What is Theonomy?

I found this definition on the internet:

Theonomy means literally, “God's law,” or the belief that the moral laws of
the Old Testament are still binding today.

I found this objection to Theonomy:

"I have no argument with a great deal of what the theonomists teach. In
fact I find much of their writings on apologetics and theology
positively delightful. So my rejection of Theonomy does not mean that I
wholesale reject all of what they have to say. I have always agreed with
their stance that there is no neutrality, and that all persons have
basic presuppositions (many they cannot account for), even prior to
reading any of their writings. My disagreement is with their political
ideology which appears to be bent on enforcing the first table of the
Law.


The rule of God is good and I long for it in its fullness when our Lord
returns, but a theocracy is still a rule of man, since men's
understanding of God is always subjective. Thus the depravity of man
itself rules out the possibility of a real theocracy since our
application of it is always flawed. This is not to mention the
disagreements amongst ourselves us are sharp. I especially find it
disturbing when theonomists begin speaking of imprisoning or deporting
persons of other religions. Such a lack of meekness is not our place
this side of the cross prior to the parousia. Do you hope to persuade
those in prison of our Christianity by force of will? In my opinion this
methodology, proposed by many prominent theonomists, is in conflict with
the Word of God. The sword is not to be used as it is in Islam to coerce
conversions. I have had enough debates with theonomists to know this is
what many of them believe.


Also disturbing, and often to my surprise, is that the attitude of many
of those who attempt to enforce their logic to persuade me in this issue
to be unrelenting and often mean-spirited. Theonomy/Reconstructionism
needs to take a gentler approach if it hopes to persuade others. Jesus
told us to look at the fruit of the persons to determine the spiritual
reality, and the common lack of genuine humility I find among many
followers of reconstructionism is enough to give me serious pause. I say
this while recognizing my own cold-heartedness toward others so this is
surely not a blanket condemnation. I merely say it because I believe
love hates what is harmful and destructive in others' lives. When I see
my friends caught in something that is ultimately harmful I must come
humbly with a clear attitude of "I love you and am committed to you but
I can't stand to see what this is doing to your life," all the while
recognizing my own sinfulness.


It is my strong belief that in this era our Lord has called us to make
his Word known through meekness, suffering and godly persuasion, not
coercion. If postmillenialism is true and we have the opportunity to
apply biblical law to civil government, I would part ways with you guys
with regard to the first table of the Mosiac Law. I do not believe that
it can be enforced on unbelievers. Our tools of war are love, prayer and
the word of God, as empowered by the Holy Spirit. Political enforcement
of worship isn't going to save people. The Lord never sanctions it."

[Dad writing now] I agree that the moral law of the Old Testament is still
binding. However, most "Theonomists" are Calvinists and my concern is that
they would tend to be too "Puritanical" in imposing their view of things on
others, and would start witch hunts and burning people who interpret the
"Trinity" differently than they do if they allowed. That seems to be the
basic concern of the writer of above, and I share it to a certain degree.

I agree that we definitely should try to conform human institutions,
including government and culture, to the Bible, but I believe that a good
deal of toleration must be shown toward all Christian sects. The civil
government should not be a sword in the hand of sectarians or to give one
denomination power over others; all Christian faiths should be protected.
There may be a few very outrageous sects on the fringe of Christianity
should be excluded from protection, but generally, all Christian sects
should be acknowledged and protected.

I do not think non-Christian religions should have the protection of law.
But neither do I think they should be compelled to convert or be
persecuted. I don't think we should let them build mosques or synagogues
either. Why should false religions have legal protection in a Christian
land? Men who argue there is no God can have a terribly destructive
influence and effect on a society and I can't see why communities should
have to allow such irresponsible conduct to have free license. Restraint
is a good policy when dealing with dissenters and outsiders, but I do think
there is a point at which we should be able to penalize evil speech that
destroys men's souls.