A Reformed Libertarian perspective on the theonomy debate

C. Jay Engel and Brandon Adams of Reformed Libertarian provides an in-depth analysis of the recent theonomy debate between J. D. Hall and Joel McDurmon. One highlight:

Israel was not like every other nation – not then, not now. Israel was a type of the church. It’s land was a type of the new earth. Israel was a holy nation, unique from all others. They were not a model for other nations to follow. They were a shadow of the eschatological Kingdom of Christ (they were not themselves the Kingdom of Christ). Their nation represented an “intrusion ethic” from the eschaton. Sin was not allowed in this holy land because God’s presence dwelt there externally.

They were to “purge the evil from their midst” because the land itself was holy, set apart by God. No land today is holy land. The new earth will be holy, and as such, no sin can remain. Thus all sin will receive its just wages. Israel’s civil laws were a foretaste, a shadow of this final judgment. The most extreme outward sins were punished with death. The purpose of this was not to set a standard for all nations to follow. The purpose, just as Israel’s purpose as a whole, was a ministry of condemnation. It was to teach us how much God hates sin.

Read the full analysis here.

Watch the entire theonomy debate between J. D. Hall and Joel McDurmon

You can watch the debate between J. D. Hall and Joel McDurmon on the resolution "Mosaic civil laws are obligatory for civil governments today." One question I wish would have been addressed: Is civil government itself obligatory?