RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
moderators: have mercy! Please!
Postmill - Theonomy - Presuppositionist Distinctions
- Thread starter Robin
- Start date
- Status
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Draught Horse
natural law, what else?
yes! yes! Looking at the starry heavens I too came away with the conclusion that rape should be punnished by 12.75 years. But then I was let down when my friend, looking at the same starry heavens, said that it should be 10.86 years. What are we to do???
Failure to grasp natural law is one thing I dislike about "theonomy" Ro 2:14,15.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Originally posted by Peter
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Draught Horse
natural law, what else?
yes! yes! Looking at the starry heavens I too came away with the conclusion that rape should be punnished by 12.75 years. But then I was let down when my friend, looking at the same starry heavens, said that it should be 10.86 years. What are we to do???
Failure to grasp natural law is one thing I dislike about "theonomy" Ro 2:14,15.
So answer the question, how many years is rape punished by?
Even assuming that laws of nature (whatever they are) and the laws of the Bible are the same, would not your determinative presupposition be that of Scripture?
In other words,
How is rape to be punished?
Laws of nature by definition cannot specify that. You would then turn to the bible.
[Edited on 8--16-05 by Draught Horse]
If I studied jurisprudence I might be able to answer the question using natural law, fortunately I have a clearer revelation so I don't need to:
Deut 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
The point is the content of natural law = biblical law, its 2 different ways to arrive at the same thing.
Deut 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
The point is the content of natural law = biblical law, its 2 different ways to arrive at the same thing.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
while not full-orbed theonomy, that is an improvement over most natural law theories. Most natural law theorists would not agree with your definition, though.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Not Thomistic Christians
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Perhaps. I am aware of statements from Calvin et al where they do indeed suggest that. Of course, I maintain they are cheating (they are seeing stuff in nature that they already presupposed from the bible).
They never quite broke from the influence of the heavenly doctor and thus never fully reformed in the socio-political realm.
For reference, here's an excerpt of a long article explaining the history of Reformed Eschatology....note how eschatology ties-in with covenant and sovreignty, Etc.
(it's long...so refer to the link:
http://www.rsglh.org/reformation.and.the.last.things.htm#REformedEscatologyReformation
Reformed Eschatology
(Amillennial) Since the Reformation by Rev. Charles Terpstra.....
....Reformed writers holding to Amill, to mention a select few: Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920); Herman Bavinck (1854-1921; The Last Things: Hope for This World and the Next, 1996. This is part of an English translation of his Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 1895-1901); Albertus Pieters (The Lamb, The Woman, and the Dragon, 1937); Louis Berkhof (Systematic Theology, 1941); William Hendriksen (More Than Conquerors, 1939; The Bible on the Life Hereafter, 1959); Herman Hoeksema (Reformed Dogmatics, 1966; Behold He Cometh, 1969); Anthony Hoekema (The Bible and the Future, 1979). Among Presbyterians we may note Robert L. Dabney (Lectures in Systematic Theology, 1878), Geerhardus Vos (Pauline Eschatology, 1930), William C. Robinson (Christ the Hope of Glory, 1945), George Murray (Millennial Studies, A Search for Truth, 1948), Jay Adams (The Time Is At Hand, 1966), and William E. Cox (Amillennialism Today, 1966). While there are variations in the details of the amillennial position set forth by these men, all held to and advanced the basics of the historic amillennial position of the church.
But to move on, we ought to note in what areas amillennial teaching has developed since the Reformation. What are some of the distinctive elements of Reformed eschatology? In the first place, we may mention its emphasis on the sovereignty of God. Being one of the cardinal tenets of Reformed theology, God's absolute sovereignty has also been an inseparable part of her doctrine of the last things. The doctrine is applied to eschatology in several ways. For one thing, the sovereignty of God is applied to the very idea of the end of all things. Reformed amillennialism teaches that if all things have their beginning in God (and they do, for He is the sovereign Creator of all things!), then they also have their end in Him. God is the Source of all things and He is the Goal of all things. This means that all things, including the end of the world, have their meaning and purpose in God. From this comes the idea of the consummation of all things, that God is leading all things to a "wrapping up," a "bringing together," indeed to a climax of His sovereign purpose, which is His own glory through the full redemption (glorification) of His elect church and the renewal of His entire creation in Jesus Christ. Thus, Reformed eschatology ties the end of all things to the sovereign, eternal counsel of God (predestination) and to His almighty providence in time and history. H. Hoeksema writes, for example, in his Reformed Dogmatics:
...The consummation of all things presupposes a willing and decreeing God, Who is before all things, and Who made all things according to His own counsel unto a definite end and purpose, and Who by that counsel controls and guides all things unto the end He has in mind. Without the presupposition of this counsel of a personal God the world can have no purpose and no destination unto which it was called into being. And without an all-ruling providence, according to which God controls all things according to His good pleasure, there cannot possibly be any definite line or stability in the development of all things, and there is no guarantee that they will attain to the purpose unto which they were called into being (Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1966, p. 737).
Reformed eschatology also stresses the sovereignty of God in connection with the powers of darkness that rise up against the Lord and seek to frustrate His purpose with all things, especially in the end. Rejecting the dualism taught by paganism and by much of the church-world, the Reformed faith holds that God is absolutely sovereign also over all the evil in the world. He is Lord of Satan and his hosts, Lord of the ungodly nations and peoples, Lord of all sin and darkness, Lord of Antichrist and all his forces. Being Lord over them, He uses them for the accomplishing of His own purpose. All the rantings and ragings of the beast against God and His people only serve to fulfill His will. It is right here that Reformed eschatology provides the believer with great comfort and peace as he lives in these last days. Nothing and no one can possibly overthrow his God and thwart His purposes! His cause is and will be triumphant! And, therefore, every elect child of God will reach the goal of his salvation.
In the second place, we may mention that Reformed eschatology is covenantal in focus. Covenant theology has always been an important part of the Reformed faith. So too the doctrine of the covenant has been brought to bear upon the doctrine of the last things in Reformed amillennialism. The eternal purpose of God concerning all things is viewed in connection with God's eternal covenant of grace with His people in Christ, a covenant that embraces all of creation too. Christ, the Head of the church and creation and the Mediator of the covenant, is at the center of God's eternal purpose with all things. All that God has done in the past, is doing in the world now, and will do yet in the future is for the realizing of His covenant plan in Christ. The end (goal) to which all things are leading is the realization of God's gracious covenant of redemption in Christ. When the end comes in the return of Christ, God's covenant will be complete. ......
(it's long...so refer to the link:
http://www.rsglh.org/reformation.and.the.last.things.htm#REformedEscatologyReformation
Reformed Eschatology
(Amillennial) Since the Reformation by Rev. Charles Terpstra.....
....Reformed writers holding to Amill, to mention a select few: Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920); Herman Bavinck (1854-1921; The Last Things: Hope for This World and the Next, 1996. This is part of an English translation of his Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 1895-1901); Albertus Pieters (The Lamb, The Woman, and the Dragon, 1937); Louis Berkhof (Systematic Theology, 1941); William Hendriksen (More Than Conquerors, 1939; The Bible on the Life Hereafter, 1959); Herman Hoeksema (Reformed Dogmatics, 1966; Behold He Cometh, 1969); Anthony Hoekema (The Bible and the Future, 1979). Among Presbyterians we may note Robert L. Dabney (Lectures in Systematic Theology, 1878), Geerhardus Vos (Pauline Eschatology, 1930), William C. Robinson (Christ the Hope of Glory, 1945), George Murray (Millennial Studies, A Search for Truth, 1948), Jay Adams (The Time Is At Hand, 1966), and William E. Cox (Amillennialism Today, 1966). While there are variations in the details of the amillennial position set forth by these men, all held to and advanced the basics of the historic amillennial position of the church. But to move on, we ought to note in what areas amillennial teaching has developed since the Reformation. What are some of the distinctive elements of Reformed eschatology? In the first place, we may mention its emphasis on the sovereignty of God. Being one of the cardinal tenets of Reformed theology, God's absolute sovereignty has also been an inseparable part of her doctrine of the last things. The doctrine is applied to eschatology in several ways. For one thing, the sovereignty of God is applied to the very idea of the end of all things. Reformed amillennialism teaches that if all things have their beginning in God (and they do, for He is the sovereign Creator of all things!), then they also have their end in Him. God is the Source of all things and He is the Goal of all things. This means that all things, including the end of the world, have their meaning and purpose in God. From this comes the idea of the consummation of all things, that God is leading all things to a "wrapping up," a "bringing together," indeed to a climax of His sovereign purpose, which is His own glory through the full redemption (glorification) of His elect church and the renewal of His entire creation in Jesus Christ. Thus, Reformed eschatology ties the end of all things to the sovereign, eternal counsel of God (predestination) and to His almighty providence in time and history. H. Hoeksema writes, for example, in his Reformed Dogmatics:
...The consummation of all things presupposes a willing and decreeing God, Who is before all things, and Who made all things according to His own counsel unto a definite end and purpose, and Who by that counsel controls and guides all things unto the end He has in mind. Without the presupposition of this counsel of a personal God the world can have no purpose and no destination unto which it was called into being. And without an all-ruling providence, according to which God controls all things according to His good pleasure, there cannot possibly be any definite line or stability in the development of all things, and there is no guarantee that they will attain to the purpose unto which they were called into being (Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1966, p. 737).
Reformed eschatology also stresses the sovereignty of God in connection with the powers of darkness that rise up against the Lord and seek to frustrate His purpose with all things, especially in the end. Rejecting the dualism taught by paganism and by much of the church-world, the Reformed faith holds that God is absolutely sovereign also over all the evil in the world. He is Lord of Satan and his hosts, Lord of the ungodly nations and peoples, Lord of all sin and darkness, Lord of Antichrist and all his forces. Being Lord over them, He uses them for the accomplishing of His own purpose. All the rantings and ragings of the beast against God and His people only serve to fulfill His will. It is right here that Reformed eschatology provides the believer with great comfort and peace as he lives in these last days. Nothing and no one can possibly overthrow his God and thwart His purposes! His cause is and will be triumphant! And, therefore, every elect child of God will reach the goal of his salvation.
In the second place, we may mention that Reformed eschatology is covenantal in focus. Covenant theology has always been an important part of the Reformed faith. So too the doctrine of the covenant has been brought to bear upon the doctrine of the last things in Reformed amillennialism. The eternal purpose of God concerning all things is viewed in connection with God's eternal covenant of grace with His people in Christ, a covenant that embraces all of creation too. Christ, the Head of the church and creation and the Mediator of the covenant, is at the center of God's eternal purpose with all things. All that God has done in the past, is doing in the world now, and will do yet in the future is for the realizing of His covenant plan in Christ. The end (goal) to which all things are leading is the realization of God's gracious covenant of redemption in Christ. When the end comes in the return of Christ, God's covenant will be complete. ......
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Robin:
That article tells us how one view of the millennium fits in with the rest of theology. It does not show me how eschatology ( by which you seem to mean one's millennial view ) drives ( by which you seem to mean "is the force behind" ) theology.
Don't get me wrong, Robin. You've hit on a few things that I think can be taken futher, but you've shrouded it in a lot of unnecessary verbiage. And it seems to me that that was your beef with other views in the first place.
[Edited on 8-16-2005 by JohnV]
That article tells us how one view of the millennium fits in with the rest of theology. It does not show me how eschatology ( by which you seem to mean one's millennial view ) drives ( by which you seem to mean "is the force behind" ) theology.
Don't get me wrong, Robin. You've hit on a few things that I think can be taken futher, but you've shrouded it in a lot of unnecessary verbiage. And it seems to me that that was your beef with other views in the first place.
[Edited on 8-16-2005 by JohnV]
Please excuse any misunderstandings, John. My former comment about eschatology "driving" theology has to do with just that. (Not singling-out millennarianism.) The word "millennial" is mentioned ONE time in the Bible. Does sound-theology build an entire doctrine around one word? (Though the article is relevant, John, it's probably the cart before the horse?)
I don't know that I have a "beef" as much as I yearn for deeper knowledge of Christ, covenant and the kingdom. These are the themes of the Bible that matter (I think.) Eschatology connects with all of them, indeed "drives" them, in a sense....because characters noted in the Bible DO things based upon their eschatology.
What was Jesus' eschatology? Are some of Jesus' sayings meant in a "spiritual" sense? An eschatological sense? (new thread?)
John 12:27-34
"NOW my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!"
Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it again." The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.
Carefully, notice Jesus addresses the crowd and assures THEM:
Jesus said, "This voice was for your benefit, not mine. Now is the time for judgment on this world now the prince of this world will be driven out. But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.
What does Christ mean: Now...is the time of judgment? Does he mean right then, in the event of his crucifixtion? And note the eschatology of the crowd:
A worthwhile question: what was the eschatology of the crowd (Jews?)
r.
[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Robin]
Jacob-
Can we know nothing about anything until we learn about it from the bible first? Do we know anything at all about anything in the world without having to read our bibles? If so, what?
Paul-
I am guessing that your example of a classicist looking at the stars to determine the punishment for rape was hyperbole? If not, would you please cite an example of where classicists/natural law advocates actually say things like this?
Thanks Paul. When I referred to a "classicist" I was referring to those who hold to natural law (as opposed to those who hold to biblical law exclusively-i.e. Presupps.) You did not use the word, but the content is still implied. If you prefer Thomist thats fine. But back to my question please....
I am not seeking a debate, (as you know I take the classical approach), I simply just wanted the same mercy by you presupps. that keep calling for it in regards to requesting the moderators to shut down this thread due to the straw men being presented towards your view. I just wanted clarification as to whether your example was an intentional exaggeration of what those who hold to a natural law position espouse, or if you were serious. And if you were serious, I only wanted you to cite an example of those who approach natural law this way (the stars giving us a standard of punishment for rape), because I am willing to learn if such people exist.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
As an aside, I once stayed up all night sitting in my lawn chair outside by the fire. I wanted see for myself that the earth revolved around the sun, the mood around the earth, and that the earth was round. All this just by looking at the stars. I said, "OK, prove it."
I had the advantage that I already knew the theories that men like Copernicus worked hard to wrap their minds around.
It took awhile, but it came to me as I watched, speculated on different ideas, ruled out certain notions, etc. It came to me as the night wore on. But I didn't stop there. I also dabbled into possible connections between God's laws of nature, reflecting His deity and power, and God's moral laws, which also reflect he deity and power. His moral laws reflect more than that, but here the reflections overlap, I speculated. This took a lot longer, but I found that there is a connection. Just as I had the advantage of knowing the theories of a heliocentric/solar system model of our world, so I also had the advantage of knowing the Maker of the world through the Sciptures when I pondered the designs in the nature He created.
It was something I had wanted to do for a long time, just stay up all night and look at the stars and try to make sense of a lot of things; looking at our world from a bigger, wider perspective. I came prepared with the knowledge of the sun's and the moon's path, the arc of the stars' movements around Polaris, etc. And I went from only things I could confirm personally. In other words, I did not just believe the theories, I tried them to see if they fit the facts.
I would recommend this, if you have some free night, and time to be awake through the entire evening, from dusk to dawn. Just look, and see the ralationship of things as they move. You'll see more than you expected. I even saw a Russian satelite explode. Remember that, back in the early Nineties? Well I saw it. Not that same night, but after, as I kept looking at the skies as I had opportunity after that.
I had the advantage that I already knew the theories that men like Copernicus worked hard to wrap their minds around.
It took awhile, but it came to me as I watched, speculated on different ideas, ruled out certain notions, etc. It came to me as the night wore on. But I didn't stop there. I also dabbled into possible connections between God's laws of nature, reflecting His deity and power, and God's moral laws, which also reflect he deity and power. His moral laws reflect more than that, but here the reflections overlap, I speculated. This took a lot longer, but I found that there is a connection. Just as I had the advantage of knowing the theories of a heliocentric/solar system model of our world, so I also had the advantage of knowing the Maker of the world through the Sciptures when I pondered the designs in the nature He created.
It was something I had wanted to do for a long time, just stay up all night and look at the stars and try to make sense of a lot of things; looking at our world from a bigger, wider perspective. I came prepared with the knowledge of the sun's and the moon's path, the arc of the stars' movements around Polaris, etc. And I went from only things I could confirm personally. In other words, I did not just believe the theories, I tried them to see if they fit the facts.
I would recommend this, if you have some free night, and time to be awake through the entire evening, from dusk to dawn. Just look, and see the ralationship of things as they move. You'll see more than you expected. I even saw a Russian satelite explode. Remember that, back in the early Nineties? Well I saw it. Not that same night, but after, as I kept looking at the skies as I had opportunity after that.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Robin:
Of course the expectations of the future are ever present. But it is usual that the immediate needs are forefront in the hopes of people. I'd like to get out of a financial mess, let's say for example. Would I like to win a lottery? Would I like the have my ship come in? Would I like to have things go my way, just as I had planned, and for the plans to prosper, even go beyond expectations? Sure I would like to have things work out for my benefit, and prosperously too ( though I won't go to a lottery. ) So I'm looking ahead towards an end. But it is the present need that "drives" it. See what I mean? It isn't always the end, but the present with an end in mind. And in theology mostly we're talking about an ever-present, an unending "now".
But to go on. You should be aware that there are different kinds of Theonomy. I too have had dealings with some who are Theonomist/Presuppositionalist/Postmillennialist. They have told me flat out that I sin every time I pray the Lord's prayer for no other reason than that I am an Amillennialist. They are not only insistent upon their consciences' choices of non-authoritative views, they don't even elevate them merely to the level of precepts, but go much further and equate them with God's doctrine. And therefore they think they have the right to declare me a sinner for no other fault than that I am an Amillennialist.
But this does not mean that all Theonomists, nor all Theonomist/Presuppositionalist/Postmillennialist people, elevate their views to such an unseemly and unrealistic level. Most know that these are matters of personal conscience, not even precepts of men much less doctrines of God. We have spent a great deal of time discussing this very issue, that non-Theonomists also believe in the authoritative law of God, its normativity of human behaviour, and its application in our time. And this Board maintains, while still allowing free expression of views within the standard that a discussion board must allow, a level of mutual respect and trust. So if we expect such respect from our brothers in whatever views they hold to, within the confines of the standards of this Board, then we must certainly expect that that respect goes both ways. If we don't want our Classical or Evidential methodology lumped with those in our modern age are merely trying make hay while the sun shines on the speaking circuits, then we ought also, and especially so since we ourselves have that expectation, to do so to others.
It is not inherently evil to hold to either a theonomic view, a presuppositional view, or a postmillennial view. These are matters of personal conscience, and if we expect freedom from others we should also give it to others. Stepping on anothers conscience, however, without authority to do so, is where some people go wrong in the holding of their views. And no view is exempt from such overuses or narrowmindedness just because it may be right.
So don't go pasting the sins of others on people who may be innocent of them, or whom you do not know to be in those sins. A person is not in sin because he holds a view, but because he rebels against God through that opinion. Otherwise we would all be damned; none of us holds a perfect theology or set of opinions, since we are all learning yet. And if others are slamming us, simply by association, it still is no reason for returning kind for kind.
Of course the expectations of the future are ever present. But it is usual that the immediate needs are forefront in the hopes of people. I'd like to get out of a financial mess, let's say for example. Would I like to win a lottery? Would I like the have my ship come in? Would I like to have things go my way, just as I had planned, and for the plans to prosper, even go beyond expectations? Sure I would like to have things work out for my benefit, and prosperously too ( though I won't go to a lottery. ) So I'm looking ahead towards an end. But it is the present need that "drives" it. See what I mean? It isn't always the end, but the present with an end in mind. And in theology mostly we're talking about an ever-present, an unending "now".
But to go on. You should be aware that there are different kinds of Theonomy. I too have had dealings with some who are Theonomist/Presuppositionalist/Postmillennialist. They have told me flat out that I sin every time I pray the Lord's prayer for no other reason than that I am an Amillennialist. They are not only insistent upon their consciences' choices of non-authoritative views, they don't even elevate them merely to the level of precepts, but go much further and equate them with God's doctrine. And therefore they think they have the right to declare me a sinner for no other fault than that I am an Amillennialist.
But this does not mean that all Theonomists, nor all Theonomist/Presuppositionalist/Postmillennialist people, elevate their views to such an unseemly and unrealistic level. Most know that these are matters of personal conscience, not even precepts of men much less doctrines of God. We have spent a great deal of time discussing this very issue, that non-Theonomists also believe in the authoritative law of God, its normativity of human behaviour, and its application in our time. And this Board maintains, while still allowing free expression of views within the standard that a discussion board must allow, a level of mutual respect and trust. So if we expect such respect from our brothers in whatever views they hold to, within the confines of the standards of this Board, then we must certainly expect that that respect goes both ways. If we don't want our Classical or Evidential methodology lumped with those in our modern age are merely trying make hay while the sun shines on the speaking circuits, then we ought also, and especially so since we ourselves have that expectation, to do so to others.
It is not inherently evil to hold to either a theonomic view, a presuppositional view, or a postmillennial view. These are matters of personal conscience, and if we expect freedom from others we should also give it to others. Stepping on anothers conscience, however, without authority to do so, is where some people go wrong in the holding of their views. And no view is exempt from such overuses or narrowmindedness just because it may be right.
So don't go pasting the sins of others on people who may be innocent of them, or whom you do not know to be in those sins. A person is not in sin because he holds a view, but because he rebels against God through that opinion. Otherwise we would all be damned; none of us holds a perfect theology or set of opinions, since we are all learning yet. And if others are slamming us, simply by association, it still is no reason for returning kind for kind.
Hey, John, my brother...your first statement is true; but I'd add that eschatology is inseparable from theology and "flies under the radar of our perceptions." With a hearty
to the second point.However, your other comments caused me to ponder and reflect a bit more and wonder if my words were not understood? (my fault?)Scripture condemns lying and unrighteous-judging (mind-reading.) I don't see how any of my posts err in this. I've said what I believe as honestly as I can. (I'm not quarreling about the following ideas I noticed in the points following
What is the difference? Arminius held to a view and taught it (I'm sure, with good intent) Heck, the FV guys are doing this while we speak...as they're focused upon godly behavior.
Is this being done by noting connections between three intellectual components? How was my first post disrespectful? (Is your remark presupposing the intentions of my heart?)
Hmmm, so different ideas are not to be discussed? I thought this board enjoys freedom to express ideas? Is it true freedom? Are Amillennarians being marginalized? Doesn't your statement cut both ways? After-all, I began by sharing my thoughts on a matter...
I never said Theonomy was heresy; I'm hesitant to call it "heresy" strictly speaking, but it is a serious error. (To which I already said I would not quarrel.)
It is right to connect eschatology to world-views. They are inseparable. (for another thread?)
Recently, a WSC-scholar said to me:
I'm wondering will the entry in the new IVP Dictionary of Apologetics be inconsiderate? Should I wait until publication, then come back and speak my mind on the subject. (?) Will that be OK?
Finally, I also asked him about Abraham's sinful use of Sarah as he lied and gave her to Pharaoh while yet knowing God's Law and covenant. (Jacob's Braveheart reference got me to thinking...) What was Abraham's eschatology - did he take actions that reflected it at the time? He answered:
As I pondered it seemed to me that though Abraham succumbed to cowardice, buying into Egypt's prima nocta, as it were, Paul yet refers to him as our model of faith! (I'm still wondering about this.)
John, I'm sure this will set things off, even more...I don't wish to quarrel...but I do think eschatology impacts our daily life powerfully as we struggle to either lean towards resolving the tension Scripture places in our hearts: (the already and not yet) or obeying Christ and bearing that tension, trusting Him alone, under trial and sojourn in the desert.
I hoped that this thread would draw attention to this last point.
Corum Deo,
Robin
[Edited on 8-18-2005 by Robin]
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I wonder if he will analyze the arguments with quotations from Theonomy in Christian Ethics and/or the opening chapters of Bahnsen's Van Til Reader?????????????????????? If he doesn't I will assume, epistemologically speaking, he doesn't understand the issues.
So, the redemptive benefits of Christ only apply to "the saving of souls," "my own personal Lord and Saviour," etc.? That's gnosticism. That is a dichotomy between, ultimately, secular and sacred and is better representative of humanism and Roman Catholicism. Wait a minute, that explains the natural law insistence.
Btw, his analysis of Kuyper I would agree with most.
The argument laid out in my story is virtually indestructible,
[Edited on 8--17-05 by Draught Horse]
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Robin:
Please be patient with me, as I try to be more precise. Your reply above does not reflect the intent of what I was saying.
When I was considering joining the OPC they gave me an introductory information pamphlet. It told me that the OPC allowed for three different millennial views; in order from most to least held: Amil, Premil, and Postmil, as I recall. They said that all three were welcome in the OPC. That means that they could not possibly rule any one of them as necessarily laid upon anyone. In fact, it was not even necessary to hold to any millennial view. It was a matter of personal conscience, not just which view one held to, but whether one wanted to hold any one of them at all.
If it is a matter of conscience, and the denomination has studied them and ruled them as all within and acceptable to the guideline of the WCF, then she is saying that any one of the three is faithful, though not necessarily proven to be true.
The danger in this instance does not lie with any one view; the denomination has ruled so. So the danger lies in the use of it. And that is as I described to you above, where some raised the level of the issue from conscience to doctrine, judging others solely for holding a view the denomination has allowed them to hold. In other words the problem lies not with the millennial view itself, but with those who hold it wrongly, namely, not as a matter of conscience but as a matter of doctrine. They completely misunderstand what the millennial views are, and go far beyond the limits inherent to such things.
A Postmil, in this case, did that to me. But it could just as easily have been the other way around. I could have judged him for holding to the Postmil view, because I might believe that Postmils judge others' millennial views as being sinful as part of their Postmil stance. Well that is not part of the Postmil stance, but part of the habit of some who are Postmil or Amil or Premil. I could just as easily have been violating their right to conscience as they were violating mine.
My response to him was not to take away his right to conscientiously hold the Postmil position, but to try to convince him that he needed to hold it conscientiously, not recklessly as he was doing.
The information pamphlet also stated that three major apologetic methodologies also received approval from the denomination as free to the conscience. It is not inherent to any apologetic methodology to arrogate more to itself than is seemly, for that is self-defeating to apologetics as a whole. So, again, the danger is not in the methodology itself, but in those who claim to know more than they actually know, who abuse what they claim to believe in, and go much further than mere conscience by positing their views as dogmatically in position in the church to judge others for their views.
That is not what they were allowed. They were allowed to hold to their position conscientiously, but also they were confined to allowing others to hold to their position conscientiously. The denomination, again, does not demand that any of the three views be held to, much less that one is more authoritative than another. In other words, the right to hold any of the three has prior right to arguments in favour of any of them, and adherents are to keep themselves confined to that liberty of others which the church grants.
If you are a careful reader you will notice that, though some claim mutual exclusivity of the views, there is no real evidence for it. One can hold to a combination of them and still be within them. Even Bahnsen does so, when he makes claim to evidentialism, the right way.
The fault, then, does not come inherently from any one of the views, but from the weaknesses of those who argue the views. They sometimes go far beyond their own limits. But anyone holding any one of the views can do that. It is also a fault, then, to accuse the view itself as inherently wrong just because some abuse it. That is often done, and too easily so, in response to these abuses. But either one of these is not what the denomination sanctioned when it allowed the liberty to hold these views.
So in critique of these views we have to carefully disentangle the abuses from the views themselves. That means that we have almost to be experts on the views if we are critiquing the arguments of those who abuse it. We have to be able to discern that Mr. So-and-So is not staying true to his view if he is making an error not inherent to that view. It is not very smart to paste that personal error all over that entire view, not even if many make that same error. If it is not inherent to that view then we would be making the very same mistake if we then condemn the view itself for the mistakes that are made by those who do not stay true to the tenets or limits of their views.
If the denomination allows the liberty to hold these three views, not necessitating any one of them, then the danger is in not allowing others to their views while we take great liberties with our own. The danger is in making more of it than it is. An apologetic methodology is, after all, just a methodology. So the danger is not in the methodology itself, but in the overuse or extra liberties one takes with any one of them. And saying that this danger is inherent in the view itself is misrepresenting that view; it is also wrong. One needs to be able to discern.
Now when I spoke above of good intent, I was speaking particularly of the three views under question. But even an NPP proponent can at first have good intentions. I'm sure they don't go out first thing in the morning and think to themselves what they can do today to undermine the Reformed faith. Not purposely. No, I believe they are carried away with their own pursuits sometimes. It may be that many have held to such views, only never thought it important enough to make proclamation about it. But the fault lies, first off, not in the fact that they hold aberrant views, but that they avoid disciplining their own thoughts by sidestepping the usual avenues for such things. Instead of taking the long time it takes to legitimately allow truth to have its way, they begin to stand on their liberties and views to judge others by it, or they begin on their own initiative to proclaim it on par with the gospel when they have received no such authority to do so. Their own conscience is to be a guide to themselves but not to others; not even if they are ministers of professors.
They need clear sanction from Scripture in order to go over the head of the church, and they do not have that. That is their primary fault. This has nothing to do with NPP of FV itself. You won't find within those views an inherent right to judge others. Instead you will find men who arrogate more to themselves than is right, and stand on the pulpit in the place of Christ and proclaim what no one has authorized. It may be that a Presbytery has ruled that such a view does not violate the WCF, but that is still a long way from saying that Christ has commissioned men to preach it. So the fault lies in the blatant abuse of the pulpit, not in the view itself. And that is not done with good intentions at all.
Before the denomination rules upon an opinion that is current one is free under liberty of conscience to hold to it. But that implies the strictures of maintaining unity and submission in the church. The question that they automatically raise, by doing as they are doing in that they refuse that unity and submission for the reason that they think their views are more important, is whether their view is doctrine and not a matter of liberty of conscience . In other words, they are themselves doing that which they complain of already before any complaint is raised, and they themselves make it an issue of discipline. By sidestepping the authority and unity of the church they are breaking covenant with the church, the promises they made when they took vows to the church, all the while claiming to stand on that very liberty within that unity, that very freedom that comes from submission. That has nothing to do with the views themselves. They could have ben allowed the liberty of their views, but they made it an issue of doctrine. Therefore there are many who are trying to deal with it in that way, such as those raising concerns on this Board.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
John.This thread needs to be shut down. Even critics of theonomy are defending theonomists from libelous charges.
(Also, given the very bad definitions at the outset, theonomists are overrunning the field of battle with a vengeance. I originally said I wasn't going to debate this, but when I saw some of the arguments being made, I thought, "this is just too good to pass up.")
Ralph,
No, I was saying that natural law theorists (however you define it) exalt human reason to the point where it is not effected by sin (See the quote by Aquinas). Yes, we can know things not in the Bible (certain mathematical theorems, etc), but that is quite different from saying we don't need God's revelation in areas where he has most clealy given it. In fact, those mathematical theorems, while not in the Bible per se, most be interpreted as facts that have been pre-interpreted by God.
In other words, we can't look at the stars with unfallen human reason and unaided by divine revelation and develop a fair and just penal system. Now, if we had not sinned in Adam, that might be a different story.
Robin,
That inspired my next installment of "Tales from Reformia." Do you remember the scene in Braveheart where Robert de Bruce wants to charge into battle against the tyrannical Anglish (scottish accent implied)? His father cautions him against it twice in the movie. The last time he actually advises Bruce to betray the rising Scottish movement.
So, the implication for today is...
[Edited on 8--18-05 by Draught Horse]
[Edited on 8--18-05 by Draught Horse]
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Jacob;
I am not defending Theonomists. I am defending liberty of conscience.
I am glad that this thread has not been shut down yet. Personally so, because it has allowed me to address my concerns to both sides of the issue. I am not just addressing these things to Robin. I have been accused of being in sin for no other offense than that I held to either Amillennialism or not to exclusive Presuppositionalism. I have also been called an antinomian because I did not declare myself to be a Theonomist. But I have tried to keep a level head and to not respond in kind. It is that "kind" that bothers me, not which views they hold to. And that is what I was addressing.
In other words, Jacob, though I am defending Theonomists against libelous charges, that does not negate the fact that libelous charges have also been laid against me by Theonomists. It is wrong for both sides to do that, not just one side. Not even a just cause justifies the means taken for it if the means taken is wrong.
For me to defend my faith and integrity, I need also to defend your faith and integrity where there is no fault in you.
Bad definitions at the outset does not justify vengence from the Theonomists either. If Theonomists don't want vengence taken out on them through bad definitions, then they need to be sure that they themselves are above reproach in that same area. I respect your efforts to do so, and appreciate your respect for mine in return. If we are going to work out these differences, then we must take on a mutual concern for each other, as well as respect the fact that God has given some gifts to others that we may not yet see the value of ouselves.
Though I think Robin has made an error in judgment to a degree, please remember that that same error has been employed so as to have been worn out by use in our time. What I say above is that even entire denominations are making that very same error. And if leaders are doing it openly and freely, why do we climb all over people like Robin, when he has not been granted the example in us and in our denominations to avoid that error. Remember, he was being given the impetus for this from an educator in the field. And it is with that that I first claimed the error lay, since it was not helpful nor fair to make such a judgment. And I have outlined that error very carefully, with both sides in mind so as not to transgress our mutual liberties. But I am addressing all sides who have made that error.
Like it or not, I have to admit people who have views in common with me make assertions that I find fault with. So I agree with you if you too find fault with those errors, even if we do not have my views in common. So lets be together on that. We can still differ on our views with both love and respect, and still address the errors of those who have misrepresented what we stand for, and stand together. I am not afraid to do that. I don't think my views are at stake because Presuppositionalists find fault with Evidentialists who assert too much for the evidences. I agree with that assessment. But I do not see that hurting my own evidential leanings. No, it supports these leanings.
Why can't we throw that chip off our shoulders and just discuss the truth as submissively as we truly ought to be to what is higher than any of us?
[Edited on 8-18-2005 by JohnV]
I am not defending Theonomists. I am defending liberty of conscience.
I am glad that this thread has not been shut down yet. Personally so, because it has allowed me to address my concerns to both sides of the issue. I am not just addressing these things to Robin. I have been accused of being in sin for no other offense than that I held to either Amillennialism or not to exclusive Presuppositionalism. I have also been called an antinomian because I did not declare myself to be a Theonomist. But I have tried to keep a level head and to not respond in kind. It is that "kind" that bothers me, not which views they hold to. And that is what I was addressing.
In other words, Jacob, though I am defending Theonomists against libelous charges, that does not negate the fact that libelous charges have also been laid against me by Theonomists. It is wrong for both sides to do that, not just one side. Not even a just cause justifies the means taken for it if the means taken is wrong.
For me to defend my faith and integrity, I need also to defend your faith and integrity where there is no fault in you.
Bad definitions at the outset does not justify vengence from the Theonomists either. If Theonomists don't want vengence taken out on them through bad definitions, then they need to be sure that they themselves are above reproach in that same area. I respect your efforts to do so, and appreciate your respect for mine in return. If we are going to work out these differences, then we must take on a mutual concern for each other, as well as respect the fact that God has given some gifts to others that we may not yet see the value of ouselves.
Though I think Robin has made an error in judgment to a degree, please remember that that same error has been employed so as to have been worn out by use in our time. What I say above is that even entire denominations are making that very same error. And if leaders are doing it openly and freely, why do we climb all over people like Robin, when he has not been granted the example in us and in our denominations to avoid that error. Remember, he was being given the impetus for this from an educator in the field. And it is with that that I first claimed the error lay, since it was not helpful nor fair to make such a judgment. And I have outlined that error very carefully, with both sides in mind so as not to transgress our mutual liberties. But I am addressing all sides who have made that error.
Like it or not, I have to admit people who have views in common with me make assertions that I find fault with. So I agree with you if you too find fault with those errors, even if we do not have my views in common. So lets be together on that. We can still differ on our views with both love and respect, and still address the errors of those who have misrepresented what we stand for, and stand together. I am not afraid to do that. I don't think my views are at stake because Presuppositionalists find fault with Evidentialists who assert too much for the evidences. I agree with that assessment. But I do not see that hurting my own evidential leanings. No, it supports these leanings.
Why can't we throw that chip off our shoulders and just discuss the truth as submissively as we truly ought to be to what is higher than any of us?
[Edited on 8-18-2005 by JohnV]
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Because she started out with definitions that:
1)Begged the question against theonomists
2)Begged the question against presuppositionalists
3)Begged the question against postmillennialists
4)Begged the question against postmillennialists who are not theonomists (Johh Jefferson Davis, Virginia Huguenot)
5)Begged the question against presuppositionalists who are neither postmillennial nor theonomic (John Frame, Richard Gaffin)
Furthermore, theonomy has been equated with "almost heresy" while she can't even properly define my position.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Originally posted by Romans922
Almost heresy? Why not just say it is?
Because that would demand a detailed analysis (which includes quotes/summaries from key, primary sources) from the detractors, along with a working definition of heresy--both of which the detractors have been unable to do.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
You might have missed the earlier part of the debate. She had equated theonomists with "practically" denying the gospel, et al. We called her out on this and she recanted, kind of.
crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
JohnV,
Your last two posts were probably the most lucid and profound I've seen you make. I know those thoughts have been in your heart for some time and I know you have wrestled through being able to vocalize them as such. They show a maturity that only comes with wrestling not only with issues but also wrestling with God and self. Having met and supped with you in person I have a better feel for your heart in these matters and there are probably some minor (perhaps some not so minor) differences doctrinally but you have definitely exhibited to me and taught me through your posts (especially these last two) what it means to disagree in Christian love and seek to give the other person the charity in understanding. Thank you.
My personal opinion...I would implore people to close this thread. again. everybody take a break.
Your last two posts were probably the most lucid and profound I've seen you make. I know those thoughts have been in your heart for some time and I know you have wrestled through being able to vocalize them as such. They show a maturity that only comes with wrestling not only with issues but also wrestling with God and self. Having met and supped with you in person I have a better feel for your heart in these matters and there are probably some minor (perhaps some not so minor) differences doctrinally but you have definitely exhibited to me and taught me through your posts (especially these last two) what it means to disagree in Christian love and seek to give the other person the charity in understanding. Thank you.
My personal opinion...I would implore people to close this thread. again. everybody take a break.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Don't worry, if you're standing by the truth then you will be able to stand up to the most able scholar in the field, because it is the truth. No one can knock that down. So what can such petty things do to you, if it is so beneath you, so childish, so petty? Why can't you shrug it off as such? Why do you take this as a personal attack instead of seeing the need in the person and addressing that? Even if it is an attack, why take it so? It can't do you any harm. Not if you are holding your views with intergrity and wisdom. But it can help the person if you handle it with discretion.
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
At least we can all agree that we love God's Law, being Reformed. Well, I hope so.
- Status
