Might not be a theonomist much longer...

Status
Not open for further replies.

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
I am listening to Jim Jordan's theocratic critique of theonomy. I am becoming convinced of Jordan's position.

That being said, some things are still the same:

Pluralism is a logical and biblical joke. It cannot, by definition, be defended.

I love Greg Bahnsen. He is the most powerful communicator and teacher I have ever listened to. I am literally in tears at times listening to his lectures.

None of Bahnsen's critics ever answered him. Bahnsen/North/Gentry won the theonomy debate 4-0.
 

turmeric

Megerator
That wasn't you that said "antinomian rubbish", sorry! Obviously if someone is actually trying to assault you...fire away!


oops, wrong thread!

[Edited on 10-7-2005 by turmeric]
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
Define the theocratic position. I myself take the Westminsterian/ Gillespian approach to the Law, practically I think this view is 99% in agreement with Theonomy.
 

Canadian _Shawn

Puritan Board Freshman
Yah, I would also like to know what you mean by theonomy, and how that would be different from Jordan's position.

Cheers,
Shawn
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
I can only do it in short for the moment (and I do not fully agree with some of Jordan's distinctions, either).

I define the theocratic position (and this is a broad definition that I hope can inlcude Covenanters, theonomists, and whatever Jordan is) as seeking the Reign of Christ within space-time. Practically speaking, the state should be a Christocracy (not an ecclesiocracy, though). I respect a proper-separation of church and state, although not the modern one which has gutted the American church and prevented the stopping of slaughtering babies.

I believe, as with theonomists, that God's word should be the guiding principle to law, poltiics, education, economics, etc. I do not believe that "right reason" or "common grace" should be the standard for law and society.

I disagree (or am starting to question) the theonomic approach to case laws in the OT. Casuistry is valid, to be sure, and inevitable to a degree. As a theonomist, I have always been uncomfortable with their neat (although admittedly not easy) categorizations of case law [in other words, I don't think some laws they call case laws are case laws]. (LOL, I already know the theonomic rebuttal and will address that later).

Critics have always accused theonomists of not taking-redemptive history seriously. Unfortunate for them, they never could define which aspects of RH that theonomists erred on. And of course, if they could define it then by what standard is it valid and what viable alternative drawn from the bible do they propose? No answer.

Jim Jordan has come close to giving an answer. I will try to flesh this out over the next week.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Much as I am not a theonomist, I would not take advice on just about anything theological from Jordan. He is an unreliable teacher, as well as one who presided over one of the worst incidents of abuse of church power in the 20th century.

He was and continues to be dangerous.
 

Poimen

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Originally posted by Draught Horse
I am listening to Jim Jordan's theocratic critique of theonomy. I am becoming convinced of Jordan's position.

That being said, some things are still the same:

Pluralism is a logical and biblical joke. It cannot, by definition, be defended.

I love Greg Bahnsen. He is the most powerful communicator and teacher I have ever listened to. I am literally in tears at times listening to his lectures.

None of Bahnsen's critics ever answered him. Bahnsen/North/Gentry won the theonomy debate 4-0.

You will answer for this Jacob or my name isn't poimen!

:)
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Much as I am not a theonomist, I would not take advice on just about anything theological from Jordan. He is an unreliable teacher, as well as one who presided over one of the worst incidents of abuse of church power in the 20th century.

He was and continues to be dangerous.


That's why I separate the person from the idea.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Much as I am not a theonomist, I would not take advice on just about anything theological from Jordan. He is an unreliable teacher, as well as one who presided over one of the worst incidents of abuse of church power in the 20th century.

He was and continues to be dangerous.


That's why I separate the person from the idea.

You can't do that. You could do that if it was a moral issue, but this is a theological issue. If someone is known for theological aberration, he is not trustworthy.

It is highly dangerous to think that one can sift out wheat from a bushel of chaff - especially if the one doing the sifting is not incredibly well versed in wheat yet.

After reading and digesting Calvin a dozen or so times, along with all the other giants, then maybe you should waste some time on Jordan. Reading him is asking for trouble.
 

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Jacob:

Forgive me please, but because I haven't had my mind of this topic for a while I'm not following this. I mean, is the bottom line of your view on righteous government based on a rejection of the civil status quo? Or is this an enquiry into what God means by lawful government, not biased even by your own presuppositions? Are you reading Jordan and other non- or anti-theonomists to get a more objective understanding, by working out the pros and cons yourself?
 

wsw201

Puritan Board Senior
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Much as I am not a theonomist, I would not take advice on just about anything theological from Jordan. He is an unreliable teacher, as well as one who presided over one of the worst incidents of abuse of church power in the 20th century.

He was and continues to be dangerous.


That's why I separate the person from the idea.

You can't do that. You could do that if it was a moral issue, but this is a theological issue. If someone is known for theological aberration, he is not trustworthy.

It is highly dangerous to think that one can sift out wheat from a bushel of chaff - especially if the one doing the sifting is not incredibly well versed in wheat yet.

After reading and digesting Calvin a dozen or so times, along with all the other giants, then maybe you should waste some time on Jordan. Reading him is asking for trouble.

:ditto:
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
How is James Jordan theologically corrupt ? ?

If it is a red herring then send me an email Fred.
I do not want to be contentious or start an argument.
Just curious for my own reasons.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Originally posted by JohnV
Jacob:

Forgive me please, but because I haven't had my mind of this topic for a while I'm not following this. I mean, is the bottom line of your view on righteous government based on a rejection of the civil status quo?

I don't understand what you mean. I don't seek to reject the status quo if by that you mean anarchy and forced theonomic imposition upon an unwilling society. Rather, I see it as Reformers we ought to Reform the Chruch by the Word and Spirit of God and pray for his outpouring on our country, then we talk righteous government.

But to the extent that a status quo sanctions the slaughter of children, tolerates (and promots) Sodomy, robs the poor and taxes teh church, then I am against it with all my heart and strentgh. In that case I have as much interest in preserving the status quo as I do opium dens.

Or is this an enquiry into what God means by lawful government, not biased even by your own presuppositions? Are you reading Jordan and other non- or anti-theonomists to get a more objective understanding, by working out the pros and cons yourself?

That;s more to the point. Jordan is following a lot of what Vern Poythress (ie, established Reformed Theologian) has done on Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses. Bahnsen even said taht this book--sort of a response to theonomy--was a good read except for one fatal categorical error: Poythress said that BOTH Kline AND Bahnsen were essentially correct. However, that is introducing a contradiction into one's argument. When that happens I can then by disjunction and addition make the argument say whatever I want it to say.

Poythress's book was good, though.
 

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Much as I am not a theonomist, I would not take advice on just about anything theological from Jordan. He is an unreliable teacher, as well as one who presided over one of the worst incidents of abuse of church power in the 20th century.

He was and continues to be dangerous.


That's why I separate the person from the idea.

You can't do that. You could do that if it was a moral issue, but this is a theological issue. If someone is known for theological aberration, he is not trustworthy.

It is highly dangerous to think that one can sift out wheat from a bushel of chaff - especially if the one doing the sifting is not incredibly well versed in wheat yet.

After reading and digesting Calvin a dozen or so times, along with all the other giants, then maybe you should waste some time on Jordan. Reading him is asking for trouble.

I don't understand this either, Fred. I would think that you can't not separate the man from the issue, if you're a responsible student.

But wait, as I think about it now, I see what you mean. You're actually saying the same thing, trying to warn Jacob of the things that are hidden that have the appearance of objectivity.

Jacob, it is maturity and time-invested wisdom that allows you to separate the man from the issue. You have to do that, and it is commendable that you attempt it, as we all should. If you can do that with Jordan, then you can do that with Bahnsen too. And I think that reading Calvin is an excellent way of gaining that understanding to do that.

For example, if we put our Calvin against the Catholic Calvin, namely Aquinas, what do you see as the difference? Wasn't Aquinas more a philosopher, relying not solely upon the irrefutable witness of Scripture, but also upon the teachings of man? Calvin, though, was theologian through and through, submitting in every way to the precepts of Scripture. That is what marvels us, not the man himself, or his acumen. He is not our philosopher, but Christ's servant: that is how we respect him. Anything less or more than that makes for hyper-Calvinism.

Is this what you meant, Fred?
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
I have read through Calvin once and am reading through him again (halfway through). This is a practice I plan to continue for the rest of my life.

Yes, I believe I can separate the man from the issue. Jordan is drawing off Vern Poythress on teh Mosaic law. To make people feel better I will just say that I am following Poythress on this one.
 

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I don't understand what you mean. I don't seek to reject the status quo if by that you mean anarchy and forced theonomic imposition upon an unwilling society. Rather, I see it as Reformers we ought to Reform the Chruch by the Word and Spirit of God and pray for his outpouring on our country, then we talk righteous government.

But to the extent that a status quo sanctions the slaughter of children, tolerates (and promots) Sodomy, robs the poor and taxes the church, then I am against it with all my heart and strentgh. In that case I have as much interest in preserving the status quo as I do opium dens.

Yes, I do too. I was just asking if you are also subjecting your own arguments and views too. I believe in democratic government, but democracy without a solid godly base is conceited and deceptive.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Fred,
Not sure about presiding, but Jordan is certainly one of the few left who defends the ARC Tyler excommunications.

Otherwise, :ditto: to your advice.

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Much as I am not a theonomist, I would not take advice on just about anything theological from Jordan. He is an unreliable teacher, as well as one who presided over one of the worst incidents of abuse of church power in the 20th century.
 

crhoades

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Yes, I believe I can separate the man from the issue. Jordan is drawing off Vern Poythress on the Mosaic law. To make people feel better I will just say that I am following Poythress on this one.

people will have beef with Poythress's multi-perspectivalism /symphonic theology (actually Bahnsen didn't appreciate his hermeneutic either).

I have listened to the lectures that Jacob is alluding to and in fact even asked him to listen to them to help me sift. I will say that they have done more to challenge me on changing my views on theonomy than anything else I've read or heard. I'm still processing as well. Like JohnV said, I am trying to listen/read to all sides of the issue and want to come out with a Biblical view. Jordan's critique is not going off in a wacko direction. You can tell he has an axe to grind in the lectures.

I hope to relisten to them and jot down the actual arguments and then try to work through them myself, with Jacob, and if it would be alright with the moderators, post them here as well to get everyone's input as well. I think theology is done better in the context of community - which has been a great advantage of my time here on the board. I walk away ever challenged.

[Edited on 10-7-2005 by crhoades]
 

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
And, Jacob, as I recall you have read the City of God.

Maybe one piece of advice. I don't mean to knock the McNeill edition of the Institutes, but try to read through an edition without all the notations and footnotes; just the plain text itself. With a book like this, one reading is hardly enough; and the McNeill edition gives you a four year course in the Institutes in one edition, in two volumes. This is way too much to grasp in one reading. And it can deflect away from getting the arguments Calvin poses.
 

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Hey, I'm not trying to talk you out of not being a theonomist anymore. I'm in favour of that. :bigsmile:
 

AdamM

Puritan Board Freshman
Much as I am not a theonomist, I would not take advice on just about anything theological from Jordan. He is an unreliable teacher, as well as one who presided over one of the worst incidents of abuse of church power in the 20th century.

He was and continues to be dangerous.

Great point Fred.

I found reading David Chilton's first hand account of the goings on at the church in Tyler to be shocking. Finding that the man behind those horrendous abuses is being treated in some quarters as serious resource for Biblical truth is unfathomable to me.

[Edited on 10-7-2005 by AdamM]
 

Myshkin

Puritan Board Freshman
Could someone u2u me in private to explain what this Tyler church situation is all about. Thanks.
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
In my opinion, the reason anyone would adopt the Federal Vision idea of a two-stage idea of childhood to maturity where the end of maturity is eternal life for Adam is simply because they do not understand the Biblical doctrine of supralapsarianism.

The sole reason why the two stage idea of Adam entails the dismissal of the COW, is because it rejects the fact that God created Adam TO FALL. The "Lamb slain before the foundation of the world" implies that pactum salutus was antecedent to creation, not vice versa.

Am I totally whacked here ? ?

[Edited on 10-7-2005 by Saiph]
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by RAS
Could someone u2u me in private to explain what this Tyler church situation is all about. Thanks.

:ditto:


I would like to know, too. I don't have any idea what the Tyler church situation was, either.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Saiph
In my opinion, the reason anyone would adopt the Federal Vision idea of a two-stage idea of childhood to maturity where the end of maturity is eternal life for Adam is simply because they do not understand the Biblical doctrine of supralapsarianism.

The sole reason why the two stage idea of Adam entails the dismissal of the COW, is because it rejects the fact that God created Adam TO FALL. The "Lamb slain before the foundation of the world" implies that creation was the means to the pactum salutus, not the cause.

Am I totally whacked here ? ?

Mark,

I think your comment is interesting, but does not inexorably follow. For instance, the overwhelming majority of FV critics were/are infralapsarian.

At its heart is I think a misunderstanding about the nature of grace - and whether it can exist in the absence of sin and demerit.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by RAS
Could someone u2u me in private to explain what this Tyler church situation is all about. Thanks.

:ditto:


I would like to know, too. I don't have any idea what the Tyler church situation was, either.

You can start with the most relevant information here:

http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/tyler.htm

http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/tyler_update.htm


Here are also a few articles that deal with Jordan's odd views on worship, and how they contributed to the ecclesiastical situation:
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/theses.htm

http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/nestor.htm

[Edited on 10/7/2005 by fredtgreco]
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
But that is my point. Infralapsarianism fails to make the fall ordained by God. Did God want Adam to obey and live ? ?

Supralapsarianism does not allow that. God's ultimate desire is for His own glory, and that by redeeming humanity from sin. Christ was sacrificed before the foundation of the world, therefore a world had to be created that would need that sacrifice.

I am not saying God caused Adam to sin. He created Satan to entice the free man Adam to sin.

God's telos was good, even though He used necessary evil means to accomplish it.

It seems to me, and I might be wrong, that the Infra position makes election and reprobation dependant on the fall of Adam. As if there was a possibility that he might not. Similar to Jordan's idea of maturity.

It makes no sense at all for God to wait for the fall and then formulate a plan of salvation, as an after thought. It also implies that God's thought is in some way discursive, and not immediate. It seems to me that the Supra view is more logically coherent, and in line with the Supreme Sovereignty of God that the Infra one.

[Edited on 10-7-2005 by Saiph]
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
I am not totally convinced by Jordan yet. He has shown that Bahnsen perhaps jumped the gun on a few hermeneutical moves, but he has not yet disproved Bahnsen's view on penalogy.

I also disagree with Jordan on death penalty not applying to rape. I think that Bahnsen et al have the correct view. Jordan starts out well saying seduce (think Modern day back seat of a car--my illustration, not his) is NOT the same as forcible rape. Honestly, if we were to be consistent, then the guy has to marry her (or pay daddy off) as punishment. This fits in well with premarital romancing but not rape.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top