Lee: 3. The [Theonomic] bestiality argument. If you reject the validity of the Mosaic case law, then you have no basis for asserting that bestiality is contrary to God's will. The only way we know that God abhors bestiality is because He has revealed this in Exodus 22:19.

Lee Again. .... The idea is that if you reject the civil law, ..... if you throw out this verse, then you are left without any proof-text anywhere in the Bible in which God prohibits bestiality. The reply here is to turn the tables on the theonomist: "On what basis can you say that pornography is sinful?" If he answers, "Pornography is included in the general Biblical prohibitions against sexual immorality" (zana in Hebrew = porneia in the NT), you gently suggest that the same would be true of bestiality.

Us: Note that "turning the tables on the Theonomist" here, involves NOT ANSWERING his question, but instead aims to show BOTH views arbitrary. He has advocated here the "Tu Quo Que" fallacy, in drawing attention away from the inadequacies of his position by pointing to what he sees as a weakness in an opposing view, without addressing the questioned soundness of his own position. In other words, He cannot answer the challenge, and he hopes that we have none for his.

Us Again: Hope springs eternal. We know that pornography is unethical because the Bible teaches that public nudity is unethical. And pornography publicizes nudity (This is true by definition). Ergo, the Bible condemns pornography as sin, the sin of porneia, or sexual immorality. There are over a dozen clear texts to that effect in the Bible. Here are a few.

Ex. 20:26 -- "neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon."

Here, God requires no steps leading to the altar, so that when priests walk up it to conduct holy matters, they don't raise their knee (and thus their outer-wear high enough to expose their undergarments to those below. This shows that one's nakedness must remain a private affair.

Leviticus 18:8 indicates that one's nakedness is proprietary (private property) -- that it comes with covenantally-regulated property rights -- saying, "The nakedness of thy father's wife thou shalt not uncover; it is thy father's nakedness." Likewise, Paul affirms that a husband's body belongs to himself and his wife mutually and exclusively.

Ezek. 16:36-37 and 23:18 respectively use the phrase "uncover your nakedness" with "promiscuity" and "prostititution." This shows that the sin of public exposure of one's nakedness (and thus of pornography) is the sin of sexual immorality (Gk. porneia). Other passages imply the same conclusion. See Is. 47:3; Lam. 1:8; Mic. 1:11; Nahum 3:5, etc.

Finally, Revelation 3:18 notes that public nudity is shameful. It reads: "I counsel you to buy form me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear so you can cover your shameful nakedness ...."

Lee: One of the many problems with theonomy is that it has a positivistic view of law: only that which is specifically stated to be unacceptable to God is sinful. But that just isn't the way the moral will of God works.

Us: Coincidentally, it isn't the way Theonomy works either. One of the many problems with critics of Theonomy is that they often criticize it before taking the time to actually understand it. Theonomy is NOT ethical positivism, as this refutation (written by a Theonomist) itself SHOWS.

Lee: The Bible never says that cheating on your income tax is sin. But we know it is, because cheating on your income tax is a form of stealing. And stealing is not an act of love, for love does no harm to its neighbor (Rom. 13:10). We don't have to have a specific verse for each and every imaginable sin to know it is sin.

Us: The above argument is self-refuting. It begins by suggesting the Bible never says that tax-witholding is sinful, and then shows exactly HOW (with a few missing premisses, but well cut Lee some slack here) the Bible says the act in question is sinful. Perhaps Lee means that the Bible never says so explicitly, but only implicitly. This does nothing to help Lees case since the Bible shows the legitimacy of reasoning (good and nec. consequence) from the Scripture (Acts 17:3, etc), and Theonomists believe the whole Bible.

In the end, Theonomy is a whole-Bible for all-of-life proposition, not a one-to-one, verse-to-sin proposition (what Lee calls positivism).

Moreover, Lee's claim above, "We don't have to have a specific verse for each and every imaginable sin to know it is sin," is ambiguous. If the Bible does not somewhere forbid a certain deed -- either implicitly or explicitly -- it is not sin. "All sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:1). Thus, without knowing the law of the Lord, one cannot know whether his actions are sinful or not.

Thus, rejecting the Mosaic legislation leaves one with no objective basis for saying "beastiality is sin." This is why Lee never answered the question, but preferred to offer the Tu Quo Que fallacy instead.

By the way, when is Lee going to offer a detailed and comprehensive alternative blueprint for society? Were still waiting.

Lee: 4. The [Theonomic] Romans 13 argument Paul says that the civil magistrate has been authorized by God to punish the wrongdoer and to reward those who do good. Where does the civil magistrate find divinely-approved, just standards for determining who is a wrongdoer, and what his punishment should be, if not in the Mosaic civil law?

Lee Again: First, the civil magistrate has access to the same moral will of God as all men ..... thus, the civil magistrate, whether Christian or non-Christian, has sufficient resources for distinguishing between good and evil, at least in principle, in order to discharge his God-given responsibility of punishing criminals without needing to appeal directly to the covenantal revelation of the law given to Israel.

Us: The Bible nowhere teaches that natural revelation is sufficient for anything but to condemn the wicked by their actions and consciences. General revelation has nothing like the detailed, specific, comprehensive and clear ethical instructions as the written revelation. The alleged civil sufficiency of natural revelation would have made most of the OT unnecessary in the first place. This is Lee's homemade wicked-brew theology.

Moreover, Deut. 4:5-8 shows that the OT civil legislation is intended to function as the law of every nation. This is precisely because natural revelation is not sufficient for the task. Jesus said "The Sabbath was made for MAN," (Mark 2), not "The Sabbath was made for Israelites under the Old Covenant. Ecclesiastes 12 concludes, "Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of MAN."

The Law of the Lord is wisdom (Deut. 4), and God commands all men to be wise. Ergo, the commandments in the OT bind all men to the perpetual obedience thereof, unless and until, God Himself says otherwise -- in the OT or the NT. This means that most of the Mosaic laws continue to bind all men, and we can know precisely which ones no longer do. The Scripture is sufficient.

Lee: Second,..... Biblical teaching actually prohibits the civil magistrate from enforcing the covenantally-specific legislation God revealed to Israel [because] the civil law given to Israel was theocratic in nature .... this theocratic intolerance of covenant-breaking is inappropriate for implementation by the nations of the world, none of which can rightly claim to have been covenantally set apart by a special, redemptive act of divine providence as was Israel.

Us: This non-sequitur says "covenantally peculiar," therefore "not for other nations." Deut. 4 says "covenantally peculiar," SO THAT "other nations will admire and adopt this law." Lee also assumes here the "civil and judicial sufficiency" of natural revelation, for which there is no biblical warrant whatsoever.

Lee: ...If the theocratic ideal were applied in non-covenanted nations, it would necessitate the destruction of all its population except for those fortunate enough to be members of those Christian denominations sanctioned by the state as legitimate.

Us: Who told you that? Things are getting weird now. First, since all nations are duty-bound to obey God, their first duty (after repenting and believing the gospel of Christ) is to establish a national covenant with Christ, the King of kings, so that the law of the Lord would be applied as the law of the land by covenanted (peculiar) nations only. See Carsons Christian Social Mandate (part 1) for more on this.

Second, national covenanting is a reformation and biblical tradition based on the divinely-approved examples of men like King Josiah [and plenty of other biblical texts], who caused the people to covenant with the Lord to do all his holy will. The Bible notes this fact with much approval.

Third, the law mandates no penalty for "not joining a church," so where Lee gets this "destruction for all but church members" thing is beyond us. In a theonomic (i.e. Christian) nation, Church members would "fortunately avoid destruction" the same way everyone else would -- by refusing to commit a capital crime. The law applies equally to all. Also, not every sin is a crime,and most sins are not capital crimes. The law forbids both lust and coveting, for example, but specifies no civil punishment for either. Notice Lee offers no proof whatever for this outlandish claim because there is none to offer. This is autonomous theology (make it up as you go) at its finest.

Lee: Not only does the state lack the competence to make such determinations, but Scripture never grants the state such authority in the first place (Matt. 22:21; Rom. 13:1-7).

Us: Lee just tackled the referee. A few lines up, the civil magistrate (leaning to the light of nature) was all about "sufficient ethical resources" to perform his duties. Now (when leaning to the vastly-superior special revelation) the same ruler utterly lacks competence to make such determinations. He seemed pretty competent when playing for our team. But using the "perfect" moral standard, the Law of the Lord, he instantly becomes incompetent. Again, this inverts the Bibles teachings about the true relationship between general and special revelation.

Lee: In fact, it is just when the state begins to assume theocratic pretensions that it becomes, inevitably, a persecuting state properly identified in Scripture not as the kingdom of Christ but Babylon, in whom is found the blood of the prophets and the saints (Rev. 18:24; 17:6).

Us: Huh? When the saints rule a nation, and do so by the perfect moral standard, they become Babylon, which kills the saints? How does the perfect moral law make saints suicidal? Why should pagans be deemed competent, but the saints incompetent? Why doesn't the Holy Spirit make men MORE (not less) competent to rule?

Moreover, All states are theocracies. Every nation has its gods (final authorities), and these final authorities have law-codes (legal standards). It is never a question of "Theocracy vs. No Theocracy," but only a question of WHICH final authority a nation will adopt. By opposing "theocracy" Lee falsely pretends that neutrality in such matters is possible.

It comes down to choosing Jesus as King, with his law imposed as the law of the land, or some other final authority with arbitrary and unjust laws. There can be no neutrality. Rejecting the Law of Christ as the law of the land amounts to rejecting Jesus Himself as King. How much better to affirm the crown rights of King Jesus (see Psalm 2).

Lee: Finally, for Christians today to desire the state to wield the sword on behalf of the church is not only imprudent but singularly incompatible with our Lord's commission to the church to proclaim the gospel of eternal life to the nations and to bring honor to that gospel by good deeds of mercy and love.

Us: No Theonomist (that we know of) wants the state to wield the sword of behalf of the Church. Romans says "He is God's servant." This is not an ecclesiocracy passage. The king of Israel was to study in the law daily, so that he became an expert in it to do justice and judgment somewhat independently from the priests. That is the biblical model. If the magistrate (congress, king, president etc.) needs a little help, he can read the confessions and creeds of the Reformed Church.

Moreover, the original WCF, not the theologically-challenged version so popular today, rightly says that the civil magistrate may convene church councils and request assistance from the church in understanding some difficult passage or other -- for wisdom is found in the council of the multitude. But he is to take order in the Church just as Paul said, "The rest will I set in order when I come." This is what Josiah did. For more on this topic, see Carsons Defending The Faith Of Jesus: Of The Civil Magistrate And The Westminster Confession.

Lee: To be sure, we warn all men of the impending wrath that awaits all who do not turn from their sin and put their faith in Christ. But that wrath is presently on hold, because God's patience is intended to lead men to salvation (2 Pet. 3:9, 15).

Us: Again, the Bible (Romans 1:17ff, 13:1ff) opposes Lees conclusion. "God's wrath is revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of men." It is not "on hold," but delegated to the civil magistrate, who punishes the wicked with the sword on God's behalf. That is what it means to say, "He is God's Deacon," and again, "Vengeance is mine," says the Lord, "I will repay." This means that God has given a monopoly on vengeance (The Sword) to the civil magistrate, His Deacon, to carry out divine vengeance against the wicked as the divine law specifies.

CONCLUSION: Throughout his arguments Lee has offered no real answers to any of the Theonomic challenges he has cited (except Matt. 5:18-20, which we granted). He did not adequately answer the No-Other-Standard argument, nor any of the many NT case law applications available to us, nor the beastiality argument. He merely invoked this or that fallacy: either-or fallacy, Tu Quo que, question-begging, straw man (repeatedly misrepresenting the Theonomic view), and other non-sequiturs. Surprise: he never offered a detailed and comprehensive alternative to the legal code specified by the position he opposes.

This ought to leave the reader with the distinct impression that the law of the Lord is perfect, and that Lee Irons' home-made theology, with which he intends to replace the sufficiency of Scripture with the light of nature, is wholly unbiblical and untenable. The contrary to the Theonomy still looks impossible from here because you cannot beat something with nothing.