Mike Lewis: A Theonomic Response:
Oh wait, no it doesn't, because we are still talking about that same principle that has roots in Noahic covenant from before Moses. I'm not coming through any back door. I am merely pointing out the Biblical definiton of crime: a crime is a sin that harms a victim. Coercion/violence/criminal justice is only justified in response to such a sin. I don't think there's such a thing as a "Biblical definition of crime." I can't think of a verse where a distinction is drawn between a "sin" and a "crime." If "crime" is defined as an act which is punished by death, then the Bible certainly does not restrict "crime" to acts which have a single human victim. Arguably, blasphemy (clearly a "crime" in the Old Covenant) "harmed" the entire society.
What Theonomists need to prove is their insistence that the moral aspects of the Mosaic Law which do not involve a victim but were coded into civil form (involving criminal penalties), still must be considered issues of criminality today. I don't think Theonomists need to "prove" this point. I think all Biblical authors would say that the point is so clear in Scripture from Genesis to Revelation that the one denying the point has the burden of proof.
I routinely advance the argument that they were so coded into civil/criminal form at that time because of the Covenental implications of being a nation that was also a church. They had the Ark of the Covenant, the Temple and the Shakinah Glory. They had the very presence of God dwelling in their midst and were to be a light to the nations ("A kingdom of priests, a holy nation.") The "church" still has a "temple" and the New Covenant reality of everything else that these "shadows"  pictured. God is more present with His People today than in the Old Covenant, not less.
In the New Covenant (whatever your view of the relations of the covenants) it is undeniable that these things are no longer a reality for any civil nation, but for the church who is the kingdom of priests (1 Peter). Thus those things which were coded civilly for the purpose of the purity of the people ("purge the evil from among you") are now matters of Church Discipline and not matters of civil/criminal law (1 Corinthians 5). The "church" is clearly a continuation of Israel. See Charles Provan's book, The Church is Israel Now. The "church" is a "holy nation" and a "kingly [political] priesthood." The "church" is the ultimate replacement for all "civil nations."

In 1 Corinthians 5, Derret, "Handing Over to Satan," 11-30, ... holds that Paul hands over the man to civil authorities for physical punishment and execution. Roman law forbade such incest (Gaius, Institutes 1.63; Cicero, Cluentio 5.27). Similarly, Gaca, Making of Fornication, 139-40, holds that Paul sentences the man to the death penalty. [Source] There is certainly no evidence in 1 Corinthians 5 that if Caesar were to convert to Christianity, he would have been urged by Paul not to carry out the "death penalty" for crimes which carried a "death penalty" in the Scriptures.

Is 1 Cor 5:13 the "general equity" of Deut 22:21? (Comments on a Reformed Baptist analysis)

This argument has never been rebutted. I have never seen a Theonomist take these matters into account. It seems the sum total of the argument is "God doesn't change, and Jesus said he didn't come to abolish," without considering that the rest of the New Testament might inform us as to what he meant. There is a clear Theonomic presumption laid down in the Scriptures (i.e., the "Old Testament") which is never rebutted and is repeatedly affirmed by Jesus and the writers of the "New Testament." Evidence of a pro-Torah attitude here.

For Further Reading
Here are some recent (2014-15) articles, blog posts and Facebook discussions I've had on the subject of "Theonomy."

Favorable to Theonomy Possibly Unfavorable

Lee Irons' Dispensational Hermeneutic - "typology"

Is the Law of Moses (Torah) Still Binding? -- A Theonomic Answer

The Theonomy Debate (McDurmon v. Hall)(Comments on a Reformed Baptist analysis)

Tipton's Eschatology of Hebrews 2:1-4: A Theonomic Response to Kerux V15 N1 A1

Conversation with Paul Baumgartner

Theonomy is for Gentiles

Reply to Peter Gay and Mike Lewis

Justification by Law -- Theonomy on Steroids -- A Theonomic Rebuttal to JD Hall

Abraham Booth

Ten Principles for a Free Society

Are We In Exile? Daniel and Joseph in "Public Service"

Why Old Testament "Holy Wars" are Not a Civil Model Today and why there is no such thing as a "civil code" in the Bible.

Reply to Ben Jones: Should Christians Rethink Capital Punishment

The Case Against "Capital Punishment" -- A short introduction. Contains links to more thorough treatments

How To Become A Christian Anarchist


Free Market Dispute Resolution Organizations


Conversation with Kurt and Tom

  1. Kurt And Tom on Romans 13 on Facebook
  2. A Response to Tom Reynolds on the Immorality of "Civil Government"
  3. Final? Response to Tom Reynolds
  4. Final Round

My Weekend with the "Covenanters" - I was invited to join a Facebook Group called "Christians for the Civil Recognition of Christ's Kingship." I lasted one weekend. I believe the Mafia should recognize Christ's Kingship. This group should be called, "Christians for Christ's Recognition of Archists."

Is Hypocrisy the Worst Possible Policy? Response to Bojidar Marinov


Theonomic Left-Libertarianism

General Biblical Issues About the Author

Community Bible Church at Integrity Hills

The Gospel is "Good News"

Do Christians Really Need to "Admit" These 5 Things About the Bible?

Kevin Craig first encountered "Christian Reconstructionism" around 1974.
    He was personally tutored by R.J Rushdoony, wrote a regular column for The Chalcedon Report, and as a Chalcedon Scholar substituted on occasion for Rushdoony when he was unable to fill the pulpit in the Westwood chapel where the Institutes of Biblical Law was delivered.
    KC was also tutored one-on-one by Bahnsen, who wanted to see if someone could be ordained in the OPC through an apprenticeship, rather than the modern seminary model.
    Gary North has published a few of his articles, including this one. North says KC is either in the "Who's Who" or the "Who's Not" of Christian Reconstructionism.
Kevin Craig founded Vine & Fig Tree (a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation) in 1979.