,

    If you ever consider writing out a point by point conversation with a theonomist regarding all this for the purposes of instruction, please send a copy on to me! Or let me know if you know of anyone who has already done so.

  20. Jen Says:

    Cindy to Mike: “If you ever consider writing out a point by point conversation with a theonomist regarding all this for the purposes of instruction, please send a copy on to me! Or let me know if you know of anyone who has already done so.”

    ROFLOL!!! Mike, should I just post a copy of our lessons? Just kidding! Well, I give you permission to use my silly arguments if you want to do something like that.

    Mike, God must have had a bigger purpose in mind for you to take me on as you did. I’m sorry I caused you so much grief. God will bless you for your ever-enduring patience with me.

    “I’m surprised you weren’t into animal sacrifice!” Perhaps you forget that I did mention that once. That and trying to make my husband and son wear robes!

  21. Lin Says:

    “Lin, is confronting sin loving? Is exposing hypocrisy and the false teaching of adding to the law loving? It’s hard, but I think it’s love. That’s why I’m here.”

    Exactly. YOu can do it with tears in your eyes, coat it with chocolate syrup and it still does not look loving as we have defined it today.

    I have been meaning to ask this and I hope it is not too far off topic but I have wondered about thh Patriarchs relationship with the ‘world’. How do they view being in the world but not of the world? They seem so isolated and insulated within their group and fellow travellors.

  22. Jen Says:

    Lin: “I have wondered about the Patriarchs relationship with the ‘world’. How do they view being in the world but not of the world? They seem so isolated and insulated within their group and fellow travellors.”

    Lin, many patriarchy families are like the separatists, and while I was googling for a tidbit on this, I ran across a recent sermon by Kevin Swanson which appears to address your question exactly as he tells why they are separatists and not puritans.

  23. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Hey Jen,

    I’m listening to Swanson now. He actually says he is going to tell us how to make an impact for those who have decided to be
    salt

    YEAST

    and light in this world.

    My word, so are they outright admiting to be LEAVEN????

  24. Hutch Says:

    Mike-

    I just finished your lessons on law. Outstanding! It is the best treatment of the subject that I have seen.

    Thank you for sharing your godly wisdom. Your lessons have clarified and crystallized my understanding of the issue.

    Have you noticed that the bible church movement has gone from being almost purely Dispensational to a kind of cross between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism?

    Interested in long distance discipling a young man (38) in Houston/Katy, TX?

    If you are too busy or not willing, I understand.

  25. Lin Says:

    “I just finished your lessons on law.”

    Are you referring to the post above or some other lesson?

  26. Lynn Says:

    I know what these are, Lin — they are Mike’s lessons on the Law that Hutch was talking about.

  27. Hutch Says:

    Jen-

    Please allow me to post this apology to Doug Phillips:

    Mr. Phillips-

    Although I believe a number of your doctrines and practices to be unbiblical and arrived at from a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship of a Christian in the new covenant to the Law of Moses, I should not have posted comments questioning your character and motivation.

    I believe that the situation addressed on this web-site occurred as fruit of a lack of application of the Law of Christ.

    Many of my comments show my hypocrisy as they too flowed from disobedience to the Law of Christ.

    Please accept my apology.

    Hutch/Mike Hutchison

  28. Lynn Says:

    Cindy, there is a debate about the leaven. For the most part, the Bible compares leaven to sin, but in Matt 13:33 and in its parallel passage Luke 13:21 the kingdom of heaven (God in Luke) “is like leaven.”

    Not all references to leaven therefore are references to sin. Which is what I inferred from your comment that you were getting at.

  29. Lynn Says:

    Hutch, I am glad you posted that. I hope Doug will be, too.

  30. Corrie Says:

    “My word, so are they outright admitting to be LEAVEN????”

    Cindy,

    You know what they say about confession being good for the soul? 🙂

    A little leaven leavens the whole lump. The Pharisees’ teachings and their hypocrisy was compared to leaven and Christ told them to get rid of the leaven of the Pharisees. Leaven also symbolized malice and wickedness.

    I hardly think that a seasoned Bible teacher would make such a statement knowing what the both the Old and New Testament use leaven as a symbol of.

    Matthew 16:

    “5When the disciples reached the other side, they had forgotten to bring any bread.6Jesus said to them, “Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”7And they began discussing it among themselves, saying, “We brought no bread.”8But Jesus, aware of this, said, “O you of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread?9Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered?10Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered?11How is it that you fail to understand that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”12Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

    Luke 12:

    In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
    For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.

    1 Cor. 5:6-8

    Your glorying [is] not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
    Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened [bread] of sincerity and truth.

  31. Corrie Says:

    “I came to the realization that a better definition of antinomian is: Anyone who wins an argument with a theonomist.”

    Mike,

    I like this definition.

    How would you define the epithet:

    “enemy of the Sabbath”?

  32. Lynn Says:

    Corrie, why does Jesus say the kingdom of heaven is like leaven?

  33. Corrie Says:

    Lynn,

    I think the operative word is “like”. Jesus didn’t say that the kingdom of God IS leaven but He did say it is LIKE leaven in that it has a pervasive influence. It is an analogy. Just as corruption (leaven) so easily spreads and consumes a person, the Kingdom of heaven is LIKE leaven (sin, corruption) in that it also spreads and permeates. At least that is what I thought this parable meant.

    We are told we are salt and light to the world but we are never told to we are leaven. Leaven most often speaks of corruption and I listed the two things that are said to BE leaven as mentioned in scripture: doctrine of the Pharisees, hypocrisy of the Pharisees, malice and wickedness.

    I didn’t listen to the podcast but if he was saying that believers are leaven like we are salt and light, I would say that was a bad call. I would think, since leaven is is equated to sin and wickedness and corruption in the Bible that there would have been an explanation for using that term in this way.

    Those are just my thoughts.

  34. Mike Says:

    Hutch, thanks for the kind words. I’ll get in touch with you.

    You ask: “How would you define the epithet: enemy of the Sabbath?”

    This is the kind of accusation usually thrown around by legalists who are intent on pushing everyone else into conforming to their particular brand of legalism. While most Christians are in bondage to the idea of sabbatizing, to a point — there are several groups that harp on the idea to the near-exclusion of everything else.

    All the Saturday-sabbatarians fit here, as well as all those who have “transferred” the sabbath rules to Sunday. To them, anyone who does not kowtow to their ideas about sabbatizing are “enemies of the sabbath.” They usually have long lists of things that are “not allowed” on Saturday — or Sunday.

    The funny thing is that all their lists are different from each other, and NONE of their lists are anything like the biblical list of rules for sabbatizing, as laid down in the Law of Moses. The NT rules are very clear, but ignored by these people:

    1) Don’t judge others over the observance of days.

    2) Don’t let others judge you over this.

    3) Jesus is our rest. He has fulfilled the sabbath.

    The Lord’s Day is not a sabbath. It is a day of great celebration and religious activity. You are free to engage in other activities, too — since there are no rules about this laid down in the NT. But since Christians have met on the Lord’s Day since the days of the apostles, and for good reasons, too — I encourage “church attendance” on Sunday.

    But it’s not a hard-and-fast rule. There are cases where Saturday or Friday are better for the meeting. It’s no big deal. The only rule is: “Don’t neglect the gathering of yourselves together.”

    I have found that people are not really “free” — deep down on the inside — until they understand their total freedom from “tithing” and from sabbatizing. It is only then that they are free to enjoy the Lord’s Day fully.

  35. Mike Says:

    I wrote: Hutch, thanks for the kind words. I’ll get in touch with you. You ask: “How would you define the epithet: enemy of the Sabbath?”

    OOPS! That was Corrie who asked me that question! Sorry, Corrie. Sorry, Hutch. Sorry, Jen. Sorry, everyone. Sorry, sorry, sorry.

  36. Hutch Says:

    Mike-

    Excellent points regarding the Lords Day.

    Would you agree that when one takes a legalistic stand on an issue, it reveals an underlying lack of trust in the Holy Spirits ministry of progressive sanctification within the life of a fellow believer? For instance: The fear that if we teach true liberty in Christ regarding observance of days, that perhaps folks will just stop going to church–or if we teach grace giving that folks just will not give. So, when we teach the truth we are accused of teaching that church attendance is unimportant or that stewardship is unimportant. I remember after teaching a lesson on Christian liberty that a man came up to me and told me that I just gave folks permission to not attend church! I have never taught a believer young or old that church attendance was unimportant.

    I bet you never have either.

    BTW-everyone showed up again the very next Sunday! Perhaps they had some type of internal motivation?

  37. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    About leaven,

    Given the numerous references to leaven, I would think that for reasons that Corrie has stated, that using leaven as an analogy on the same scale with salt and light is reckless.

    Matt 10 talks of us being wise as serpents, too. Are we to be serpents in this world? No, just wise like them. Should the Kingdom of God be pervasive in society like leaven is in bread? Certainly, but are individuals commissioned to be leaven? I don’t think so.

    As with so many other examples of the use of terms and building doctrines around obscure proof texts, here is yet another useage of a term that was used repeatedly but was not qualified. Kind of like why Doug Wilson has to write two or three articles to follow up and explain what he meant to say when he made some “esoteric and etherial” statement. Good, trustworthy teachers have little need to go back, qualifying, supporting, defending and debunking their original teachings. Swanson is yet another example of this patriarchal trend.

    In the full counsel of the Word, I do not see leaven as a faithful example of how Christians are meant to operate. I am an element of the whole, and from these references, the Kingdom is the leaven of which I am only a part. (Gluten or salt or water…) If I had to speculate as to what the source the leaven is in the Kingdom, I would say that it would have to be the seed — the catalyst or that which reproduces itself as yeast does in dough.

    Why then does Swanson use the term Yeast and not “leaven” which is the same thing as yeast? If he said leaven which is strongly used as an analogy for sin, people would outright reject his statement. To call it “yeast” sounds better and novel. But he’s calling people to be leaven. How ironic!

  38. Jen Says:

    Mike: “I have found that people are not really “free” — deep down on the inside — until they understand their total freedom from “tithing” and from sabbatizing. It is only then that they are free to enjoy the Lord’s Day fully.”

    Then maybe I’m just not normal — but you probably already knew that! Neither tithing nor the Sabbath were ever that much of an issue for me. I gave up the Sabbath early on long before I was ready to give up being under the Law. And I’ve never held to the tithe.

    Now, I suppose there were a few other laws that I had a hard time giving up, 🙂 but I think I’ve finally got the hang of freedom now!

  39. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    oops,
    Forgot to finish my above statement…

    If the whole entire kingdom of heaven is like a woman kneading leaven into dough, and I am an element of that being acted upon, then the source of the leaven would have to be the Word of God – the catalyst – in this analogy.

    But as far as teachings are concerned and legalistic behaviors are concerned, they are like leaven in many other references.

    It’s funny though that in the one synoptic reference (cited in 2 gospels), the Kingdom is like leaven that is worked into the dough. It’s so ironic to consider that this directly opposes Swanson’s arguement for separation. If the Kingdom is being worked into the secular world in order to permeate it and convey the Word of God, then we are to be Puritans and not to be anything like the separatists that Swanson encourages in that sermon audio piece.
    More Ironic.

  40. Mike Says:

    “Now, I suppose there were a few other laws that I had a hard time giving up,”

    Yeah, I suppose.

  41. Jen Says:

    Hutch, it’s nice to put a face to your writing. Thanks for linking to your site.

    I’m not Mike, but can I answer your thoughts anyway?

    “Would you agree that when one takes a legalistic stand on an issue, it reveals an underlying lack of trust in the Holy Spirits ministry of progressive sanctification within the life of a fellow believer?”

    I guess I would answer it from the perspective of one who’s been there. My thinking was that I was already more sanctified than most believers because God had revealed to me certain things that were/were not sins that God had not yet revealed to them. That would be all those legalistic areas. So, I wasn’t perfect, but I was definitely on the “more sanctified” side. I am ashamed to admit this.

  42. Lin Says:

    “know what these are, Lin — they are Mike’s lessons on the Law that Hutch was talking about.”

    Is there a link? A secret password? I am very interested.

  43. Lynn Says:

    Interesting things I’ve been reading about leaven. In addition to what has been mentioned, leaven was to be taken out of all the offerings except one (so was honey, by the way), where leavened loaves were to be offered at the feast of weeks.

    Most of the commentaries from Augustine to the present don’t see what Christ said as referring to sin, but rather to the properties of leaven itself, and they make a separation between the usages of the word. Ie — they state that leaven can represent good or evil, depending on the context. Here is what Augustine (link provided below) said:

    “35. But as there are many ways in which things show a likeness to each other, we are not to suppose there is any rule that what a thing signifies by similitude in one place it is to be taken to signify in all other places. For our Lord used leaven both in a bad sense, as when He said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees,” Matt. xvi. 6; Luke xii. 1. and in a good sense, as when He said, “The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.” Luke xiii. 21.

    “36. Now the rule in regard to this variation has two forms. For things that signify now one thing and now another, signify either things that are contrary, or things that are only different. They signify contraries, for example, when they are used metaphorically at one time in a good sense, at another in a bad, as in the case of the leaven mentioned above. Another example of the same is that a lion stands for Christ in the place where it is said, “The lion of the tribe of Judah hath prevailed;” Rev. v. 5. and again, stands for the devil where it is written, “Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about seeking whom he may devour.”

    He, like Calvin’s commentary, says you can’t superimpose the metaphoric meaning from one passage onto the other, but you make a direct connection between the object and what it represents, and I agree with him.

    There are commentaries that state that leaven always represents sin, such as Pink’s commentary, and he also make the woman kneading to be the harlot of Babylon. I think this is what niggled me about getting on Swanson’s case about believers being leaven. Those same arguments are used about woman symbolizing evil in the Bible and it gets transposed into passages where it just looks very forced. I’ve heard those arguments. Like what I’ve heard about leaven, I don’t believe them.

    See Pink’s commentary if you want to know more about Matthew 13 and Luke 13 being symbols of evil.

    I don’t take the view that woman, when spoken of as a symbol in the Bible, carries the idea of evil. Likewise, I don’t take the view that leaven always is a symbol of sin. If it were, the Lord would not have tolerated it as part of a grain offering at the feast of weeks. It is its permeating influence, put in from without, working in secret, that was the basis for its reference in Matthew and Luke 13 (and if you accept the typology, it was the basis of the leavening in the loaves at Pentecost, the typology of which I tend to believe, but I’m NOT going to get into that).

    Hence, I tend to agree with Augustine, Calvin, and other commentaries:

    Augustine
    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.v.vi.xxv.html?highlight=leaven#highlight

    Calvin:
    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom32.ii.xxi.html

    McClaren:
    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/maclaren/matt2.ii.xxix.html

    International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:
    http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T5462

    Smith’s Bible Dictionary
    http://www.biblestudytools.net/Dictionaries/SmithsBibleDictionary/smt.cgi?number=T2661

    And I disagree with these views:

    Pink:
    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pink/return.ch4.iii.ii.html?highlight=leaven#highlight

    Collins:
    http://cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BS/k/1133/Parable-of-Leaven.htm

  44. Mike Says:

    Hutch wrote: “Would you agree that when one takes a legalistic stand on an issue, it reveals an underlying lack of trust in the Holy Spirit’s ministry of progressive sanctification within the life of a fellow believer?”

    Yes.

  45. Hutch Says:

    Jen-

    Thanks for sharing your past perspective.

    I think we have all “been there” thinking we are more sanctified than others.

    Seems like we are all good at holding each other to standards that the Lord is not even concerned about. I think at the “Bema Seat” we will all be suprised at what is and is not rewarded.

  46. Corrie Says:

    “All the Saturday-sabbatarians fit here, as well as all those who have “transferred” the sabbath rules to Sunday. To them, anyone who does not kowtow to their ideas about sabbatizing are “enemies of the sabbath.” They usually have long lists of things that are “not allowed” on Saturday — or Sunday.

    The funny thing is that all their lists are different from each other, and NONE of their lists are anything like the biblical list of rules for sabbatizing, as laid down in the Law of Moses. The NT rules are very clear, but ignored by these people:

    1) Don’t judge others over the observance of days.

    2) Don’t let others judge you over this.

    3) Jesus is our rest. He has fulfilled the sabbath.”

    Mike,

    Thank you for your answer. Yes, I have heard the “enemy of the Sabbath” thing thrown around by those who transferred the Sabbath to Sunday. They did have rules and they were nothing like the ones in scripture. You could stop in a grocery store maybe one Sunday a month but any more would be breaking the Sabbath, for example.

  47. Corrie Says:

    “Matt 10 talks of us being wise as serpents, too. Are we to be serpents in this world? No, just wise like them. Should the Kingdom of God be pervasive in society like leaven is in bread? Certainly, but are individuals commissioned to be leaven? I don’t think so.”

    Cindy,

    This is excellent. I agree. It is the difference between “like” and “be”. We ARE light and salt. We are to be like serpents and yeast in a CERTAIN way, namely wisdom and permeating qualities. But, we are not told to be a serpent, that is a thing cursed above any other living things and a representation of evil and we are not told to be leaven which is also a representation of sin.

  48. Corrie Says:

    “I don’t take the view that woman, when spoken of as a symbol in the Bible, carries the idea of evil. Likewise, I don’t take the view that leaven always is a symbol of sin. If it were, the Lord would not have tolerated it as part of a grain offering at the feast of weeks. It is its permeating influence, put in from without, working in secret, that was the basis for its reference in Matthew and Luke 13 (and if you accept the typology, it was the basis of the leavening in the loaves at Pentecost, the typology of which I tend to believe, but I’m NOT going to get into that).”

    Lynn,

    You made some very good points. I will definitely follow up on what you have learned concerning the use of the word “leaven” in scripture. Thank you!

  49. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    I don’t believe that every example of leaven in Scripture represents sin, but a great many do in very obvious ways. I didn’t argue that.

    What is reckless is using the reference (used both positively and negatively) as a catch phrase that one repeats over and over again. This is different from study of the term in context which is not at all how Swanson used it.

  50. Corrie Says:

    I finally listened to the podcast Cindy referenced.

    Here are just some of my notes. The usage of leaven was just a small drop in the bucket as to my concerns. It would have been nice if he said we are to be “like yeast” in order to be more closer to the way scripture uses the term.

    But, I want to know exactly what he means by the “Law of God”? I would rather him explain that phrase which is used ad nauseum because people use that word to mean many different things

    “Evangelicals are irrelevant because they have thrown off the Old Testament law

    Evangelicals are all over the map when it comes to the endorsement of a candidate for the 2008 (somewhere in the podcast it seemed like he was endorsing someone but I didn’t catch the name nor did I recognize it)

    Al Mohler, Bob Jones III, Rick Warren- the purposeless driven vote, Pat Robertson, Dobsonites (people following the James Dobsons’ of the world) are all voting for different people

    The conservative evangelical shooting match is irrelevant; the evangelicals will in no way direct the future of this nation because they themselves are irrelevant because they have cast off God’s ways; I am talking about Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, charismatics

    They have no standard for ethics

    They are clueless, COME ON they are clueless, they are CLUELESS that is why they go for Thompson, Juliani, Romney, Obama, Huckaby, etc

    Christians are as united as a shot from a sawed off shotgun

    It is in the hand of God and then names off a bunch of ungodly leaders from the Bible and the Christians are not doing anything significant or substantial because they have basically undermined their biblical ethical worldview construct;

    Why do we get involved to begin with? He was student body president of a major Westcoast secular university, 70,000 students, in the 1980’s

    JR Rushdoony and Schaeffer inspired him to get involved

    Christians are supposed to make an impact, Christians need to be salt, yeast and light

    What was my agendaaaaaaaaa? Hello, Christians?

    Forget their biblical agenda like Bob Jones III and Pat Robertson because they bought into the pragmatism of the day- law of God not there

    They haven’t made a change in their own hearts but they are trying to change the world- they are running around with all sorts of sins- covetousness and sexual indescretions, etc

    Embrace the law of God as the standard; need to be salt, yeast and light

    Pat Robertson, have you pretty much given up on the salt, yeast and light thing?

    He [Robertson] would probably define the issue as terrorism as opposed to fearing God.

    Puritans- purify the system; reform the Republican party

    Separatists- have our own party and have really solid people and bring the law of God to bear in office

    Few squirts of air freshener on a cess-pool isn’t really doing much

    Stop trying to clean up the world if your family is a mess. How many presidents or those running for president have daughters who are lesbians. Google it, you will see. Forget politics and go home and work on your own family. Send their daughters off to public and private schools and they are not being nurtured. One of the president’s daughters hung out with some ungodly friends, some of which were lesbians. Fathers are not protecting their children from peers and this fornicating, homosexual culture. They have no business in politics if they are not teaching their children according to Deuteronomy

    Better for those fathers for a millstone to be hung around their necks. We have to be seperatistic.

    “The most stable marriage belongs to Hillary?”

    This is an issue that calls for your involvement, apply the word of God, make sure you are making max. impact to the kingdom and law of God

    If your commitment is not to the Law of God you are going to synthesize, syncretize, compromise

    Christians didn’t do much to save the Roman empire; they could care less because the Roman empire fell apart; why did they want to save the pagan schools, nude theaters, nude art forms, etc? “

  51. Jen Says:

    Corrie, thanks for the notes. I need to listen to that sermon still. According to your notes, this is just theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism and the same politics I heard three years ago. Do these theonomists think that America is ever going to vote a Reconstructionist into office? I don’t understand this focus.

  52. Lin Says:

    Corrie, reading those notes, all I could think of was there is going to some daughter somewhere in that bunch that rebels big time. I feel sorry for her already…there does not seem to a lot of Grace in those circles.

  53. Lynn Says:

    What was the date and title of KS’s sermon again, please?

  54. Jen Says:

    Kevin Swanson’s sermon, entitled “Are You a Separatist or a Puritan?” is found on Sermon Audio. It was recorded 11/15/07.

  55. Mark Epstein Says:

    Corrie,

    I haven’t listened to Swanson’s sermon yet either. However, your notes are very telling, as well as your own comments.

    As for Reconstructionism, I must say I find Rushdoony’s writings fascinating, and Greg Bahnsen is definitely a scholar. However, Reconstructionism stands in contravention to what the Bible has to say about God selecting leaders and God’s one and only Theocracy. Of course, Theocracy and Theonomy attempt to fit hand in glove. Unfortunately, there are some grave biblical errors in such a viewpoint (“if the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit!”).

    Now, given the political nature of Reconstructionism, there is absolutely NO reason to vote for a Constitution Party candidate in 2008, because Mitt Romney and Mormonism more closely follow Patriarchy and the exclusivity often voiced by the adherents of Reconstructionism. Thus, this exclusive nature of being a “Separatist or a Puritan” is more fully met within the tenets of Mormonism (they excluded the sons of Ham far longer than did the Sons of the South). Yes, I am being a bit tongue-in-cheek here, but this observation is not that far off.

  56. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Mark wrote: Of course, Theocracy and Theonomy attempt to fit hand in glove.

    Mark,
    This was not always so, and I’m disappointed in myself that I did not realize things sooner. I’m not exactly sure when some started to “fit hand in glove,” but it was not true of the “old guard.” Gary DeMar didn’t write like that either, unless he just decided to be more verbal about things. (Sometimes I wonder if 9/11 had something to do with the shift?) I was looking for some references the other day and found an article from DeMar from 2005 that I cannot believe that DeMar wrote himself. The VP they hired named Brandon has definitely had an effect on DeMar, but I don’t know exactly what happened when.

    DeMar published an article about D. James Kennedy in the most recent Biblical Worldview Magazine, and he talked about how he started as a janitor at Coral Ridge Ministries. Kennedy didn’t act like these fellows do today. (But they thought live was pretty good under Reagan and the elder Bush so were not as verbal about things??)

    I’m curious to see who they will run on the CP ticket. I agree with you about the similarities with Mormonism, though.

    I lived in Oklahoma when Earnest Istook was elected to Congress and am having flashbacks. On the surface though, they look good. In fact, I was Judy Istook’s immediate nursing supervisior for many months, and I never had a clue that they were Mormon until I heard a radio interview right before the election that year in ’92. She blended right in with the Christian crowd — but at least they allowed her to work outside the home!!!! They do fit very “hand in glove” though, and the association need not be all that tongue-in-cheek. And I’d trust Romney over some of these other characters, too.

  57. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Do you think that Doug running for some political office might be a long-term goal? He certainly acts like he’s prepared to run the world and tell everyone what to do. Maybe he just hopes to run the Ministry of Information one day?

  58. 'nother Jen here Says:

    I just want to say I am so thankful that I found your blog! Please pray for me as I am living in a home where the head (whom I do love dearly!) loves following selective parts of the old law. I want to teach my children that they can live a life that is truly free in Christ, yet only to freely serve Him by loving Him and others.


What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: