Out of Egypt:

a much shorter response to colin (for those who are sick of reading all this)

Looking at the second linked article, I am startled by how sloppy it is in some points. For example, point V is completely true, but only supports the theonomic thesis if the moral law is equivalent to the Mosaic publication of the Law. But this is precisely what is under debate. For an alternative view, see Lee Irons' defense of a Klinean view of the Mosaic Law to the OPC court (note that I don't agree with Irons on all, or even perhaps, most, points - I only reference this to show that the moral law is not necessarily identical to the Mosaic Law).

To use an analogy familiar to Presbyterians, the moral law could be compared to the "system of doctrine" in the standards, and the Mosaic Law to the specific propositions. Theonomists believe in a sort of strict subscription, regarding this "system of doctrine" to be essentially identical and coextensive to the propositions. Non-theonomists, by contrast, recognize a difference between substance and accidents in the law, regarding what was purely accidental about the Mosaic Law to have passed away in the New Covenant era for "the substance is Christ."

An interesting thought experiment for theonomists: think about the similarities between the Hebrews' law code and the law code of other ANE peoples. Try to account for this, if the Mosaic Law contains no elements of concession to the Hebrews' weakness. Then remember what the Apostle Paul said about parts of the Law being given by angels, and other parts by the Lord Himself. Now perhaps you can see why some sort of division is not unreasonable, but is in fact suggested by the Bible itself.

From my perspective, the Mosaic Law is an amazing testimony to how God could work within a culture, and meet its people where they were, so to speak. I don't expect that God would meet another culture with the same Law, because another culture would be at a different point in providential history and would have different circumstances. For example, the U.S. is not a nation based on bloodlines - we don't have hereditary plots of land. Neither is our society agrarian. Really trying to apply the Mosaic Law to our current situation would involve you in eisegetical difficulties that would make the Mennonites' disputes over the Sermon on the Mount look trivial.

The question here is one of authority, yes, but not as the theonomists formulate it. For the fact is, God is in heaven and we are on earth. As far as I know, no one has the ability to interpret Scripture infallibly. We have the Holy Spirit, and we are able to understand that which is necessary for salvation - but we are not given immediate revelation to settle all the disputes which would inevitably arise in a theonomic state.

Roche only points out some of the most obvious - the most important of these being, who is a Christian? Who shall rule? Will Anabaptists be spared? Will Catholics? And how does God feel if we interpret His eternally valid (yet somehow ignored for 2000 years) laws incorrectly?