A law is Binding until Fulfilled or Repealed

[TimeRedeemer]

Well, that explains alot. Thank you for saying you are not well-versed in CT. I might add if that is the case your line and style of corresponding is a little strange. The way you're speaking and making pronouncements doesn't suggest you are giving your own lack of understanding of Covenant Theology much importance. It's a bit irresponsible.

You're also learning things in this thread and then repeating them as if you didn't just learn them. And what's more you're repeating them as if the very person you learned them from doesn't agree with what he just presented to you.

Saying I sound like a theonomist is absurd.

Basically, David, you have to approach subjects with more humility to learn.

If I sound upset it's just that I spent alot of time responding to a person I assumed had some background in the subject and a real position regarding it, and now I feel like I've been spending that time and effort with a person merely doing this:

Still, there are positives to be gained, but continuing with it is not mandatory...

 

[TimeRedeemer]

David, I have no problem talking with anybody. But you have to show a basic, at least, level of respect to a person. If I havn't put in time and effort to study a subject I'm not going to go onto a forum and make pronouncements and challenge a person and question this and that in a manner as if I know what I'm talking about, and so on. That is showing zero respect for that person.

Make some effort to learn Covenant Theology. It's not a crime to not know about something, but it's 'sort' of a crime to talk about something you havn't shown enough interest in to learn about and to talk as if you know about it and further to talk arrogantly.

Not only that but your default position is one of bad will towards me. You have no idea what you're talking about and yet you want to see me as someone who believes a ridiculous position (that we can be justified by doing the law, etc, etc,) and you call me a theonomist. Rather strangely right after I wrote a post criticising theonomists (which makes me think it was your first exposure to that very word and you googled it and then accused me of sounding like one based on your quick and shallow reading).

Make some effort to learn the subject. I don't know anything about 'game theory' and guess what: you don't see me on a game theory forum telling people what's what.

 

[non dignus]

Originally posted by TimeRedeemer
Well, that explains alot. Thank you for saying you are not well-versed in CT. I might add if that is the case your line and style of corresponding is a little strange. The way you're speaking and making pronouncements doesn't suggest you are giving your own lack of understanding of Covenant Theology much importance. It's a bit irresponsible.

Well, so much for my post-regenerational will being God's will!

I always fail at that.

You're also learning things in this thread and then repeating them as if you didn't just learn them. And what's more you're repeating them as if the very person you learned them from doesn't agree with what he just presented to you.

Saying I sound like a theonomist is absurd.

Basically, David, you have to approach subjects with more humility to learn.

If I sound upset it's just that I spent alot of time responding to a person I assumed had some background in the subject and a real position regarding it, and now I feel like I've been spending that time and effort with a person merely doing this:

I'm sorry you feel that way. I certainly don't want to waste anyone's time and have enjoyed our discussion very much. How many times did I say I was too dense to catch the subtleties of your argument? Two. Me thinks you are not listening.

I've used scripture to bolster my argument and when you've replied in kind it only served to make the text contradict itself. I have to assume that it's not the scripture that is against itself but rather your argumentation. I take it your ad hominem finish rests your case?

If so, I look forward to another thread where we can agree whole heartedly together for His glory.

 

[non dignus]

Originally posted by TimeRedeemer
David, I have no problem talking with anybody. But you have to show a basic, at least, level of respect to a person. If I havn't put in time and effort to study a subject I'm not going to go onto a forum and make pronouncements and challenge a person and question this and that in a manner as if I know what I'm talking about, and so on. That is showing zero respect for that person.

Make some effort to learn Covenant Theology. It's not a crime to not know about something, but it's 'sort' of a crime to talk about something you havn't shown enough interest in to learn about and to talk as if you know about it and further to talk arrogantly.

Not only that but your default position is one of bad will towards me. You have no idea what you're talking about and yet you want to see me as someone who believes a ridiculous position (that we can be justified by doing the law, etc, etc,) and you call me a theonomist. Rather strangely right after I wrote a post criticising theonomists (which makes me think it was your first exposure to that very word and you googled it and then accused me of sounding like one based on your quick and shallow reading).

Make some effort to learn the subject. I don't know anything about 'game theory' and guess what: you don't see me on a game theory forum telling people what's what.

I googled 'game theory'.

Just kidding.

You remind me of a certain locksmith I contracted for services. To make me a key for my car ignition he spent an entire hour essentially destroying the lock because he couldn't pick it in order to get the core out to make a key. You know what he told me?

It was a cheap lock!



[Edited on 1-30-2006 by non dignus]

 

[TimeRedeemer]

Make the effort to learn the subject to some basic degree (we all have to ). At least make a start. Then you'll be in a better position to see if somebody's arguments or statements line up with Scripture or not. Prior to that you'll be able to see what is being said to begin with.

Covenant Theology is not something you are born knowing. It takes actual effort and time to learn.

It's also serious matter. I take it seriously. That's why I look probably somewhat amusing when I get upset if I run into someone who seems to not take is so seriously... To me, the Spirit doesn't lead one into such territory promiscuously. Fear God, it is the beginning of wisdom...

[Edited on 1-30-2006 by TimeRedeemer]

[Edited on 1-30-2006 by TimeRedeemer]

 

[Puritanhead]

Gentleman, I have to be reminded of this sometimes myself, but let the passions dampen, and remember you're both in Christ:

And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.
Ephesians 4:32

Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one.
-Colossians 4:6

I'm a covenant theologian myself... I'm still learning a lot and simply amazed at the Bible when we delve deeper and get more depth of understanding.

 

[non dignus]

Thank you Ryan. I receive your good counsel.

 

[TimeRedeemer]

Ditto, Ryan. And apologies, David. I sometimes freak out regarding the reality that it is difficult to be on the same page with others on these subjects. It's not just understanding, but everybody also is on their own natural schedule for learning it all. Sometimes too the "confusion of tongues" that is natural for this fallen world is something I don't take into enough consideration of. It's not an indictment of others, we all have the same limitations of language that we work with in communicating with others...

 

[cupotea]

Saying I sound like a theonomist is absurd.

I'm finding this discussion to be very educational, even if things have gotten a bit passionate.

One of the things that I think would be very good for me to learn would be the basic - very basic! - difference between theonomy and Covenant theology. This might also help me understand where the Covenanters stand on these issues.

Is it possible to do that here, or is there a place to be referred to that would be helpful?

 

[non dignus]

Originally posted by Globachio

I'm finding this discussion to be very educational, even if things have gotten a bit passionate.

One of the things that I think would be very good for me to learn would be the basic - very basic! - difference between theonomy and Covenant theology. This might also help me understand where the Covenanters stand on these issues.

That is a great idea, Kevin. Please start a topic!

 

[TimeRedeemer]

One problem (this is my experience anyway) is theonomists tend to take as many positions when you try to define them as Auburn Avenue or Federal Vision types. As a general observation that may very well be an overstatement, but it isn't for many of them.

Here is a good, short, to-the-point page describing theonomy, and also a little bit in contradistinction to covenant theology:

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/theonomy.html

 

[cupotea]

Here is a good, short, to-the-point page describing theonomy, and also a little bit in contradistinction to covenant theology:

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/theonomy.html

Thanks! I just had a brief glimpse at it. But one question: Is it possible to hold to Covenant theology and be postmil instead of amil? Or is Covenant theology and postmil mutually exclusive?

 

[non dignus]

Michael,
Thanks for that link, I look forward to it.

Kevin,
Different shades of eschatology would modify one's view of the consummation of the covenants. Reconstructionism would modify it greatly. But I think the historical aspect would be untouched.

 

[TimeRedeemer]

No, Covenant Theology and post-mill are not mutually exclusive (see link below and scroll down to "Eschatological Options Available To Covenant Theology"). Personally I've always been amill. I could see how groups and movements would exploit post-mill approaches to push bad doctrine. Not that all post-mill individuals were doing that of course, it has a rather stellar history based on famous individuals in history alone. But also, knowing history somewhat, and the link below touches on this, I could see that post-mill sentiments occured at times in history when progress and visions of a 'gleaming future' were currents of the times. I.e., I associated it with a bit of worldly and historic naivete. In Jonathan Edwards case it would be due to the revival atmosphere and the new America vibes in the air; on the other hand with a Loraine Boettner case it was, in the early 20th century, more the atmosphere of new invention and so forth.

To me the view from a higher perspective on time shows the amill view to be on-the-mark (aside from seeing it biblically of course).

http://www.conservativeonline.org/articles/EschatologyOfCovenantTheology.htm

 

[non dignus]

Postmillenialists may want to take a second look at the Mosaic economy in terms of it's typological aspect. If the example there shows the ease of corruptibility in the covenant people, it would, in my opinion, militate against a rosy future for the church in the last days.

Michael,
That chart ( angelfire) helped me clarify the distinctions of those three categories. I had thought that Theonomy was only an aberrant covenant theology. I'm certain that Theonomists would claim to have a Reformed covenant theology.

Wouldn't Theonomy, however problematic, subsist in CT?

PS I don't want to divert the thread too much, but it would be helpful for me to really nail this down so I don't make the same mistake twice. I have a friend at church that seems to be Bahnsenized and I want to get a handle on it.

 

[JohnV]

As far as my experience and study have shown me, you need to keep some terms distinct. It is true that a Reconstructionist framework makes much of both Postmillennialism and Presuppositionalism. As well, Reconstructionism is Theonomy-oriented. However, it is not alway true that Postmillennialists or Presuppositionalists or Theonomists are all Reconstructionists. So you ought to divide between these views as formal and informal when analyzing Theonomy as either Reconstructionist Theonomy or anti-antinominian theonomy. There is a difference.

I would also suggest that the "Bahsenizing" you are talking about falls within another distinction you need to make in each category, and that is the "rational" vs. the "irrational" proponents. This does not refer to whether or not they appeal to reason, but how they appeal to reason. More precisely, the latter appeal to authority wrongly, while the former do so rightly.

So if you're interested in studying Theonomy, you need to keep the two types quite distinct. There are commonalities and overlaps, but you will see that a lot better if you distinguish the two clearly from the start, and then see where they mesh.

I hope this helps.

 

[TimeRedeemer]

Michael,
That chart ( angelfire) helped me clarify the distinctions of those three categories. I had thought that Theonomy was only an aberrant covenant theology. I'm certain that Theonomists would claim to have a Reformed covenant theology.

Wouldn't Theonomy, however problematic, subsist in CT?

It does, but in a most perverted way. They are sophists who use Calvinist doctrine - Covenant Theology - to hide and sow garbage. They say, "Yes, we're Calvinist, but...we are real Calvinists, bold Calvinists, you see, because..." then they proceed to push their disingenous beliefs regarding the law vis a vis the new covenant.

I used the analogy of communists in America calling themselves liberals and democrats. Same thing at work. Same desire to defile names and institutions and ideas and, in the case of Christianity, doctrine.

My frank position on theonomy is they are confusion sowers as well as fifth columnists within Reformed, Calvinist camps to make Calvinism look bad. Sort of like, in the political realm, calling yourself a Republican and then wearing swastikas.

I go by discernment, and to be honest I just had to literally see the names of Rushdoony and Bahnsen and North and just get a mere taste of their writings and the impressions were overwhelmingly: CRANK. They all remind me of typical cranks you see in the political and religious spheres. The guys telling you not to pay your taxes; the guys trying to recruit you into militias; the guys with the conspiracy theories and crank economic interests; the guys who base doctrine on theories of lost tribes, etc., etc.

I'm not saying theonomists themselves espouse all those things, but that that is their intellectual realm, or elevation or atmostphere.

I think people get drawn into their world in two ways: 1. because they don't encounter sound Reformed doctrrine and sources first, i.e. the theonomy is their intitial introduction to Reformed doctrine; and 2. people who are looking for something more active to do with their faith, but instead of looking inward and taking a spiritual approach they look to the world and end up doing worldly things.

Theonomists are poison, frankly. They love it when the media talks about them as if they are evangelical Christianity (and the media has done this).

The element in all this nonsense that makes them more than a nuissance whether theonomy or Auburn Avenue or Federal Vision or New Perspective on Paul is they all self-identify as Calvinists or Reformed. This is because they know this is where the truth of the Gospel is. They are out to defile the truth of the Gospel, and since Reformed doctrine is the gold standard this is where they infiltrate and release their poison.

I have a zeal for my faith, and I desire and thirst for putting my faith into practice, both regarding myself and in the world, but this doesn't involve worldly movements that misuse the laws of Moses and pursue all manner of heated crank activity. I tend to direct my zeal and will for action regarding my faith into evangelization and the active element of sanctification, which when done biblically is what serious Chrsitians actually do. To change the world, or to keep it save for the propogation of the Gospel, I vote for the political party and candidates that will best fight for positions and ideas that will get this done [Update: I.e. the political party and candidates that espouse the best program that provides the best environment for Christians to do what we do, i.e. liberty, freedom of speech, etc.]. In my time as a voter that is (dare I get political?) Republican. No party's perfect, but...

[Edited on 2-2-2006 by TimeRedeemer]

[Edited on 2-2-2006 by TimeRedeemer]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Make your final comments here guys; I will close this tonight. The thread is outliving it's benefit in my opinion.

 

[TimeRedeemer]

Be bold against bad doctrine.

 

[RamistThomist]

be bold, but not arrogant.

 

[TimeRedeemer]

If it stings learn from it.

 

[fredtgreco]

This one is done.