RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Logic is the casualty of this debate. I am done. I have read Aquinas and find him more robust than either side (Klinean or whatever).
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.
Again, I assert strongly that one of the most awful sins in history is the persecution and punishment by the reformed of those who have disagreed with them.
I assert strongly that one of the most awful sins in history is the persecution and punishment by the reformed of those who have disagreed with them.
1) Theonomists don't persecute just anyone who disagrees with them.
2) Theonomy doesn't teach what you maintain.
Killing in the name of God is always atrocious. Do you really want me to begin quoting these abuses?
my ethic is sort of a revamped Aquinas "graced nature" view of John Milbank
I thought you were reading Aquinas?
You fail to deal with Paul here in I Cor. 5. What do you see Paul teaching here?
I have quoted a summary of what I believe. What exactly do you believe? You claim that no-one understands the theonomists or Bahnsen? Do you? Give me you position paper.
I can quote many of the historical abuses towards doctrinal deviants done by Presbyterians in the name of preserving a Godly society. Some of this involves torture and death. Some of the victims were Baptists and Quakers.
Killing in the name of God is always atrocious. Do you really want me to begin quoting these abuses?
A more useful approach woudl be for you to state what you believe theonomy is, instead of firing off 1 line rebuttals such as "Read all the pertinent material and then get back to me..." or "you say so.."
John Frame has noted that the New Testament church "fulfills the Old Testament theocracy" (Barker 1990, 95). In applying the Old Testament laws to the church, Paul did not apply them exactly as they were applied in the Old Testament. For instance, In 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, Paul addresses a situation where a man is living with his father's wife. According to Old Testament law, the man and the woman should receive capital punishment (Leviticus 20:10). However, this was not recommended by Paul. Rather, the proper punishment of this crime for Paul is excommunication (vv. 2, 13). Furthermore, Paul's statement in verse 13 is a quotation of a formula found in Mosaic penal sanctions (Deut. 17:7, 12; 12:19; 19:21, 21:21; 22:21, 24: 24:7).
my ethic is sort of a revamped Aquinas "graced nature" view of John Milbank
Really? Milbank's view is essentially Anglo-Catholic socialism behind a wall of postmodernist verbiage. Naturally, he does not affirm Biblical authority. The doctrine of the "gift" denies our basic ideas of liberty, capital, private property, vocation, stewardship and thrift.
This "graced nature" stuff seems to contradict what we know about the fall, that nature is radically corrupted by original sin. For example, bears think you are food. Southern California bursts into flames every year at this time.
We have a wonderful Reformed tradition of moral philosophy that not enough people read. Look for stuff in dusty, old books. In my humble opinion, postmodern gobbledygook is as irrelevant as Esperanto and Klingon and as useful and contemporary as a polyester leisure suit.
Your ignorance of Reformed history frankly astounds me; the Reformers, Puritans and Covenanters who appealed to the Mosaic judicials as being morally binding today must have been highly confused if they understood the word expired to mean what you say that it means. The context of WCF 19:4 is aspects of the law that were circumstantial to Israel; note that not one word is said about the penalties being abrogated. And keep in mind that WCF 20 does not say that our liberty is increased by freedom from the penal sanctions of the judicial law of Moses; nor does WCF 7 tell us that the new covenant differs from the old by the setting aside of Biblical penology.
The ground of infant baptism is not found in the Mosaic adminstration.It's not the crux of my argument, only a supporting point. And as you can see in my quote, I broadened the appeal to more than just Paul. Any apostolic witness will do (thus negating the virgin birth fallacy). If Theonomy is so central an ethical assumption of the apostles, surely it would be reflected in at least one place in all their numerous ethical exhorations to the churches and their expositions of the old covenant.I am no longer a theonomist in the full Bahnsenian sense of the word (my ethic is sort of a revamped Aquinas "graced nature" view of John Milbank). However, this is a textbook example of the argument from silence fallacy. It doesn't mean your overall position is wrong. It just means that this argument is bad and you need to use other ones.
Using this method of argument, I can prove that St Paul did not believe in the virgin birth.
If infant baptism were so central to the apostolic teaching, surely they would have been more clear.
2) Is there any examples of penology in the NT? After briefly skimming, I find none. Bahnsen is wanting in his application of Herod, and the "man of sin". Who can not be a civil rule no matter how hard he tries.
3) Are men found guilty before God or men in the NT? Again Bahsen is found lacking in his appea to Romans 1.
In HIs grace
The ground of infant baptism is not found in the Mosaic adminstration.It's not the crux of my argument, only a supporting point. And as you can see in my quote, I broadened the appeal to more than just Paul. Any apostolic witness will do (thus negating the virgin birth fallacy). If Theonomy is so central an ethical assumption of the apostles, surely it would be reflected in at least one place in all their numerous ethical exhorations to the churches and their expositions of the old covenant.
If infant baptism were so central to the apostolic teaching, surely they would have been more clear.
2) Is there any examples of penology in the NT? After briefly skimming, I find none. Bahnsen is wanting in his application of Herod, and the "man of sin". Who can not be a civil rule no matter how hard he tries.
Again, I am not defending theonomy, just Reason. This is the argument from silence fallacy. And it is dispensational in structure.
Your ignorance of Reformed history frankly astounds me; the Reformers, Puritans and Covenanters who appealed to the Mosaic judicials as being morally binding today must have been highly confused if they understood the word expired to mean what you say that it means. The context of WCF 19:4 is aspects of the law that were circumstantial to Israel; note that not one word is said about the penalties being abrogated. And keep in mind that WCF 20 does not say that our liberty is increased by freedom from the penal sanctions of the judicial law of Moses; nor does WCF 7 tell us that the new covenant differs from the old by the setting aside of Biblical penology.
Daniel, Ill save you the time of rash "puffed up declarations as the above". I am ignorant according to your standards in regards to reformers on this topic. That said, could you please come down to my level and just answer a few questions for me.
1) Can Law cause anyone to uphold the first table of stone? Can any law against idolatry or blasphemy do this?
2) Is there any examples of penology in the NT? After briefly skimming, I find none. Bahnsen is wanting in his application of Herod, and the "man of sin". Who can not be a civil ruler no matter how hard he tries.
3) Are men found guilty before God or men in the NT? Again Bahsen is found lacking in his appeal to Romans 1.
In HIs grace
No more warnings after this; if anyone can't bite their tongue and post civilly, the moderators should hand out infractions. No more insults like 'your ignorance astounds me' and no responses in kind.
2) Is there any examples of penology in the NT? After briefly skimming, I find none. Bahnsen is wanting in his application of Herod, and the "man of sin". Who can not be a civil rule no matter how hard he tries.
Again, I am not defending theonomy, just Reason. This is the argument from silence fallacy. And it is dispensational in structure.
Jacob, this is a scare tactic used as much as the cry of "Returning to Rome" is used. If one denies any distinction between Israel the Nation and the church and how God dealt with both, that have blurred this into the error of a covenantal shift of which the scriptures do not allow. There are most assuredly different "dispensations" within the economy of God.
Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:
To deny a shift in oikonomia, is to take away from incarnation of Christ. A new covenenat, a different administration, a new overseerer in Christ came with the birth of Christ.
I see a shred of the Judaizing heresy in theonomic thought.
An attempt to carry the earthly and temporal Jewish economy which was abolished by the cross of Christ, into the New Covenant Chuch. This can only mean that the church was under legal restraints and administration till the time of gospel faith, that is, till the time when the fulfillment of the promise in Christ should release the people of God from all earthly and legal restraints and set them free without priest, sacrifice, temple, washings, outward observances or any such "rudiments of the world," to serve God in the spirit.
That would be a good point if we were talking about ceremonial laws. I get this type of reasoning from Dispensationalists all the time.The argument from silence answer you give ad nauseum is correct on one point, there is no explicit words that say "Thus says the Lord, no penal sanctions allowed anymore towards those who break the moral Law." But does there needs be? A cusory reading of Galatians, the most Gentile church in the day, shows how Paul deals with Law with a broad stroke. In Paul's day men came from Judea to Galatia teaching that God had set aside neither the Jewish nation nor Jewish privilege, and unless the Gentiles became as Jews they could not be saved. They even insisted that Gentiles become circumcised as Jews. Against this Paul says,"I testify again to every man that is circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole law, Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace" (Gal. 5:3-4). Becasue of the cross of Christ, the Mosaic code(Law, Judicial, Moral and ceremonial), the priesthood, sacrifices and the synagogue connection are fulfilled completely in Christ. There is no need to revert back to the temporal when we now have the Spiritual, the true Israel of God. The Galatians were never under the schoolmaster.The schoolmaster is the reign of the Law over Old Testament Israel to preserve the nation in its function as the Church of God in the Old Testament till the "fullness of times" when Christ came at His first advent "Before faith came we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed" (v.23). "Even so we, when we were children, were in bond age under the elements of the world" (Gal. 4:3). The "bondage" was the subjection of the people of God to those earthly "rudiments" of visible temple, sacrifices, circumcision, and all other legal observances "in the flesh" which constituted the preparatory condition of the people of God before the coming of Christ. This included penal sactions for disobeying the Laws calling for captial punishment.
"But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons" (Gal. 4:4-5).
Are we now to put Moses before Christ? And transfer anything from the earthly, temporal "Church" of the old Covenant?
Your quoting of Matthew 15 speaks nothing of a perpetual enforcement of the last clause post crucifiction. The whole crux is in regards to the Pharisse and Scribes majoring in the minors. Where in fact they would overlook this offense and instead bring out the charge of ritual washing in order to accuse the apostles. At the time this was spoken the peoples were still under the Old economy, The old economy was not finished. And would continue up to the appointed time of God. In fact, if this was the case, that this sanction was to be enforced, then why did not Joseph Kill MAry upon learning of her pregnancy? Or the 'aquittal" of the women found in adultery in John 8?
I again will continue to study this matter as much as time allows. But one thing I will not due, and that is to believe that we must return back to the Mosaic code in oder to become more 'Christian". If one believe this is the medicine for the ills of society, they have made the cross of Crist to none effect.
"O foolish Galatians! Who hath bewitched you" (Gal. 3:1).
Daniel, I gave my first warning after Patrick's "expired means expired" statement and about you railing, to which you responded with the comment on his ignorance. As the warning was directed toward everyone, and was well before your response, I expected you to heed it along with everyone else. That is the context of my second warning.
Yeah, when someone suggests that his Christian brothers y tends to the Judaizing heresy, and doesn't get called on it (see a few posts above), something is wrong with the situation (and I am not even a Theonomist, though I do get lumped with them).
To have a neurotic, unhealthy obsession with Law of any kind, be it ceremonial, moral, judicial, is not in line with the Apostolic witness.
It isn't a scare tactic or returning to Rome (in fact, I have no idea what you are talking about). I have never denied distinctions.
Aha! The name calling begins! Logic 102: Argument ad hominem, abusive. See above.
I wonder if we can use the same reasoning to do away with all death penalties.Perhaps.
That would be a good point if we were talking about ceremonial laws. I get this type of reasoning from Dispensationalists all the time.
For one, Paul does not make the distinction. He speaks of Law. All Laws. Therefore to speak of different administations of household management is biblical. Call it Dispensational, it matters little to me.
Someone asked to see where any of the apostles or Jesus ever advocated the death penalty (ignore the fallacious structure for the moment). I provided an example.
Yes you did, but it was pulled out of context and that was not what Christ intended to teach with his diatribe against the scribes. Neverthe less, it was still part of the economy of the time.
No one is arguing a return to the mosaic code, per se. We are just arguing to take the general equity of the law more seriously. Really, this name calling doesn't help the discussion.
I believe theonomists are, and I am by far not alone in this assesment. And lastly, Jacob, if a theonomist gets mad at anyone portraying them as a Judaizer, they deserve the label. There more I look at it, the more I see them as Dispensational's. They want to return, or never leave Mount Sinai. In fact the Cross becomes an almost Second Sinai to them. And Christ another Moses. So one can use the "general equity" clause as a blanket to cover the ultimate motive and belief. And this is a reinstatement of the Mosaic Law code to be fully enforced as it was given at Sinai. It is probably imbalanced because of their post mil Christianized world view, none the less the cure for civil disobedience is not the Mosaic code. This is very much at odds with the Apostolic witness fo restoration and repentance. Look at what Paul says in 2 corinthians.
For I am afraid that when I come I may not find you as I want you to be, and you may not find me as you want me to be. I fear that there may be quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder. 21I am afraid that when I come again my God will humble me before you, and I will be grieved over many who have sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual sin and debauchery in which they have indulged.
Would this not have been a perfect point to speak of being put to death becasue of their continued offense of the Law? Instead he looks for resoration and repentance.
Jacob, personaly I am thick skinned. Call me a Dispensational, call me an enemy of the reformers, and enemy of this or that confession, I still sleep very well. Therefore I attempt to not inflame the conversation with name calling. I went to the scriptures and adequately showed a connection i believe exists. I do not believe I smarter than any. Nor am I up on the "lingo" of this debate. I admire your tone jacob. I find it non polemical and engaging. If I offended you i repent. It was not intended. For I can seperate the person from the confession.
To have a neurotic, unhealthy obsession with Law of any kind, be it ceremonial, moral, judicial, is not in line with the Apostolic witness.
And if you could prove that y people were doing that, you would probably be right. And sad to say, some people in y are doing that. But that also raises the question as to what constitutes such an unhealthy desire? Or at what point does it become an unhealthy desire? And that wasn't defined.
To have a neurotic, unhealthy obsession with Law of any kind, be it ceremonial, moral, judicial, is not in line with the Apostolic witness.
And if you could prove that y people were doing that, you would probably be right. And sad to say, some people in y are doing that. But that also raises the question as to what constitutes such an unhealthy desire? Or at what point does it become an unhealthy desire? And that wasn't defined.
Jacob, what does the letter y signify in italics?
Those who speak with malice and unkindness are the ones with the neurotic unhealthy attitude, Those who speak from the flesh and not Spirit led.
And if you could prove that y people were doing that, you would probably be right. And sad to say, some people in y are doing that. But that also raises the question as to what constitutes such an unhealthy desire? Or at what point does it become an unhealthy desire? And that wasn't defined.
Jacob, what does the letter y signify in italics?
Those who speak with malice and unkindness are the ones with the neurotic unhealthy attitude, Those who speak from the flesh and not Spirit led.
y signifies said category. Instead of referring to "a class of people who are theonomists," I shorthanded it to y. As to your other posts, I think you are confusing my rhetoric with Daniel's. Anyway, I am none too bothered by your comments. You haven't yet told me I should be thrown in jail for my views on the law (which have changed a little). You haven't called me an evil terrorist. So, we're cool.
It is an infringement upon our liberty and unnecessary intrusiveness. Moreover, show me from Scripture how the state should justly punish someone for not having a driving license.