First table of the law as US law?

Status
Not open for further replies.

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
Really? There is no discernment in your questioning? No point of what has been conceived as something wrong concerning the past or how to implement an Established Moral Code or life? Okay, let me ask you in light of the First table and your OP, how would you deal with those who are ignorant of the First Table and you wanted to implement what it requires? What do you see as a possible means of doing such a thing? What laws or measures would you seek to perform such an obedience. I have given you my recommendations. What are yours?
If I remember correctly, please correct me if I'm wrong, you said "go back to a Westminster type situation and work it out from there". I'm dealing with so many people here it's hard to keep track. That is, as believe I stated, a practical plan but it lacks depth and gives no guidance for dealing with a question like state enforced baptisms. You said, I believe, paedobaptists and credobaptists get along great on here but the context is a free society to do that in. That in no way answers the baptism question. You didn't want to talk about death penalty crimes so I swapped to a strictly religious question, and as far as I can tell, have received no practical answer.
As far as implementation I've said multiple times that without a postmillianal situation or a new great awakening it's impossible, I've never gone back on that. You can't implimant it without disenfranchising all who disagree with you, I've said that over and over again and pointed out with Jacob and Dr. Duigud the practical problems involved.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
Uh, what?

All of them, if you want to know. Or, at least, Protestantism did that.

How on earth could this be calculated?

Here we go again.
The what is simple, how many establishment societies gave women the right to vote? It's straight forward, no hidden agendas, in the question. How much more did the illiteracy rate drop in this liberal, secular, society? I don't know denying it happened is easy to calculate. I doubt you're doing that. "Here we go again", I moved on to a baptism question when the death penalty question was taken off the table, by establishment types. And received no concrete answer to that.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
Really? There is no discernment in your questioning? No point of what has been conceived as something wrong concerning the past or how to implement an Established Moral Code or life? Okay, let me ask you in light of the First table and your OP, how would you deal with those who are ignorant of the First Table and you wanted to implement what it requires? What do you see as a possible means of doing such a thing? What laws or measures would you seek to perform such an obedience. I have given you my recommendations. What are yours?

I thought the Postmil position was something that was possibly feasible and all others were lacking. That sounds like judgment.
I'm discernment enough to know by not making value judgements eliminates the accusations I've gotten about calling one period good and another bad. But I still got them.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
I'm discernment enough to know by not making value judgements eliminates the accusations I've gotten about calling one period good and another bad. But I still got them.
What? You have crossed up some references above with mine and you still haven't answered my questions. It has all been bad in your estimation. You have eliminated the fact of persecutions under the Monarch's of pagan Nations, the Catholic Church, and subservient warriors who made a place for themselves. Plus you have not dealt honestly with my last questions of what you recommend or would recommend in light of God's commandments. I have been honest and tried to accommodate your hypothesis. Even when it discussed our recent situation and our Constitution.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
I am Norse. I know how bad we have been and how opposed to other Nations we have been to those we have plundered. I am mostly Swede with a lot of German and Dutch in my blood. I think Luther's Germany did a pretty bang up job for centuries. But the Radical Two K situation came along in history again. It isn't a new Problem. It has always existed. A violation of the first tablet and the Church's turning its head away gives way to a civil irresponsibility. It happened in Israel also.
 

Henry Hall

Puritan Board Freshman
Really? There is no discernment in your questioning? No point of what has been conceived as something wrong concerning the past or how to implement an Established Moral Code or life?
I was about to ask @jwright82 something about "Reduced deaths, wars, and persecution due to intolerance of non establishment denominations?"
@jwright82: You seem to be under the impression that neutrality is possible, that when Christians aren't able to establish the state as a Christian state, that there is a vaccuum in which there is no "establishment" worldview, and that that "establishment" won't be intolerant of those of non-establishment worldviews. (@Reformed Covenanter there he goes again.)
Please explain to me how "Reduced deaths, wars, and persecution due to intolerance of non establishment denominations" isn't assuming these.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Please explain to me how "Reduced deaths, wars, and persecution due to intolerance of non establishment denominations" isn't assuming these.

My guess is--and this isn't my specific argument, so don't hold me to it--is that an established nation would see an exodus of bright thinkers, doctors, etc., who didn't hold to whatever denomination was in charge.

From there I think I can summarize the debate so far:

Those who are holding to an established church today:
a) don't want to be like the establishment types of old, as they would allow other, non-reformed, denominations to practice their religion. So baptists can stay.
b) however, no one has provided a clear outline on what that will look like, which groups can stay, and which must go. Presumably James White can stay but Steven Furtick must go.
c) when pressed, they say, "We'll do better this time around."
 

Henry Hall

Puritan Board Freshman
My guess is--and this isn't my specific argument, so don't hold me to it--is that an established nation would see an exodus of bright thinkers, doctors, etc., who didn't hold to whatever denomination was in charge.
You think *that* is what @jwright82 meant by
How many establishment churches/societies gave women the right to vote? Decreased the general illiteracy rate among the population? Reduced deaths, wars, and persecution due to intolerance of non establishment denominations ?
?!
But you say "don't hold me to it." Please.

@jwright82 : Feel free to enlighten us about the facts surrounding those questions, but I'm more interested in, and will be watching for your answer to my questions about whether it would be possible for a state to be neutral, not to have an "established" worldview, and not be intolerant of those who don't hold that worldview.
Whether, in rejecting that "all wisdom and knowledge are deposited in [Christ] (Col 2.3)," that rejection itself has any consequence about a resulting worldview, law, and law enforcement.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
What? You have crossed up some references above with mine and you still haven't answered my questions. It has all been bad in your estimation. You have eliminated the fact of persecutions under the Monarch's of pagan Nations, the Catholic Church, and subservient warriors who made a place for themselves. Plus you have not dealt honestly with my last questions of what you recommend or would recommend in light of God's commandments. I have been honest and tried to accommodate your hypothesis. Even when it discussed our recent situation and our Constitution.
Ok I would not recommend it for our time and our place. Abortion and other evils we commit are bad, value wise. Religious wars, sometimes bad sometimes good, value judgements. Sometimes religious wars and our religious freedom necessary outworkings of history. Unnecessary religious wars and persecution, regardless of who's doing it bad (we are the pure religion). Sometimes religious freedom necessary to avoid greater evil by whatever religion you think is right, the past is the reason we are where are.
I wouldn't recommend it because even if right would lead to unnecessary violance and persecution and be bad, I thought I've been very clear on that one. does that answer your question?
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
I am Norse. I know how bad we have been and how opposed to other Nations we have been to those we have plundered. I am mostly Swede with a lot of German and Dutch in my blood. I think Luther's Germany did a pretty bang up job for centuries. But the Radical Two K situation came along in history again. It isn't a new Problem. It has always existed. A violation of the first tablet and the Church's turning its head away gives way to a civil irresponsibility. It happened in Israel also.
And unnecessary violence and persecution by established societies are not right simply because we represent the true religion.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
Please explain why this matters. I think I know what you're trying to say, but I would appreciate some clarity.
Ok, we would all agree these were good things. Women voting did not happen under establishment, literacy may have happened but not to the level we see today. Both happened under our democratic, liberal society.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
I was about to ask @jwright82 something about "Reduced deaths, wars, and persecution due to intolerance of non establishment denominations?"
@jwright82: You seem to be under the impression that neutrality is possible, that when Christians aren't able to establish the state as a Christian state, that there is a vaccuum in which there is no "establishment" worldview, and that that "establishment" won't be intolerant of those of non-establishment worldviews. (@Reformed Covenanter there he goes again.)
Please explain to me how "Reduced deaths, wars, and persecution due to intolerance of non establishment denominations" isn't assuming these.
I've never said neutrality, anyone who's paid attention to other threads I've started defending Van Til would know how I think about neutrality. If you mean spiritual neutrality, I must say I'm confused on that one. Saying that people get along under our current society does not imply a belief in religious neutrality.
 

Henry Hall

Puritan Board Freshman
Calm down. I'm simply trying to understand what he said. When I said "don't hold me to it," that meant, as any charitable reader would know, that I could be wrong since I can't read James's mind.
Apparently, you didn't even read his quote in context.
 

Henry Hall

Puritan Board Freshman
I've never said neutrality, anyone who's paid attention to other threads I've started defending Van Til would know how I think about neutrality. If you mean spiritual neutrality, I must say I'm confused on that one. Saying that people get along under our current society does not imply a belief in religious neutrality.
I have paid attention. I've been meaning to address that. You seem to have an "Old Escondido" profile: NL2K + Van Tilian presupp. They don't hold together, which is why Escondido is abandoning Van Til.

In context, it should be clear what kind of neutrality I meant. I was talking about neutrality with respect to an establishment worldview in the civil sphere. Again,
"whether it would be possible for a state ... not to have an "established" worldview, and not be intolerant of those who don't hold that worldview.
Whether, in rejecting that "all wisdom and knowledge are deposited in [Christ] (Col 2.3)," that rejection itself has any consequence about a resulting worldview, law, and law enforcement."
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
. If you mean spiritual neutrality, I must say I'm confused on that one. Saying that people get along under our current society does not imply a belief in religious neutrality.

Neutrality doesn't mean the same thing as "common." While I reject Kuyperian common grace (at least how it is framed), I do recognize that we can live in a common arena and seek the good of the City.

No one here, as you note, is claiming spiritual neutrality. That's a red herring.
 

Henry Hall

Puritan Board Freshman
Neutrality doesn't mean the same thing as "common." While I reject Kuyperian common grace (at least how it is framed), I do recognize that we can live in a common arena and seek the good of the City.

No one here, as you note, is claiming spiritual neutrality. That's a red herring.
Right. That's a red herring on your part @jwright82 , to talk about spiritual neutrality, when in context, it should be clear what kind of neutrality I meant. I was talking about neutrality with respect to an establishment worldview in the civil sphere. Again,
"whether it would be possible for a state ... not to have an "established" worldview, and not be intolerant of those who don't hold that worldview.
Whether, in rejecting that "all wisdom and knowledge are deposited in [Christ] (Col 2.3)," that rejection itself has any consequence about a resulting worldview, law, and law enforcement."
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
I have paid attention. I've been meaning to address that. You seem to have an "Old Escondido" profile: NL2K + Van Tilian presupp. They don't hold together, which is why Escondido is abandoning Van Til.

In context, it should be clear what kind of neutrality I meant. I was talking about neutrality with respect to an establishment worldview in the civil sphere. Again,
"whether it would be possible for a state ... not to have an "established" worldview, and not be intolerant of those who don't hold that worldview.
Whether, in rejecting that "all wisdom and knowledge are deposited in [Christ] (Col 2.3)," that rejection itself has any consequence about a resulting worldview, law, and law enforcement."
Fair enough. Neutral space does not imply neutrality either epistemologicaly or spiritually. I think you mean to say that there is a dominant worldview that is antithetical to Christian worldviews, and there is. But a neutral space is not epistemological nor spiritual.
Right. That's a red herring on your part @jwright82 , to talk about spiritual neutrality, when in context, it should be clear what kind of neutrality I meant. I was talking about neutrality with respect to an establishment worldview in the civil sphere. Again,
"whether it would be possible for a state ... not to have an "established" worldview, and not be intolerant of those who don't hold that worldview.
Whether, in rejecting that "all wisdom and knowledge are deposited in [Christ] (Col 2.3)," that rejection itself has any consequence about a resulting worldview, law, and law enforcement."
It's a red herring if I accused you of it, I phrased it more as a question "if". But I can see how with no ?, it is confusing. I was trying to figure out what you mean by neutrality? I agree no neutrality with regards to worldview but we do live in a neutral space. That's my point.
 

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Junior
According to Nick Rockefeller, granting women’s liberation was part of big government secular agenda. As for voting, lots of low IQ voters across the board
Betty Friedan: The Three Waves of Feminism
http://www.ohiohumanities.org/betty-friedan-the-three-waves-of-feminism/
Ok, we would all agree these were good things. Women voting did not happen under establishment, literacy may have happened but not to the level we see today. Both happened under our democratic, liberal society.
 

Tom Hart

Puritan Board Senior
Ok, we would all agree these were good things. Women voting did not happen under establishment, literacy may have happened but not to the level we see today. Both happened under our democratic, liberal society.
It's the Sabbath day, here, so I won't be participating. I'll just leave you with this.

Among other criticisms I could offer, your understanding of history is woefully simplistic.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
It's the Sabbath day, here, so I won't be participating. I'll just leave you with this.

Among other criticisms I could offer, your understanding of history is woefully simplistic.
I'd prefer realistic. But ok enjoy the Lord's day.
 

Tom Hart

Puritan Board Senior
I'd prefer realistic.
Not at all.

Your comment about women's suffrage is not a red herring. It's an neon-orange tuna bedecked with purple spots.

Do you want know why no one thought to give women the vote in 17th-century Scotland? Because no one at all could vote. We are talking about European monarchies and aristocracies. There was practically no democracy at all, there was almost nothing approaching what we in our day would understand as the democratic process.

And that is just the problem. You are imposing modern thinking on people and places hundreds of years removed from our own time. It is a common enough error, but surely we ought to do better.

I of course do not discourage lively discussion of the Establishment Principle, but perhaps you should stay away from the historical side of the subject until you have a firmer grasp of 16th- and 17th-century European religion and politics.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
Not at all.

Your comment about women's suffrage is not a red herring. It's an neon-orange tuna bedecked with purple spots.

Do you want know why no one thought to give women the vote in 17th-century Scotland? Because no one at all could vote. We are talking about European monarchies and aristocracies. There was practically no democracy at all, there was almost nothing approaching what we in our day would understand as the democratic process.

And that is just the problem. You are imposing modern thinking on people and places hundreds of years removed from our own time. It is a common enough error, but surely we ought to do better.

I of course do not discourage lively discussion of the Establishment Principle, but perhaps you should stay away from the historical side of the subject until you have a firmer grasp of 16th- and 17th-century European religion and politics.
With all do respect, I don't think you have been paying attention. From the beginning people wanted me to get involved in value judgements about, which I think are a waste of time in this discussion, historical settings. I wouldn't do it. People wanted me to say either "reformation times bad, modern times good" or "modern times bad, reformation times good". I wouldn't do that, for this reason. They would be waiting with examples, my "throwing stones analogy", of why either one was really good or bad. Thats not helpful.
The question has always been: in our time and place how would one impose the first table of the law without disenfranchising anyone? Outside of minimal plans and miracles from God not really any detailed specific practical plans to avoid that were given.
But since people wanted value judgements about historical settings I gave value judgements. I'm glad you agree with me about complexity. If people want simple value judgements than pointing out wars and no women having the right to vote are simple value judgements. If the past, as you rightly point out, is too complex to make simple value judgements about than so is the present. You can't have it both ways.
 

Tom Hart

Puritan Board Senior
With all do respect, I don't think you have been paying attention. From the beginning people wanted me to get involved in value judgements about, which I think are a waste of time in this discussion, historical settings. I wouldn't do it. People wanted me to say either "reformation times bad, modern times good" or "modern times bad, reformation times good". I wouldn't do that, for this reason. They would be waiting with examples, my "throwing stones analogy", of why either one was really good or bad. Thats not helpful.
The question has always been: in our time and place how would one impose the first table of the law without disenfranchising anyone? Outside of minimal plans and miracles from God not really any detailed specific practical plans to avoid that were given.
But since people wanted value judgements about historical settings I gave value judgements. I'm glad you agree with me about complexity. If people want simple value judgements than pointing out wars and no women having the right to vote are simple value judgements. If the past, as you rightly point out, is too complex to make simple value judgements about than so is the present. You can't have it both ways.
This reply indicates that you have not really understood what I have written. I will withdraw as I have nothing more to add to the discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top