Is the Law of God Only Binding on People in the Covenant?

I was having a conversation with a friend the other day and we were talking about Christians in government. The question arose – is right for Christian Magistrates to govern unbelievers by the Law of God?

He asked, isn’t the Law of God only binding on people in the covenant? Is it legitimate to bind the non-covenant people to “covenantal laws”?

He asked me to prove from scripture that people outside of the covenant are bound by the same ethical standards of righteousness as people in the covenant.

So here it is, my evidence:

First of all in Romans 1 and 2 we see that all men, Jew and Gentile, are held to the same universal righteous standard – yet they both break this standard.

Here, both Jews and Gentiles break both tables of the law:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. (Here they break, the first and second commandments) Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against natureLikewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do 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; (here they break the fifth through the tenth Commandments) 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.

Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God. For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

We also see in 1 Timothy that God’s righteous standard is also for the unbeliever:

We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

In light of this universal standard of God’s righteousness we go to the book of Jonah Chapter 3:

Now the word of the LORD came to Jonah the second time, saying, “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you.” So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, a three-day journey in extent. And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”

Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them. Then word came to the king of Nineveh; and he arose from his throne and laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published throughout Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; do not let them eat, or drink water. But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily to God; yes, let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish?

I ask the rhetorical questions, what right does this “gentile” King of Nineveh have to decree a fast and call the inhabitants of his kingdom to repent from their evil and violence to avert disaster by the “Hebrew” God?

What “standard of righteousness” is the “Hebrew” prophet holding these gentiles to?

Would you think it is right today for a “Christian Magistrate” to call the people of this Nation to repent of their sin against the “Christian” God?

In light of the King of Nineveh I ask why not?


We now turn to Daniel Chapter 4 where Daniel preaches to Nebuchadnezzar:

“And inasmuch as they gave the command to leave the stump and roots of the tree, your kingdom shall be assured to you, after you come to know that Heaven rules. Therefore, O king, let my advice be acceptable to you; break off your sins by being righteous, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor. Perhaps there may be a lengthening of your prosperity.” Daniel 4: 26-27

(Again rhetorically) So the Babylonian King is called to be righteous?

By what standard?

And this righteousness is manifested in him being just to the poor? – That sounds like something a Hebrew prophet would call the Hebrews to and yet he’s calling the gentile King to it.

Nebuchadnezzar is obviously called to rule by God’s standard of justice and righteousness, not his own. This is why Daniel says if he does right (by God’s standard) there may be better days ahead for the King.


Sometimes, Magistrates are not only called to rule by God’s standard, they are called to protect and establish the righteous by decree:

Also I (King Darius) issue a decree that whoever alters this edict, let a timber be pulled from his house and erected, and let him be hanged on it; and let his house be made a refuse heap because of this. And may the God who causes His name to dwell there destroy any king or people who put their hand to alter it, or to destroy this house of God which is in Jerusalem. I Darius issue a decree; let it be done diligently. Ezra 6:11-12

Here we have King Darius who like King Cyrus before, issued a decree to protect and establish the people of God in his realm so they can build up the temple of God (which is now the Church, Christ’s body)

Going on to the next chapter in Ezra:

And I, even I, Artaxerxes the king, issue a decree to all the treasurers who are in the region beyond the River, that whatever Ezra the priest, the scribe of the Law of the God of heaven, may require of you, let it be done diligently, up to one hundred talents of silver, one hundred kors of wheat, one hundred baths of wine, one hundred baths of oil, and salt without prescribed limit. Whatever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it diligently be done for the house of the God of heaven. For why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons? Ezra 7:21-23

Here we have a Magistrate who obviously fears God (this is pretty obvious from this text “for why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons”) who calls for the rebuilding of God’s Temple in his realm.

If we put this in context today, I ask, Is it wrong for a Magistrate to use his kingdom’s resources to establish the people of God so they can build up the church? Is it wrong for a Christian Magistrate to write laws to establish the church today in light of these two texts?

Maybe Constantine wasn’t such a bad guy after all.


Let’s move on to an interesting text in Isaiah:

The earth mourns and fades away, The world languishes and fades away; The haughty people of the earth languish. The earth is also defiled under its inhabitants, Because they have transgressed the laws, Changed the ordinance, Broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore the curse has devoured the earth, And those who dwell in it are desolate. Therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, And few men are left. Isaiah 24:4-6

The “inhabitants of the earth” have

transgressed the laws

changed the ordinance

“broken the everlasting covenant“?

Again, God’s standards are universally applicable to all mankind, not just Israel or the Church (the new Israel).


In Psalm two the world’s Magistrates are warned:

Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One. “Let us break their chains,” they say, “and throw off their fetters.” The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them. Then he rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying, “I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill.” I will proclaim the decree of the LORD : He said to me, “You are my Son today I have become your Father.Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. You will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”

Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

First of all, the world’s Magistrates want to throw off the authority of God’s appointed “King of the world” and His rule.

Secondly, if these Magistrates refuse to obey this King and His rule (His law) this King will will smash them like a piece of china!

Thirdly, these magistrates are told to “serve the Lord” with fear and trembling!

I ask rhetorically, what standard are they trying to throw off?

By what standard are they to serve the Lord with fear and trembling?


By these passages, I believe the Scriptures teach that it is legitimate for Christian Magistrates to bind non-covenant people to God’s universal ethical standards of justice and righteousness which are found most fully manifested in God’s law-word.

Also, I believe the Scriptures teach that it is the ethical duty of Magistrates to establish the righteous and suppress the wicked.

God’s ethical standards are universally binding on all men especially men who have the responsibility to rule over other men.


Dallas Willard, Greg Bahnsen, Law and Theology

Christopher Neiswonger has an interesting post at Christian Theology blog (BTW for you TIU folks he is a TIU Law school guy) here is a quote:

Bringing together theology, and law, as you well know, is not at all easy, and antinomianism is overwhelmingly dominant in Christian culture. Part of the problem is that Christians have been persuaded that their best arguments are those that avoid Special Revelation as a source of ethical knowledge. But ethical knowledge is rooted in one’s view of man in relation to God and other men and this is not easy to know apart from Special Revelation. If we could easily know good and evil apart from Scripture, the Scriptures themselves become a needless redundancy. General Revelation makes sure that all men know, even if they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. But our inborn dilemma of being a fallen people leaves us un inclined to the good except in that which is conducive to our own selfish desire. As Augustine and Calvin wrote on such things, we of the City of God make laws against theft out of a Spiritual love for God and our neighbor; The City of Man, a merely natural city, makes laws against theft for their own selfish protection. This is where the two might meet in civics, even if not in intent, teleology, or understanding. This is the common ground for a common law.”

Read the complete post here…

Also, he has an excellent post titled “Presuppositionalism, Evidentialism, and Gordon H. Clark” which I highly recommend.


Thoughts on “Theonomy” and “The Unity of Theonomy and Natural Law”

Lately I have been doing a lot of reading on Natural Law and Theonomy, I would like to share some thoughts.

In this post I will not be engaging with individual “opponents” of Theonomy but with the basic problem I have with accepting any other position. There is an admitted “theological grid” by which I view problems inherent in the alternatives. The individual particulars or the complete theological grid that lead me to my current position would have to be replaced with something else in order for me to move to any other view.

For starters, I want to make sure my definitions of Theonomy and Natural Law are understood correctly, here are my definitions:

Theonomy: God’s special or “supernatural revelation” His law-word, the sacred inspired scriptures (the entire Bible not just the Pentateuch) from Genesis to Revelation which is the only “objective standard” by which justice, law, and ethics, can truly be measured.

Natural Law: God’s “natural revelation” that he has placed in the heart of all men (Romans 1:18-32, 2:14-16) which, because of sin, is too often suppressed by the sinful hearts of men, and is very often (not always) open to “subjective error“ in the areas of justice, law, and ethics.

Also, I do not pretend to be “unbiased” on this issue, I am an unapologetic theonomist. At this point I have not been convinced of any other position. This is partially because, in a post-modern world, I feel I have no where else to go. For me the word of God is an objective rock, in a sea of postmodern subjectivity. This really, is at the heart of why I hold so tenaciously to Theonomy. In my mind, justice, law, and ethics, need an objective home where I can place my confidence; a way I can measure true truth, from false truth. “Natural Law” all by itself is way too “subjective” for me.

All that being said, I want to press forward on the subject:

Thoughts on the Doctrines that Lead to Theonomy

It appears to me that Theonomy in the realm of “civil law and ethics” is a natural development of certain Reformation core doctrines; I am not sure you can get to the “thenomic position” without holding to these particular (what I believe are biblical) doctrines :

The Calvinistic Theocentric view of the world an life
The Calvinistic stress of continuity between the OT and NT
The Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura
The Reformed doctrine of the Sufficiency of Scripture And the Kuyperian doctrine “Jesus is Lord over all creation“ ( Jesus’ Lordship extends throughout every area and aspect of life, it is not simply restricted to the “sphere of church” or to “individual private piety“)

An aside, I believe Kuyperianism is partly just the natural development of the Reformation doctrine of “the priesthood of believers” with its stress of the sacredness or dignity of all work or callings as opposed to the medieval emphasis of the “superiority of spiritual callings.” This is why I would call Kuyperianism a “Reformation” doctrine. I believe Kuyperianism is a child of the Reformation (that is why it’s often called Neo-Calvinism)

I believe these core doctrines taken to their logical conclusions lead ultimately to the thenomic position, take any of these doctrines out and Theonomy falls.

That said, what I have noticed all to often in reading the opponents of Theonomy, from both Reformed and Non-Reformed, Liberal and Conservative Christians alike, is that there always seems to be a subtle attack on one or more of these Reformation core doctrines that I have mentioned (or these doctrines are so qualified to death, you can barely understand the arguments). As I alluded to in my opening statement, I would have to be convinced from scripture that one or more of these doctrines does not apply to the “civil ethical realm“.

Compartmentalization of the “Sacred” and “Secular”

Another way I have noticed that opponents deal with Theonomy is to embrace some form of compartmentalization of the “sacred” and “secular“. They dichotomize one or more of these doctrines into “two realms“ or “two kingdoms” as it is called; one being sacred or having Biblical ethics which apply to the Kingdom of God and the other being secular with Natural Law ethics that apply to the Kingdom of Man.

These folks who reject Theonomy in the “civil ethical realm“ seem to almost always embrace some type or form of dualism, resulting in the dichotomizing of these above mentioned doctrines, thus resulting in dichotomizing the application of Christian ethics or law into two realms, the “sacred” and the “secular“.

I have real problems accepting these compartmentalizations, first, because there is unity between Natural Law and Theonomy (which I will get to shortly) and secondly, because I accept (because I believe the scripture teaches) the Kuyperian doctrine of “Jesus is Lord over all“ not just the sphere of the Church. “At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father”. (Phil 2:10-11). “The earth is the LORD‘s, and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein” (Psalm 24:1).

“Marcionism” or “Dispensationalism”

Other opponents of Theonomy, are prone to essentially compartmentalize or dichotomize the OT and NT. They create radical discontinuities between the two covenants, there is a heavy stress on the “discontinuity” between the OT and NT. These folks seem to embrace either a subtle form of “Marcionism” and or “Dispensationalism,” which makes the God of the Bible schizophrenic and or radically segregates His people into two different people of God.

Because I strongly believe in the doctrine of the immutability of God which teaches that He does not change (nor does He change His ethics), “For I am the Lord, I change not” (Mal 3:6) I cannot accept any kind moral schizophrenia in God. Secondly, because the scripture clearly teaches the NT – OT unity of the people of God: “Only those who have the faith of Abraham are children of Abraham” (Gal 3:6-9) I cannot accept any form of doctrine that radically dichotomizes the people of God or creates a radical discontinuity of the OT and NT.

The Unity of Natural Law and Theonomy

Also, what I have noticed, is all to often in the “civil ethical realm,“ Natural Law and Theonomy are almost always pitted against each other. Natural Law always seems to be offered as the “alternative” solution to Theonomy. These opponents create a kind of division between the two. In my mind this creates two different “law” standards, one in “natural law” and another in “revealed or biblical law” (this also is a big problem I have with the “two Kingdom theory” as opposed to “sphere sovereignty” which I accept). This tension or dichotomy suggests some type of ethical “double standard” or “ethical schizophrenia” when it comes to the “justice, law, and ethics” of God.

In the past, Western jurisprudence (in countries where the Reformation had the biggest influence) regularly recognized the relationship and unity between Natural Law and Theonomy (Theonomy as I have defined it)

Consider Blackstone and Locke who were cited frequently (along with the Bible) by America’s Founding Fathers:

“Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being. And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker’s will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.

This law of nature, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man’s felicity.

Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.”

Commentaries on the Laws of England – Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780)

“The Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men’s actions must . . . be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God.

Human Laws must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made.”

Two Treatises on Government – John Locke (1632-1704)

Consider also, the 17th century English struggle between the theology of the “Divine Right of Kings” and the theology found in Lex Rex (Samuel Rutherford) “the Law is King“. These arguments were grounded in a long tradition of both English Common Law and Scripture (Theonomy).

All this begs the question in my mind, does God have two different “standards” of justice, law, or ethics? If God judges the nations (“Oh, let the nations be glad and sing for joy! For You shall judge the people righteously, And govern the nations on earth” Psalm 67:4), are there different standards that politicians and judges use? Different “standards of justice” than His own? As Bahnsen has said:

“Others have gone on to maintain that natural revelation (natural law) will be the standard of judgment. However, this either amounts to preferring a sin-obscured edition of the same law of God or to denying the unity of natural and special revelation (and to be willing to pit one against the other) Not only this, but in fact, natural revelation is suppressed in unrighteousness by the sinner, this should dissuade us from thinking that it can be the recognized, functional measure of his ethical obligation.” (Theonomy in Christain Ethics p. 387)

If there is unity between Natural Law and Theonomy, why do we oppose Theonomy, and why as Bahnsen puts it, do we prefer a “sin-obscured edition” of the same law of God?

Why do we (especially Calvinists) underestimate mans nature and his ability to suppress the truth?

Again, in the civil ethical realm, why do we place so much confidence in Natural Law if wicked men suppress “natural truth” in unrighteousness? Why choose the inferior natural revelation over “special” or “supernatural revelation“? I ask myself, could it be, because of contemporary cultural pressures? Could it possibly be, that we have elevated Natural Law over Theonomy because we are afraid or ashamed at what the Bible teaches? Hopefully this is not the reason, but we must be willing to ask ourselves, is it because we are cowards?

I believe the scripture clearly teaches one standard of righteousness and judgment for all men: He (God) “has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained” (Acts 17:31). And secondly, if Jesus Christ is “the ruler over the kings of the earth” (Revelation 1:5) does He have different standards for different rulers? (believing rulers or unbelieving rulers) Does He give these rulers different standards (Natural Law) than those ultimately found fully manifested in Holy Writ, by which these rulers are to govern and adjudicate justice by?

I say no, a thousand times no, God does not have, two different standards of justice, law, and ethics.

As a side thought (I am open to suggestion), I anticipate some will agree on the unity of Natural Law and Theonomy, and say yes, the same “standard” for rulers, but “quantitatively different”. They possibly might argue that Natural Law has quantitatively less. My question is then, by what standard or criteria do you quantitatively measure? How do you determine what applies and what does not? How do you draw the line between Natural Law and fully revealed Biblical Law (Theonomy)?

Natural Law as a Guide is Not Sufficient Enough

To look to Natural Law as a guide for justice, law, and ethics, seeing the full implications of how badly men will and have, suppressed the truth in unrighteousness. In light of the nature of man and how in the pre-flood world (in the days before “special” revelation, except to Noah), men had degenerated so far and become so corrupt that God said that “the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen 6:5) Realizing that the anthropological nature of man hasn’t changed and that men are prone to degenerate in the same way today. In this light, because of the nature of man, we have to admit that Natural Law as a guide for justice, law, and ethics is not sufficient enough.

Natural Law as a guide for the conscience, in a culture that is in the final stages of post Christianity is not sufficient. This is especially the case in a post-modern culture where western civilization’s collective conscience has been, systematically (through education) and purposely (through legislation) been seared of its Christian inheritance. We must realize that our culture as a whole has been ethically re-oriented, it has been stripped of its Christian moral conscience collectively. Natural Law is not sufficient in a culture where consciences are “manipulated” by modern ideology such as economic and social egalitarianism, and a hundred other isms, where (non-biblical) guilt manipulation is rampant.

Why Theonomy?

In this kind of a culture, because of the depravity of man, we need the objective truth of God’s law-word that sets people and nations free. We need Theonomy as a guide for justice, law, and ethics more than ever. We need the Law of God as an objective standard that informs and teaches the conscience.

More than ever, Western civilization needs (starting in the church, then working its way into every area of culture) a Josiahian revival -a rediscovery of the lost Law of God. We need this revival both in the Church and out. We need modern day prophets who thunder the Law of the Living God to a confused and rebellious culture.

I also believe we need Theonomy to teach and instruct the Politician and the Judge what true “objective” justice, law, and ethics are according to the Living God. We need the “dust broom” of Theonomy to “sweep up” the “suppressed conscience” of Natural Law (that law that God has placed in the hearts of men) to bring them to repentance and to a true understanding of what real justice is which is defied by God.

I might be a little simplistic, but I cannot for the life of me figure out how the missionaries down through the ages taught sexually immoral pagans, cannibals and the like, how to live simply by teaching “Natural Law”? These pagans and their rulers had to be instructed by the law-word of God (Theonomy).

If we reject Theonomy, how pray tell, will Natural Law deal with the increasing modern paganism and sexually immoral climate of today’s current culture, given that the increasing totalitarian state sanctions, teaches, and even encourages (sometimes by persecution of those who deviate) these new modern ethics? How will Natural Law address issues like these:

(keep in mind that modern man’s “conscience” is increasingly being completely reprogrammed to accept modern “values“)

The “Gay” Agenda

Polygamy has Arrived: Britain and Canada Pay Welfare Benefits to Polygamist Immigrants

Increase Sentences for Gay “Hate Crimes”: Scottish Parliament

8-year-old boy returning to class as girl / Teachers making accommodations, preparing to counsel other students

Mock weddings, drag shows and workshops on transsexuality among events planned for students as young as 14 in same-sex marriage campaign

Judge: Teaching How to Use Condom and that Homosexuality is Inborn to 8th and 10th Graders is OK

“China-Lite” : Two-Child Policy Bills Proposed in Philippines Include Criminal Sanctions

UK: Tribunal fines Church England £47,000 for refusing to hire homosexual

34-Year Old Italian Man Gets Slap on the Wrist for Sex with 13-Year Old

Christian Photographer Hauled before Commission for Refusing Same-Sex Job

Court: No Opt-out of Homosexual Indoctrination in Class for Massachusetts Parents

New York Court Rules State Must Validate Canadian Homosexual “Marriages”

B.C. Teacher Kempling May Lose Teaching License for Defending Christian Beliefs

Licensing of Parents

And all this is just the beginning, imagine what other horrors lurk further down the road of Western post-Christianity?

I believe Francis Schaeffer summed it all up in ”How Should We Then Live?”. He points to a painting by Paul Robert called Justice Lifts the Nations, it is on the stairway in the old Supreme Court Building in Lausanne where the judges had to pass each time before going to try a case.


Schaeffer says: “Robert wanted to remind them that the place which the Reformation gave to the Bible provided a basis not only for morals but for law. Robert pictured many types of legal cases in the foreground and the judges in their black robes standing behind the judges bench.

The problem is neatly posed: How shall the judges judge? On what basis shall they proceed so that their judgment will not be arbitrary?

Above them Robert painted Justice standing unblindfolded, with her sword pointed not vertically upward (to Natural Law) but downward toward a book, and on the book is written The Law of God (Theonomy). Down in the foreground of the large mural the artist depicts many sorts of litigation the wife against the husband, the architect against the builder, and so on.

How are the judges going to judge between them? This is the way we judge in a Reformation country, says Paul Robert. He has portrayed Justice pointing with her sword to a book upon which are the words, The Law of God.

For Reformation man there was a basis for law. Modern man has not only thrown away Christian theology; he has thrown away the possibility of what our forefathers had as a basis for morality and law.”

The problem today is the same as in the Garden, modern Adam’s choice is, as Cornelius Van Til said, between Theonomy or Autonomy.

And given that, for me, the choice is clear, it’s Theonomy or Chaos…