There are many versions of Dominion Theology. I believe may be expressed in different ways, but Dominion Theology lies at the foundation of all Christianity including the Roman Church, Orthodox Churches, and Protestant churches.
I must disagree with you here.
Dominionism, certainly in its theonomic guise, is
anathema to mainstream Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy; none of which have traditionally set up "
God's law" delivered through Moses as a model for secular society after the coming of Christ.
Firstly, Christianity did not originate as the creed of a state entity (like ancient Israel or the Arab caliphate), rather it began life as a minority persecuted faith in the backwater region of a pagan empire.
As such, it originally had no pretensions of political power and so we find explicit instructions in the New Testament to the effect that Christians must "
be subject to the governing authorities" (
Romans 12:1-7) of the Roman Empire, rather than seek to impose their worldview because "
what business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?" (
1 Corinthians 5:12) and accordingly the reign of Christ was deemed to be staunchly apolitical: "
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to prevent my arrest by the Judean leaders. But my kingdom is from another world"" (
John 18:36).
You really can't get a more overt denial of dominionism as a political theology than that. So the New Testament, with its otherworldly lawlessness and command that one must wait for the Second Coming, isn't a particularly fertile ground for a programme of state takeover by theocrats.
As a consequence of this most inauspicious of starts, Christianity was a thoroughly non-legalistic faith. St. Paul - or whomever wrote this epistle - put it bluntly when stating that:
"having canceled the written legal code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he [Jesus] took it away, nailing it to the cross" (Colossians 2:14)
The New Law is the inner grace of the Holy Spirit, accessible only to the individual's conscience (i.e. "
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." (
John 1:17).) As Pope Benedict XVI once explained:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...idical order derived from revelation.&f=false
"Unlike other great religions, Christianity has never proposed a revealed law to the State and to society, that is to say a juridical order derived from revelation. Instead, it has pointed to nature and reason as the true sources of law"
See this article written in 1962 by Stanislaus Lyonnet, a Jesuit priest and biblical scholar:
http://www.womenpriests.org/scriptur/lyonnet.asp
The law of the Spirit is radically different by its very nature. It is not just a code, not even one "given by the Holy Spirit", but a law "produced in us by the Holy Spirit"; not a simple norm of actions outside us, but somethings, that no legal code as such can possibly be: a new, inner, source of spiritual energy.
If St. Paul applies the term "law" to this spiritual energy, rather than the term "grace" that he uses elsewhere (see Rom.6:14) he most probably does it because of Jeremiah's prophecy (also mentioned in this context by St. Thomas) announcing a new covenant, the "New Testament" . For the prophet, too, speaks of law: "This is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel . .. . I will place my law within their hearts" (31:33).
Every time the Angelic Doctor [Thomas Aquinas] refers to this "New Testament", he does so in the same terms: "It is God's way to act in the interior of the soul, and it was thus that the New Testament was given, since it consists in the inpouring of the Holy Spirit". Again: "It is the Holy Spirit Himself who is the New Testament, inasmuch as He works in us the love that is the fulness of the Law (23).
For the Church and for her liturgy too, the promulgation of the New Law does not date from the Sermon on the Mount, but from the day of Pentecost when the "finger of the Father's right hand",digitus paternae dexterae, wrote His law in the hearts of men; the code of the Old Law, given on Sinai, finds its counterpart, not in a new code, but in the giving of the Holy Spirit."
From this fundamental doctrine everything else flows, notably, the fact that Christian morality is of necessity founded on love, as St. Paul following his Master, teaches:"The whole Law is fulfilled in one word: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Gal 5:14) "He who loves his neighbour has fulfilled the Law If there is any other command it is summed up in this saying: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself .... therefore is the fulfilment of the Law" (Rom 13:8-10)
The reason is that love is not first of all a norm of conduct, by a dynamic force. As St. Thomas notes, it is precisely because the Law, as a law, was not love that it could not justify man: "Consequently it was necessary to give us a law of the Spirit, who by producing love within could give us life." (27) .
Under these conditions, it is easy to see that a Christian, that is one led by the Holy Spirit, (28) can at the same time be freed from every external law - "not be under the law" - and yet lead a perfect moral and virtuous life. St Paul makes it abundantly clear in the epistle to the Galatians, shortly after he has reduced te whole law to love: "Walk in the Spirit, and you will not fulfil the lusts of the flesh (Gal. 5: 16) Nothing could be more obvious, he explains, since these are two antagonistic principles: If you follow me, you cannot but oppose the other." If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law." In fact, what need would you have of law? A Spiritual man knows perfectly well what is carnal, and, if he is spiritual, he will fly from it as by instinct
It is about people being moral agents, responsibly forming and examining their own consciences over time - "working out their own salvation" - through the grace of God and the help of Holy Mother Church with her teachings, scriptures and sacraments, which exist to enlighten or "form" individual conscience properly but not to replace it.
From St. Thomas Aquinas:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2108.htm
Article 1. Whether the New Law ought to prescribe or prohibit any external acts?
The New Law consists chiefly in the grace of the Holy Ghost, which is shown forth by faith that worketh through love. Now menbecome receivers of this grace through God's Son made man, Whose humanity grace filled first, and thence flowed forth to us...
On the other hand, there are works which are notnecessarilyopposed to, or in keeping with faith that worketh through love. Such works are not prescribed or forbidden in theNew Law, by virtue of its primitive institution; but have been left by the Lawgiver, i.e.Christ, to the discretion of each individual. And so to each one it is free to decide what he should do or avoid; and to each superior, to direct his subjects in such matters as regards what they must do or avoid. Wherefore also in this respect theGospel is called the "law of liberty" [Cf. Reply to Objection 2]: since the Old Law decided many points and left few to man to decide as he chose.
Accordingly the New Law is called the law of liberty in two respects. First, because it does not bind us to do or avoid certain things, except such as are of themselves necessary or opposed tosalvation, and come under the prescription or prohibition of thelaw. Secondly, because it also makes us comply freely with these precepts and prohibitions, inasmuch as we do so through the promptings ofgrace. It is for these two reasons that the New Law is called "the law of perfect liberty" (James 1:25).
In medieval Christendom, even during the most oppressive periods of inquisition, the
two kingdoms doctrine was observed: by means of which religious and civil power were understood as separate in their own autonomous spheres.
This is the orthodox position held by practically all mainline Christian denominations, Protestant or Catholic, as one can explain with reference to the political philosophy of St. Augustine of Hippo (the most influential patristic authority in the Latin West):
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...ncAhUELVAKHeGeCzQQ6AEISzAE#v=onepage&q&f=true
Augustine firmly resisted the theocratic notion of a Christian empire. Insofar as he did not try to baptize the saeculum [temporal order], he was secular...Augustine rejected the idea that the saeculum could be made into a sacred theocracy in which civil authorities would enforce the law of God...At best, he hoped the state would become theologically neutral and leave the church alone...It would, in any case, be a mistake to preempt heaven by trying to establish a paradise on earth, a sacred city here and now...
(continued...)
