Just treat them as Daniel's argument. If you want to say, that is just like some other person's argument that is fine, but I didn't want this to turn into engaging Colin by proxy through Daniel.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually I have not missed that point. The Reformers and the Puritans used a different philosophical and theological justification for instituting particular Mosaic judicials than did Bahnsen.
As for epistemology:
Actually I have not missed that point. The Reformers and the Puritans used a different philosophical and theological justification for instituting particular Mosaic judicials than did Bahnsen.
Tim, I am afraid that you have completely missed the point; you have not dealt with the sovereignty of God and civil law. Theonomy is the only position that consistently holds that God and His law-word is sovereign in civil law. Hiding behind a few quotes or mis-quotes from the Reformers or Puritans does not alter this fact.
Daniel, Theonomy is not the only position that consistently holds that God and His law-word is sovereign in civil law.
And you should not call a quotation a misquotation unless you go on to demonstrate that it is one.
JEWISH DREAMS
The hope of postmillennialism, particularly in its "Christian Reconstruction" form, is a "Jewish dream." This was the express judgment of the early Reformed creed, the Second Helvetic Confession (A.D. 1566):
We further condemn Jewish dreams that there will be a golden age on earth before the Day of judgment, and that the pious, having subdued all their godless enemies, will possess all the kingdoms of the earth. For evangelical truth in Matt. chs. 24 and 25, and Luke, ch. 18 and the apostolic teaching in II Thess., ch. 2, and II Tim., chs. 3 and 4, present something quite different (Chap. 11, in Reformed Confessions of the 16th Century, ed. Arthur C. Cochrane, Westminster Press, 1966).
The carnal kingdom of postmillennialism, particularly as painted by "Christian Reconstruction," is exactly the kind of Messianic kingdom dreamed and desired by the Jews in the days of Christ's earthly ministry. This was what the Jews of John 6 wanted: Christ as the king of an earthly kingdom and a temporal future bright with the prospect of political power and earthly glory.
The damning judgment upon postmillennialism by the Second Helvetic Confession reflected the theology of the early Reformers, Luther and Calvin, as well as Bullinger, author of the creed. More importantly, it is the stand of the confessions that bind Reformed and Presbyterian churches and Christians today.
PROF. ENGLESMA
NO offense meant brother. Just thought I'd add a link to another point of view.
Daniel, Theonomy is not the only position that consistently holds that God and His law-word is sovereign in civil law.
No, Theonomy is the only position that consistently holds that God is the only Lawgiver to the state. Other positions - by rejecting Biblical penal sanctions - deny this. All other views deny that God ALONE has the sovereign right to determine what constitutes crime and what constitutes a just penal sanction. Others may tip their hats to the sovereignty of God in civil affairs, but they deny it by their rejection of Biblical law.
Rousas J. Rushdoony, Law and Society, p 28.…covenant people are doubly God’s property: first by virtue of His creation; and second, by virtue of his redemption. For this reason, sin is more personal and more than man-centered. It is a theological offense.
Rousas J. Rushdoony, Law and Society, p. 685.Does this mean that in the modern world, Sabbath-breaking is punishable by death or should be? The answer is, very clearly and emphatically no. The modern state is not in covenant with God but is an enemy of God. Sabbath-breaking has no specific penalty of death just as there is no death penalty for adultery (Hos. 4:14), because the nations are not in covenant with God and are therefore under sentence of death. Because of this general and central indictment, the lesser offenses have no place. Covenant offences are one thing, enemy offenses another.
And you should not call a quotation a misquotation unless you go on to demonstrate that it is one.
[The point of that statement was that the issue is NOT a historical one. Now is not the place to determine whether or not something is a quote or mis-quote as their are other threads in which this may be done.
[May I recommend Tim that you devote more of your time to refuting the disastrous ethics of humanism, rather than waging war on those who wish to uphold the holy laws of God. This would be a much more profitable use of your time. If you don't agree with me, then I have to respect you as a brother in the Lord, but things need to be kept in proportion: there are bigger battles to fight.
God's law is weighty with relevance for sanctification. The breaking of the very least stipulation of the law generates God's displeasure ... taking an erroneous teaching position with respect to the details of the law (e.g. that the exhaustive details of God's law no longer bind Christians or this period of history) does the same....The antecedent referent of 'these' in verse 19 is clearly the 'jot and tittle' mentioned in verse 18. Verse 19 teaches… that the smallest part of the law of God is a canon for determining personal standing in the kingdom of heaven.
I think my previous quotation from Calvin points this out:
The idea is that a society may have a stealing problem, therefore the penalty for stealing would be more stringent in society "x" rather than in society "y."The law of God forbids to steal. The punishment appointed for theft in the civil polity of the Jews may be seen in Exodus 22. Very ancient laws of other nations punished theft by exacting the double of what was stolen, while subsequent laws made a distinction between theft manifest and not manifest. Other laws went the length of punishing with exile, or with branding, while others made the punishment capital. Among the Jews, the punishment of the false witness was to "do unto him as he had thought to have done with his brothers" (Deut. 19: 19.) In some countries, the punishment is infamy, in others, hanging; in others, crucifixion. All laws alike avenge murder with blood, but the kinds of death are different. In some countries, adultery was punished more severely, in others more leniently. Yet we see that amid this diversity they all tend to the same end. For they all with one mouth declare against those crimes which are condemned by the eternal law at God, viz., murder, theft, adultery, and false witness; though they agree not as to the mode of punishment. This is not necessary, nor even expedient. There may be a country which, if murder were not visited with fearful punishments, would instantly become a prey to robbery and slaughter. There may be an age requiring that the severity of punishments should be increased. If the state is in a troubled condition, those things from which disturbances usually arise must be corrected by new edicts. In time of war, civilisation would disappear amid the noise of arms, were not men overawed by an unwonted severity of punishment. In sterility, in pestilence, were not stricter discipline employed, all things would grow worse. One nation might be more prone to a particular vice, were it not most severely repressed. How malignant were it, and invidious of the public good, to be offended at this diversity, which is admirably adapted to retain the observance of the divine law.
Quite frankly I think we should have the death penalty for pedophiles because it is such a problem in society today. Such a view is not found in the Mosaic Judicials. It is a violation of the 7th Command.
Grace,
-CH