# Not sure about this one....



## B.J. (Mar 20, 2007)

In_ "The Baptism of Disciples Alone"_, Fred Malone argues that Theonomist and Paedobaptist use the same hermuneutic which basically says unless abrogated by the _Law Giver_ said teachig is still binding. So says Malone. By way of contrast, the Baptist hermuneutic should be abrogation unless restated. That is roughly how Malone sets it up. [emphasis mine]

He argues that a consistent Paedo should also be a Theonomist. I dont have a big problem with that. What is interesting is where the Baptist, Malone in this case, ends up. He also maintains vehemently that Paedo's and Credo's are completely opposite hermunuetically speaking.


So, if the two are at odds hermuneutically, which I agree, and if the Paedobaptism leads to Theonomy, which I dont have a problem with, is it logically consistent to say that Baptist _should be_ Antinomian? I dont mean this as a slander. I am exploring the logical implications of polarizing Theonomy and Paedobaptism aganist the Baptist positon, which as Malone teaches are opposites of each other. 

To be clear, Theonomy is the opposite of Antinomianism, and Paedo is opposite of Credo. Right? So if it that is true, although he doesnt believe that, Malone should be an Antinomian along side his Bapitstic Theology.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Coram Deo (Mar 20, 2007)

I am a Reformed Baptist and for the Most part I like Fred Malones books, that said there are two area's I disagree...... 

1. This topic on Theonomy.. I really see nothing wrong with God's Law, and since Civil law is a moral arm of Moral law we should consider it somewhat? I know there are issues that need to be worked out completely, but call me a half closet Theonomist.....

2. I also disagree with him on what is new in the New Covenant.... He says that the Law written on the heart is new to the covenant.... I believe it was always there, so I hold to the tradition Reformed view on this.... but for newness of the New Covenant read another read that I posted on lately on that topic...... 

Michael



B.J. said:


> In_ "The Baptism of Disciples Alone"_, Fred Malone argues that Theonomist and Paedobaptist use the same hermuneutic which basically says unless abrogated by the _Law Giver_ said teachig is still binding. So says Malone. By way of contrast, the Baptist hermuneutic should be abrogation unless restated. That is roughly how Malone sets it up. [emphasis mine]
> 
> He argues that a consistent Paedo should also be a Theonomist. I dont have a big problem with that. What is interesting is where the Baptist, Malone in this case, ends up. He also maintains vehemently that Paedo's and Credo's are completely opposite hermunuetically speaking.
> 
> ...


----------



## MW (Mar 20, 2007)

Paedobaptists are not paedocircumcisionists. We acknowledge genuine discontinuities between the Testaments. The discontinuity is to be found in the *typical* elements of the OT, not in the *moral* elements.


----------



## B.J. (Mar 21, 2007)

> 1. This topic on Theonomy.. I really see nothing wrong with God's Law, and since Civil law is a moral arm of Moral law we should consider it somewhat? I know there are issues that need to be worked out completely, but call me a half closet Theonomist.....





Okay....but this was really my question. Is the hermunieutic used by Baptist the same as the one used by Antinomian's? I know that Baptist on this board reject Antinomianism, and that some Paedo's reject Theonomy for whatever reason, but Malone argues that they should not because the hermunuetic is the same. So then, should the Baptist, who use the same hermunuetic as antinomians, enbrass antinomianism for consistent reasons?


----------



## Coram Deo (Mar 21, 2007)

On this issue with Malone I think he is pulling hairs and it does not add up... A hermunieutical straw man... I do not believe his answer is consistent.... I am even unsure why he felt like a needed to jab Theonomy in a book that is not about theonomy and is about baptism.....

But I have heard in recent time a Reformed Baptist pastor jab Theonomy pretty hard in a sermon that was not even about it.... He even went as far as to say that all Theonomist are Teenagers who have nothing better to do with their time then sit at the computer all day and write articles......

Oh well....

Michael



B.J. said:


> Okay....but this was really my question. Is the hermunieutic used by Baptist the same as the one used by Antinomian's? I know that Baptist on this board reject Antinomianism, and that some Paedo's reject Theonomy for whatever reason, but Malone argues that they should not because the hermunuetic is the same. So then, should the Baptist, who use the same hermunuetic as antinomians, enbrass antinomianism for consistent reasons?


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Mar 21, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Paedobaptists are not paedocircumcisionists. We acknowledge genuine discontinuities between the Testaments. The discontinuity is to be found in the *typical* elements of the OT, not in the *moral* elements.



This view seems simplistic - in case of covenant continuity would you advocate the death penalty for adultery or heresy? What about dealing with Sabbath-breakers?


----------



## Coram Deo (Mar 21, 2007)

Let me ask you something....

Is God unjust for commanding the death penalty for adultery?

I have no problems with it the death penalty for adultery..... If God commanded it in the Old testament who am I to say to God that this is to harsh, I know A better way... Do we know better then God?

Food for thought
Michael





Dieter Schneider said:


> This view seems simplistic - in case of covenant continuity would you advocate the death penalty for adultery or heresy? What about dealing with Sabbath-breakers?


----------



## MW (Mar 21, 2007)

Dieter Schneider said:


> This view seems simplistic - in case of covenant continuity would you advocate the death penalty for adultery or heresy? What about dealing with Sabbath-breakers?



As stated, the idea of "covenant continuity" pertains to *moral* norms. Civil punishment is a *moral* norm, as Rom. 13 demonstrates. The same chapter, by use of the image of the sword, teaches that God has placed power in the magistrate's hand to punish evil doers with the death penalty. The death penalty is appropriate for all offences to which it was attached in theocratic Israel. The question here is not a matter of principle since the NT Scriptures call these punishments "a just recompense of reward." The question is a matter of application -- is the death penalty *required* in each and every case where heresy, adultery, or Sabbath-breaking is found to be committed? The answer is, No; and that answer is justified on the simple basis that modern States are not in the same *typical* situation as the theocratic nation of Israel.


----------



## KMK (Mar 22, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> As stated, the idea of "covenant continuity" pertains to *moral* norms. Civil punishment is a *moral* norm, as Rom. 13 demonstrates. The same chapter, by use of the image of the sword, teaches that God has placed power in the magistrate's hand to punish evil doers with the death penalty. The death penalty is appropriate for all offences to which it was attached in theocratic Israel. The question here is not a matter of principle since the NT Scriptures call these punishments "a just recompense of reward." The question is a matter of application -- is the death penalty *required* in each and every case where heresy, adultery, or Sabbath-breaking is found to be committed? The answer is, No; and that answer is justified on the simple basis that modern States are not in the same *typical* situation as the theocratic nation of Israel.



This is very helpful. I have never heard it put this way. Do I have this right? The death penalty as recompense for disobedience in children is appropriate in all cases because God said so, but that does not *bind* every state to make it so because Israel was a special type of Christ and that typical aspect of Israel has been fulfilled.


----------



## MW (Mar 22, 2007)

KMK said:


> This is very helpful. I have never heard it put this way. Do I have this right? The death penalty as recompense for disobedience in children is appropriate in all cases because God said so, but that does not *bind* every state to make it so because Israel was a special type of Christ and that typical aspect of Israel has been fulfilled.



That is it. Or, in the words of the Confession, in the managing of the office of a magistrate, "they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth."


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Mar 22, 2007)

thunaer said:


> Let me ask you something....
> 
> Is God unjust for commanding the death penalty for adultery?
> 
> ...


Your comments are interesting but somewhat unclear. 
Our LORD's view on adultery differs from the Old Testament Dispensation (cf. John 8:1-11, not to mention Matthew 5:27-30). David, an adulterer, was not executed! Shall, or may, we kill those that do not embrace our faith? 
The apostle Paul welcomes back the penitent, incl. the immoral (see his Corinthian correspondence), all of whom are worthy of death, cf. Romans 1:32. 
If you wish to see the Old Testament situation to be reapplied (I shall not comment on the implied abolition of democracy, the latter being a Greek idea which sadly has crept into our churches), then you have failed to understand the purposes of our LORD in relation to the establishment of the Church: The Messiah has come, our sins have been blotted out, Judaism is finished (see Hebrews) and the New Testament Church most definitely is NOT a theocracy. Let us not judaise Christianity!


----------



## MW (Mar 22, 2007)

Dieter Schneider said:


> Your comments are interesting but somewhat unclear.
> Our LORD's view on adultery differs from the Old Testament Dispensation (cf. John 8:1-11, not to mention Matthew 5:27-30). David, an adulterer, was not executed! Shall, or may, we kill those that do not embrace our faith?
> The apostle Paul welcomes back the penitent, incl. the immoral (see his Corinthian correspondence), all of whom are worthy of death, cf. Romans 1:32.
> If you wish to see the Old Testament situation to be reapplied (I shall not comment on the implied abolition of democracy, the latter being a Greek idea which sadly has crept into our churches), then you have failed to understand the purposes of our LORD in relation to the establishment of the Church: The Messiah has come, our sins have been blotted out, Judaism is finished (see Hebrews) and the New Testament Church most definitely is NOT a theocracy. Let us not judaise Christianity!



The above interpretation fails to distinguish between Church and State. The fact that neither Christ nor Paul imposed civil penalties upon criminals does not negate the fact that crimes may be punished by those who exercise authority in the civil realm. Neither Christ nor Paul occupied a civil office. When Paul stood trial before a civil judge he asserted (Acts 25:11), "if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die." Let it be remembered that the specific charge related to turning the nation away from God, or heresy.


----------



## Coram Deo (Mar 22, 2007)

I agree with your post and you answered how I would have to Dieter's question...

There remains a distinction between Family law, Church law, and Civil law which the state still has the right to impose the death penalty....

New testament does not nagate our consequences in the physical realm. That does not mean there might be leniency in the civil realm but that does not negate the just recompase of the crime or what we might consider unjust in our sinful minds......

Michael





armourbearer said:


> The above interpretation fails to distinguish between Church and State. The fact that neither Christ nor Paul imposed civil penalties upon criminals does not negate the fact that crimes may be punished by those who exercise authority in the civil realm. Neither Christ nor Paul occupied a civil office. When Paul stood trial before a civil judge he asserted (Acts 25:11), "if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die." Let it be remembered that the specific charge related to turning the nation away from God, or heresy.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Mar 24, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> The above interpretation fails to distinguish between Church and State. The fact that neither Christ nor Paul imposed civil penalties upon criminals does not negate the fact that crimes may be punished by those who exercise authority in the civil realm. Neither Christ nor Paul occupied a civil office. When Paul stood trial before a civil judge he asserted (Acts 25:11), "if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die." Let it be remembered that the specific charge related to turning the nation away from God, or heresy.



I notice with some degree of disappointment that my response was met with a simplistic reply. Divine justice is never harsh – unlike human justice! I believe that a case can be made for the death penalty. Notwithstanding, my observations on the 7th commandment have not been addressed. I see no need to reiterate the other points I have made. 
I also detect a major inconsistency: There was NO distinction under the Jewish economy between church and state. A theocracy, by definition, allows for NO separation between church and state; they are identical. So why is this distinction stressed in your reply if the theocratic model still remains? 
Can one justify from the New Testament the existence of a Christian nation? I doubt it. It contradicts the concept of 'ekklesia' (church out of the world)! 
Did our LORD seek to incorporate the Gentiles into a Jewish theocracy? No proof can be given, because it does not exist. 
One may choose to interpret the New Testament in the light of the Old, rather than vice versa; hence the confusion. 
The 'theonomist model', if I may be allowed to speak thus, re-emerged under Constantine (church under the state), not under Christ, when the world was brought into the church and the two merged, resulting in the laying of the foundation of the papacy, with disastrous consequences (church above the world). 
The theocratic idea came to a decisive end with the fall of the temple in Jerusalem. 
The world is to be subjugated to Christ by the Gospel. Those who reject Him as their Saviour will face Him as their judge. The Church's role is to worship and to witness, by lip and life. 
Whenever the Church becomes politically established she has become a force for great evil. Examples can be given from Scotland and Germany – two countries I am particularly familiar with. We find no parallel in the New Testament.


----------

