# This is scary



## Reformingstudent (Jun 28, 2005)

Jason perfects his craft by reading books on the subject like these "“ A complete Guide to Magic and Rituals and Practical Candle Burning Rituals. 
by Melissa Wickham 




AT AGE 11, he cast his first spell. Now at 18 years old, Jason (not his real name) professes to be a practising witch. 

It is the latest craze among teenagers not only in the United States and Europe but also right here in Barbados. Jason is just one of a growing number of youngsters who has rejected Christianity and is embracing witchcraft as a way of life. 

They cast spells to pass exams, predict the future by communicating with the spirit world and even place curses on others. If you think your son or daughter could never be one of them, think again. 

Most of the teenagers in Jason's circle of friends have parents who are devout Christians and who have no idea of what they're up to. 

Jason, a student of the Barbados Community College gave the SUNDAY SUN a glimpse into his world of spells, rituals and divination. 

It started when he was eight years old. He recalled seeing the spirit of his paternal grandmother who had been dead for a number of years. And, at age 17, he predicted the death of his other grandmother. Soon after, she died. 

From there, he got curious about the supernatural, researched it on the Internet, read books and chatted with other practitioners around the world. Now, he's well versed in the teachings of witchcraft. 

His gifts or abilities, he says, are in the realm of dreams, premonitions and empathy "“ the ability to take on how others around him are feeling. 

Jason's parents are Christian-minded and aren't pleased in the least about his chosen path. However, he said they didn't interfere even though they objected. 

He grew up in a Methodist family but when he attended church he said he felt nothing. It was only when he tapped into the supernatural that he felt "connected". 

"To me there is less judgment in witchcraft and more acceptance and freedom than in Christianity. I see it as a tyrant religion. I feel more of a connection to witchcraft than Christianity. I would sit in church and just be there because I was sent there," he said. 

While he believes in God and Jesus, it is not in the same way Christians believe. 

"I believe there is a spirit for everything in this world. I also believe that smaller spirits or angels are responsible for different things. 

"I don't believe in the devil as in giving him that much power, or acknowledging him. A great misconception is that witches worship the devil; in fact, that was why many of them were killed in the past," said Jason, adding: 

"Witchcraft is nature-based. It is a form of spirituality. It is about the love of nature, being solely confident and using your own will to get things or make things happen. It is working with energy. The whole world is energy "“ trees are energy, flowers and human beings are energy." 

But this "energy" which he classifies as white magic also has a dark side. A side he crossed over to in the past, though he stays clear of it now. 

"When I was 11, I was just getting into it. I gathered my cousins and instructed them to stand in a circle. I didn't know anything really but I had seen it in a movie called The Craft and I repeated something I heard from it. 

"There was this boy our age who lived next door and I didn't like him much, so I got a needle and made them prick their fingers, smeared the blood on a piece of paper and, in my mind, I visualised him being punished in some way. 

"In the evening, he was out on his bike, he fell off, landed on some 'galvanise' and cut himself up badly. I stopped because I didn't really want to harm or kill anyone," he recounted. 

There was also another time when he placed a hex on a bully at his secondary school using what those in the world of witchcraft would call "the evil eye", where a witch just looks upon someone and curses them in that moment. 

However, he only does this if he's really angry with someone to the point where he wants to physically beat that person. Instead of carrying out the action, he uses the same energy to put a curse on the individual. 

"Persons I've tried hexing have either ended up being sick or harmed. 

"The guy who was harassing me at school, my best friend and I placed a hex on him just by looking at him (the evil eye). He became ill for about a week," he disclosed. 

There were no set rules as to how long a hex would last, he said. 

One, however, must be careful. According to Jason, there is a law or rule in witchcraft which states that if you harm anyone without justification, then you can expect it to come back to you three-fold. 

But besides bringing harm, he said he could also use his craft to heal people of sickness and disease. He can use dolls like those used in voodoo to heal different parts of the body. 

"Persons who practise witchcraft aren't necessarily evil or dark. It has to do with intent. A person can be either good or bad. Some Christians can be good or bad too. They can pray to God to strike down someone for some reason, for example," he said. 

The young witch uses a number of aids in his craft. They can range from tarot cards for practising divination or candles for use in candle magic, (using candles in rituals and spells). 

A red candle, for instance, is used for bringing about passion or romance while white is for purity, black symbolises evil, loss or discord while a greenish-yellow candle can invoke sickness, cowardice, anger or jealously. 

Though he owns one, he shies away from ouija boards and pointed out that he didn't sacrifice animals nor do seances in any of his rituals. 

"I believe the dead should be left alone," he said. 

Though Jason works alone, there are more like him throughout the island, he says. They sit in classrooms in secondary and tertiary institutions. 

"There are a good few young people I've met both here in Barbados and abroad who are into witchcraft. 

"Those from overseas, I communicate with them online. The ones here, I've met at college. I've heard of others at the University of the West Indies," he said. 

And, witchcraft can be used to help them succeed in examinations. 

"There are spells to pass exams but when you cast them you still have to make an effort. It is just not a case of hocus-pocus," he pointed out. 

Some youngsters like Jason are bold, they have no problem talking about their craft, while others prefer to practise in secret. 

And, there is a rule "“ a witch never points out another witch. They usually know each other from wearing symbols like the pentacle "“ a five-point star with circle. It represents earth, water, fire, spirit and air and is a popular symbol of witchcraft. 

Not everyone is accepting of what he does. He found this out on the first day at college. 

"I introduced myself as a practising witch. The classroom got silent and all the students pulled their chairs away from me. But, as they got to know me and not just what I practise, it doesn't matter," he said, boasting that some of his friends are Christians. 

Jason intends to keep on developing his craft. He believes there is no one right path or religion; and only God can judge him in the end. 

However, Pastor Wesley Dear of Covenant Life Teaching Centre, Green Hill, St Michael, said Jason and teenagers like him were playing with fire. 

The Bible clearly spoke out against witchcraft and its consequences, he said. 

"There is no doubt that people can get results from these types of practices but to their own detriment," the pastor said, adding: "Anyone who seeks out the occult for answers, brings a curse upon their lives, their household and their seed for generations." 

He quoted scripture to back up his stance, particuarly Deuteronomy 18:10-12 which states: 

"Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells or who is a medium or spiritist who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord . . ." 

Father Clement Paul, Vicar-General of the Roman Catholic Church, said anyone who associated with dark or supernatural powers could bring harm to themselves. 

"They are interfering in a world that we don't know much about and therefore a lot of damage can be done to one's mental balance in the long run," he said. 

Father Paul said the Church had failed if young people saw Christianity as a tyrannical religion and were turning to witchcraft for answers. 

"I think Christianity needs to get out there and listen to people. We need to get into the schools, colleges and any other place where it (witchcraft) exists, hear the problems of young people and find out what leads them into witchcraft."


----------



## crhoades (Jun 28, 2005)

Hmmm...WWMD...What Would Moses Do?


----------



## Reformingstudent (Jun 28, 2005)

"He grew up in a Methodist family but when he attended church he said he felt nothing. It was only when he tapped into the supernatural that he felt "connected"." 
Makes me wonder if he would have turned out different if he had been raised in a Charismatic church where they excel in excitement.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 28, 2005)

What would Moses do? Kill him.


----------



## crhoades (Jun 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> What would Moses do? Kill him.



Now, now...there would be a fair trial and the civil magistrate would do the honors...


----------



## Augusta (Jun 28, 2005)

...and they would pass out the stones to everyone.....


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 28, 2005)

But we shouldn't do the same today, right? Because we're under the Law of Christ not Moses, right? Because God disagrees with Himself, right?

*rolls eyes*


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 28, 2005)

This post makes me want to conjure up a dead smiley:


----------



## Poimen (Jun 28, 2005)

We would preach the gospel of faith and repentance to such a one and leave them to the grace and mercy of God. No stones needed; rather a certain judgment for those who do not repent.


----------



## crhoades (Jun 28, 2005)

Exo 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. 

Matthew Henry:

II. A law which makes witchcraft a capital crime, Exo_22:18. Witchcraft not only gives that honour to the devil which is due to God alone, but bids defiance to the divine Providence, wages war with God's government, and puts his work into the devil's hand, expecting him to do good and evil, and so making him indeed the god of this world; justly therefore was it punished with death, especially among a people that were blessed with a divine revelation, and cared for by divine Providence above any people under the sun. By our law, consulting, covenanting with, invocating, or employing, any evil spirit, to any intent whatsoever, and exercising any enchantment, charm, or sorcery, whereby hurt shall be done to any person whatsoever, is made felony, without benefit of clergy; also pretending to tell where goods lost or stolen may be found, or the like, is an iniquity punishable by the judge, and the second offence with death. The justice of our law herein is supported by the law of God recorded here.


----------



## crhoades (Jun 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> We would preach the gospel of faith and repentance to such a one and leave them to the grace and mercy of God. No stones needed; rather a certain judgment for those who do not repent.



 If the "we" referred to is individual Christians and the church.


----------



## Poimen (Jun 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



No to all, whether they be in the church or outside of the church. Those who died in the Old Testament because of their sins were inside or members of the church but in the New Covenant we await the time of judgment, testifying to its coming through the act of excommunication. 

Luke 9:54-56 "And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?" But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. "For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them." And they went to another village."


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jun 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> We would preach the gospel of faith and repentance to such a one and leave them to the grace and mercy of God. No stones needed; rather a certain judgment for those who do not repent.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by crhoades_
> ...



Is capital punishment wrong for a serial rapist/murder? If so, why?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 28, 2005)

Does the state no longer have the sword to wield? I find it odd that non-theonomists point out to theonomists that the state, not the church, wields the sword but when it gets down to it, many forbid the state to wield the sword.


----------



## crhoades (Jun 28, 2005)

William Perkins (1558-1602) argued in the same vein. Perkins was one of the formative thinkers of the Puritan movement. Perkins' discussion of witchcraft brings out his view of the Mosaic judicials. Thomas Pickering, a contemporary of Perkins, summarized his view thusly: "That the witch truly convicted is to be punished with death, the highest degree of punishment, and that by the law of Moses, the equity whereof is perpetual." [42] Perkins specifically noted that not only evil witches but also good witches were to be executed under Moses' law, because the essence of the antisorcery law was not directed against those who harm others but against those in pact with Satan. [43]

[42] Rossell H. Robbins, Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology (New York: Crown, 1959), p. 382, emphasis added.

[43] William Perkins, A Discourse on the Damned Art of Witchcraft, in John Chandos, ed., In God's Name (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 197 1), p. 13 5.

From: Calvinism and "The Judicial Law of Moses"
An Historical Survey
JAMES B. JORDAN
http://www.reformed.org/ethics/index.html?mainframe=Jordan_judicial_laws_Moses.html


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 28, 2005)

I think I was 13 before I cast my first spell...


----------



## Poimen (Jun 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



Not this again!  

No, not if the state thought that it would be a sufficient punishment.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 28, 2005)

Very well. What is the criteria for a state to consider the punishment sufficient?


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jun 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Very well. What is the criteria for a state to consider the punishment sufficient?



Technically speaking, does the state need a criteria? After all, it was Paul who said that we are to submit to the higher powers in the day of Nero?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



I am floored by your answer. Even secularists like Jefferson would not have made such a statement. 

If the State decides to murder innocent individuals wihtout due process of law, then according to your statement there is no problem with that.

If the State decides on mandatory confiscation of women and selling them as sex slaves, then according to your statement there is no problem with that.

If the State decides to break its own laws to further its own agendas, then according to your statement that is just fine and dandy.

Romans 13: Let every person be subject to the governing authorities

Does Caesar fall into the category of "person?" If so, what law does he submit to? I have demonstrated on other threads that the State does not have a blank check for tyranny.

But back to the original question: When is punishment criminal?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 28, 2005)

Sorry to bait you into this, Jacob .. but I just love God's Law.


----------



## Robin (Jun 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



 

Robin


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 28, 2005)




----------



## Robin (Jun 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Does the state no longer have the sword to wield? I find it odd that non-theonomists point out to theonomists that the state, not the church, wields the sword but when it gets down to it, many forbid the state to wield the sword.



Whoa there, Jacob! All we're noting is that the State doesn't use a sword on religious practice - even pagan ones. Thank God, for that! So far, we are all free to pursue the worship of our own choice - which is very good for Christians.

The State shouldn't step-in unless the religious practice (in this case, Wicca) incites a violation of State Law: murder; bodily harm or theft, Etc. (As long as Mr. Witch keeps his spell making to himself and does not violate anothers civil freedom.) Can you imagine what havoc would ensue if these distinctions were not there?

I'm curious as to why those insisting God's Law be blended with State Law in this present evil age - never seem to want to face the fact that Paul issued Romans 13 in the midst of one of the most dangerous and perverse epoch's in human history. 

Polite curtsy 

r.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 28, 2005)

I'm not going to get a serious response. I launched a _reductio ad absurdum_ and to even answer it shows the instability of the position.

Well, when is punishment criminal? Why not stand with Samuel Rutherford in Lex Rex and state:

1)Only God can determine what is right and what is wrong.
2)Only God can determine the punishments for criminal behavior.

Anybody want to refute Rutherford?

What is the New Testament perspective on penalogy?
"Therefore we must pay *much closer attention* to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. 2 For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable and *every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution*, " (Hebrews 2)

[Edited on 6--28-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



For pluralism to work, certain values must be imposed on those who in some way do not share those values. Should fringe Satanic cults who practice human sacrifice be protected? If the pluralists answers no he denies his own position.

See my last post on this thread to show that pluralism, to be a serious form of government, must impose (arbitrary) religious values and judgments on a society. But in doing so, it refutes the very nature of pluralism.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 28, 2005)




----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



Let's flesh this out a bit:

I have written elsewhere on this board (see the Constitution thread):



> God told me to defend my family and if I were a lesser magistrate, as in the case of Jeb Bush, and saw my people (Terry Schiavo) being terrorized by the Lord High State, I would defend them to the death. Very easily put: God commands us to defend our families (Preserving life at all costs).
> 
> Let's take the argument a step further: Suppose the government--I typed a Braveheartish scene a few months ago on this very issue--tried to kill my family. Do I have the right to resist the government with violence? Just because he has a badge, does it mean that he can rape my wife? Or perhaps I am a criminal and deserved to be punished. But that begs the question: When is punishment criminal? By what standard can they know this? Ah, but let's continue the thought...
> When Crime is not viewed as an offense against the moral order of God, it becomes viewed as an offense against the arbitrary power of the state. If no higher law is adhere to, then the law of man is absolute; there is no logical barrier to stop such a state from becoming totalitarian. When the state's will is susbstited for God's will, then the only real cimes become crimes against the State. Men die for resisting the arbitrary will of the State, then, and not for crimes against a holy God. There is no appeal beyond the State and its rulers when God's law is pust aside. MAN HAS NO REALM OF JUSTICE TO WHICH HE HAS RECOUSE IN OPPOSING THE WILL OF THE STATE.



The point: There is a limit to the state's authority. For a good debate on this see Dr Bahnsen Lay the Beat-down on Dr Atwood concerning gun-control and statism.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 28, 2005)

When I heard Bahnsen speak thoughts similar to the above paragraph I was literally floored and had chill bumps all over my body. One thought was going through my mind the whole time, "Sic Semper Tyrannus!"


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jun 28, 2005)

Two things I noticed here:

He says that witches were persecuted because they "worshiped the devil"...wrong, that was NOT the stated accusations and I agree that witches do not believe that they are worshipping the devil. They were persecuted for "witchcraft, which is OF the devil".

Also, he stated that anything a witch does harmful to another person WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION comes back threefold. Most kids getting involved in witchcraft believe it is ANY harm done to another person comes back three fold. The reason these wordings are important is that if you are serious witch and follow the first (and more accurate) ruling, then the question becomes "what is justifiable?" which is a question that cannot be precisely answered due to witchcraft and paganism being subjective.

Just thought that I would throw those items in for those of you who may end up in conversation with a self professed witch. (Also note that "Jason" even isn't willing to mess with the devil's ways beyond a certain point--ie, "I steer clear of ouija boards" and "the dead should be left alone").

I actually studied some things dealing with the "paranormal" and have known a couple of witches.

[Edited on 6-28-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Two things I noticed here:
> 
> He says that witches were persecuted because they "worshiped the devil"...wrong, that was NOT the stated accusations and I agree that witches do not believe that they are worshipping the devil. They were persecuted for "witchcraft, which is OF the devil".
> ...



Basically his whole worldview is arbitrary and subjective.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jun 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> ...



No, it would not be just fine and Dandy and you can only assume so based on your misunderstanding of the thread here. I think the original post asked, "œWhat would Moses do?" Well, we know what Moses would do, but then it turned to "œWhat would we do?" Excuse my inference, but I inferred from the question that the 'we' are Christians. In fact, it not only me who made that inference but so did Mr. Kok and Mr. Rhoades. However, in case you have forgotten the state has decided to murder innocent individuals already. It is called abortion. Additionally, in case you have not heard, the US Supreme Court just decided that it was all right for the state to take personal property. Your question was one of criteria not one of cogitation on my part. Certainly, the criteria you and I can mostly agree on, I am sure, but I would submit that was not the question.


----------



## Robin (Jun 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> ...



Jake,

I think (could be wrong) something is being missed here....

Rev. Kok (and I) are attempting to point-out, like it or not, the State will impose their own criteria for laws. Obviously, we don't want the legislation to be dissonant with God's Law. But - hey -- reality says we are living in the "present EVIL age." That is the way it is. Again....obviously, we are not pacifists; I don't think it's OK for the State to impose unjust laws by ommision or commission.

For now, in our government we can vote; write laws and lobby them; speak-out; and most importantly, pray for our leaders in government. If and when the time comes, if the laws of the State become too unjust or dangerous, we may have to go "underground"....who knows?

Romans 13 directs Christians to obey the civil authorities because they are (somehow, behind the scenes) instituted by God. Even Ceasar. (!) Even the IRS. (!) Even the terrible governments that kill babies and do all sorts of icky stuff. All these governments are put in place by God Himself.

As Captain Jack Aubrey said "In war, sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two weevils."

Until Christ returns, His church is at war with the world, in this present evil age.

At least that's the way I see things, for now....(hope I got it right, Rev. Kok.)



Robin


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 28, 2005)

> He grew up in a Methodist family but when he attended church he said he felt nothing. It was only when he tapped into the supernatural that he felt "connected".



So what? I (theoretically) butchered my neighbor's beloved cat and got my jollies from that. I felt really good. Therefore, it is right. Moron. 



> "To me there is less judgment in witchcraft and more acceptance and freedom than in Christianity. I see it as a tyrant religion. I feel more of a connection to witchcraft than Christianity. I would sit in church and just be there because I was sent there," he said.



Who cares? In your worldview you can't even say that being judgmental is wrong.



> While he believes in God and Jesus, it is not in the same way Christians believe.



Then he doesn't believe in God and Jesus.



> "I believe there is a spirit for everything in this world. I also believe that smaller spirits or angels are responsible for different things.



Justification for such belief?



> "I don't believe in the devil as in giving him that much power, or acknowledging him. A great misconception is that witches worship the devil; in fact, that was why many of them were killed in the past," said Jason, adding:



Why was killing them bad? Remember, you have no foundation for morality. 



> "When I was 11, I was just getting into it. I gathered my cousins and instructed them to stand in a circle. I didn't know anything really but I had seen it in a movie called The Craft and I repeated something I heard from it.
> 
> "There was this boy our age who lived next door and I didn't like him much, so I got a needle and made them prick their fingers, smeared the blood on a piece of paper and, in my mind, I visualised him being punished in some way.
> 
> "In the evening, he was out on his bike, he fell off, landed on some 'galvanise' and cut himself up badly. I stopped because I didn't really want to harm or kill anyone," he recounted.



I actually believe him on that one. A good friend of mine was rescued from Satanism and has now become a devout Reformer and told me her testimony regarding Satanism and stopped short at that point. Under no condition, so she said, would she say any more. 



> However, he only does this if he's really angry with someone to the point where he wants to physically beat that person. Instead of carrying out the action, he uses the same energy to put a curse on the individual.



<cough>arbitrary ethics</cough>




> But besides bringing harm, he said he could also use his craft to heal people of sickness and disease. He can use dolls like those used in voodoo to heal different parts of the body.


Watch out, Benny. Competition!


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jun 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> Basically his whole worldview is arbitrary and subjective.



Correct.

I just threw the info at you for ammo in logical reasoning and debate with them. 

Funny thing...my husband was had a spell cast against him in highschool by a witch. When threatened with it (after a conversation about Christianity and witchcraft), he told her to "go ahead" (he was a Christian). She came to school the next day, and when she saw him there she started seriously freaking out. She couldn't stop staring in a scared sort of way and she avoided him like the plague for the rest of highschool.


----------



## Robin (Jun 28, 2005)

> Father Paul said the Church had failed if young people saw Christianity as a tyrannical religion and were turning to witchcraft for answers. "I think Christianity needs to get out there and listen to people. We need to get into the schools, colleges and any other place where it (witchcraft) exists, hear the problems of young people and find out what leads them into witchcraft."



I whole-heartedly agree with Father Paul, here...only to add that these young people need to be lovingly heard and compassionately have the Gospel explained to them in an non-condemning manner.

Robin


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 28, 2005)

*Rutherford on Rutherford?*



> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Well, when is punishment criminal? Why not stand with Samuel Rutherford in Lex Rex and state:
> 
> 1)Only God can determine what is right and what is wrong.
> ...


On these questions here is some more Rutherford to consider. 



> But surely Erastus errs, who will have all such to be killed by the magistrate under the New Testament, because they were killed in the Old. Then are we to stone the men that gather sticks on the Lord's day; the child that is stubborn to his parents, the virgins, daughters of ministers that commit fornication are to be put to death. Why, but then the whole judicial law of God shall oblige us Christians as Carlstadt and others teach? I humbly conceive that the putting of some to death in the Old Testament, as it was a punishment to them, so was it a mysterious teaching of us, how God hated such and such sins, and mysteries of that kind are gone with other shadows. "œBut we read not" (says Erastus) "œwhere Christ has changed those laws in the New Testament." It is true, Christ has not said in particular, I abolish the debarring of the leper seven days, and he that is thus and thus unclean shall be separated till the evening; nor has he said particularly of every ordinance and judicial law, it is abolished. But we conceive, the whole bulk of the judicial law, as judicial, and as it concerned the republic of the Jews only, is abolished, though the moral equity of all those are not abolished; also some punishments were merely symbolical to teach the detestation of such a vice, as the boring with an awl the ear of h im that loved his master, and desired to serve him, and the making him his perpetual servant. I should think the punishing with death the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath was such; and in all these the punishing of a sin against the moral law by the magistrate, is moral and perpetual; but the punishing of every sin against the moral law, tali modo, so and so, with death, with spitting on the face: I much doubt if these punishments in particular, and in their positive determination to the people of the Jews, be moral and perpetual. As he that would marry a captive woman of another religion, is to cause her first pare her nails, and wash herself, and give her a month or less time to lament the death of her parents, which was a judicial, not a ceremonial law; that this should be perpetual, because Christ in particular has not abolished it, to me seems most unjust; for as Paul says, "œHe that is circumcised becomes debtor to the whole law," surely to all the ceremonies of Moses' law; so I argue, a pari, from the like, he that will keep one judicial law, because judicial and given by Moses, becomes debtor to keep the whole judicial law, under pain of God's eternal wrath. _Divine Right of Church Government Vindicated _(London: 1646), p. 493-494.


And on moral equity Rutherford had this to say:


> No man but sees the punishment of theft is of common morall equity, and obligeth all Nations, but the manner or degree of punishment is more positive: as to punish Theft by restoring foure Oxen for the stealing of one Oxe, doth not so oblige all Nations, but some other bodily punishment, as whipping, may be used against Theeves. _A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience_ (London: R.I. for Andrew Crook, 1649) 298-99.


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 28, 2005)

I'm siding with Robin and Kok on this one. It seems that there are some who would like to see an increase in the government. Not me. The government was a curse from the beginning (kings like the pagan nations...see 1 Samuel 8). We must come to a biblical conclusion on what the proper role of the government should be...and In my humble opinion, the less the better.

This has been debated and discussed alot of times, but each time I study it, I come to the same conclusion that our founding fathers weren't all wet. The principle of "life liberty and property" have guided our country well, and they stand as the best way to see civil peace in a country.

First you have to ask yourself, do we, as fallen depraved sinful people have any rights in this world? If we're talking rights with God, the answer is no, if we're talking rights in relation to other people, the answer is yes. What rights?

1) Life. I have the right to live.

2) Liberty. I have the right to believe according to my conscience. It may get me to hell, but religion can not be forced on anybody. Whatever is not of faith, is sin.

3) Property. I have the right to own stuff without fear of it being taken by others.

These are the basic principles upon which a country should be founded (and any deduction from). As soon as you start placing other moral laws under the sphere of the civil government, you start giving them too much reign. Now the government is given part of the keys no? We must not mix the civil magistrate and the church. Seperate!

A good verse to keep the governement in check?:



> Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them.
> Mat 20:26 "Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.
> Mat 20:27 "And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave;
> Mat 20:28 "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."



If you want to see the church having too much authority, look at Rome.
If you want to see the government having too much authority, look at England.
If you want to see an expired theocracy (but with principle's we can learn from) look at Moses.

I'm against Theonomy if you can't tell.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 28, 2005)

With all due respect intended, you really don't understand the political nature of theonomists. You write:



> It seems that there are some who would like to see an increase in the government.



No, no, no, a thousand times no! I am an ardent defender of limited, decentralized government, thus supporting the confederacy in the Second War for American Independence. Read Bahnsen (go figure) and you will see him castigate governments that grow in size (and tyranny).



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> We must come to a biblical conclusion on what the proper role of the government should be...and In my humble opinion, the less the better.



Wow, you sound like a theonomist. Rushdoony has maintained against tyranny and pluralism (which is a more veiled form of tyranny) for maxium individual liberty under biblical law. 



> This has been debated and discussed alot of times, but each time I study it, I come to the same conclusion that our founding fathers weren't all wet. The principle of "life liberty and property" have guided our country well, and they stand as the best way to see civil peace in a country.



Why are you bringing up 1776? My only mention of Jefferson (and that in passing) was that he had a better understanding (if ultimately flawed and inconsistent) of political government than most modern, conservative Christians. 



> First you have to ask yourself, do we, as fallen depraved sinful people have any rights in this world? If we're talking rights with God, the answer is no, if we're talking rights in relation to other people, the answer is yes. What rights?
> 
> 1) Life. I have the right to live.
> 
> ...



I don't really know where you are going with this. But people always read into the (very badly articulated) phrase of separation a notion foreign to theonomists that theonomists seek to articulate. I maintain, over against pluralisstic, autonomous political thought today, the separation of church and state as it is biblically understood. In other words, get the State out of the church (we ought to be non-taxable, rather than sacrificing our rights for tax exempt status). Simultaneously, we ought not have Jerry Falwell calling the shots. But a separation of Church/state does not imply a separation of God/state.



> If you want to see the church having too much authority, look at Rome.
> If you want to see the government having too much authority, look at England.
> If you want to see an expired theocracy (but with principle's we can learn from) look at Moses.
> 
> I'm against Theonomy if you can't tell.




Cute, and if you want to look to a society that executes citizens without due process of law (Terry Schiavo), then look to Pluralistic America! But that's good because we are not a theocracy.

If you want to live in a society where private property is confiscated because the Supreme Court (the Nazghul) say so, come to America where the Church is not allowed to make religious judgments on the state.

Men are afraid of theocracy (btw, how can a state that operates on 10% of its income be tyrannical?) but cherish the slavery they are living in right now! We are like the children of Israel longing to go back to Egypt. We think we are free merely because we have been told in our secular textbooks that we are free, _and we have been foolish enough to believe it!_

Since you mention the Founding Fathers, I will do you one better: What we call liberty, they call bondage.

Now back to the thread: he's a moron building a religion on arbitrary standards.

[Edited on 6--29-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 28, 2005)

Sorry for the rant  (I do feel better now! :bigsmile: )...I'll leave it for another thread! We'll duke it out another time Jacob! 

I agree that this witch guy is a moron. It's a shame that people are so easily deceived....and people that were raised to be so-called "christians."


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 28, 2005)

And I apologize if my tone was a bit caustic.


----------



## crhoades (Jun 29, 2005)

For a different approach:

Ex. 22:18
(ESV) You shall not permit a sorceress to live. 
(KJV) Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live

WCF 19.4
IV. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

*Exod. 21:1-23:19*; Gen. 49:10 with I Peter 2:13-14; I Cor. 9:8-10

So here we have one of the sundry judicial laws as refereced in the proof texts above. It has expired. But the question we must ask ourselves to be good confessionalists is how are we obliged by it? What does the general equity of this verse require?

You can almost condense the verse down into 2 words: Kill witches. How can we dig into this to find the general equity? Punish witches? I think a strong case could be made to say that it still stands but I don't see how we can say that we hold to the general equity of this verse and then say that it is Ok to allow witches to be in regular society, make movies about them (new Bewitched movie starring Nicole Kidman and Will Farrel - not to mention Harry Potter), etc. Are we pluralists or Westminster Confession folk?

Again to split the hairs...as individuals and as the church we should seek repentance on the witches behalf. We should share the gospel with them. We should pray for them. My comments are directed to what a just law and what a just punishment *should* be in a just society. Not talking about our Constitution. Not talking about how this would be arrived at. Just talking about Normative ethics as applied to the civil magistrate.

What does the general equity of this verse require?


----------

