Problems with klineanism?

Status
Not open for further replies.

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
The first table is obviously not in his list of Natural Law. That is why I asked Dr. Guy Richard's how Samuel Rutherford defined moral law. That is where the Radical Two Kingdom starts to divert from our heritage.

"The fact is the civil kingdom has been ordained by God as a common realm, a realm for all people of whatever religious conviction in which to live and pursue their cultural tasks, while natural law is God's common moral revelation given to all people of whatever religious conviction." A Biblical case for Natural Law p.38
David Van Drunen

I certainly disagree with him on common grace. But unless you are going to start killing Buddhists, then we are going to end up with something like natural law if we want some sort of transcendent authority in the civil realm.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
The first table is obviously not in his list of Natural Law. That is why I asked Dr. Guy Richard's how Samuel Rutherford defined moral law. That is where the Radical Two Kingdom starts to divert from our heritage.

"The fact is the civil kingdom has been ordained by God as a common realm, a realm for all people of whatever religious conviction in which to live and pursue their cultural tasks, while natural law is God's common moral revelation given to all people of whatever religious conviction." A Biblical case for Natural Law p.38
David Van Drunen
So are you saying that the first table of the law should be the law of the land?
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
I certainly disagree with him on common grace. But unless you are going to start killing Buddhists, then we are going to end up with something like natural law if we want some sort of transcendent authority in the civil realm.
That is one of the practical problems I was reffering to.
 

Henry Hall

Puritan Board Freshman
I think you assume natural law cannot answer that question, if I'm wrong please correct me? Most nations laws have laws against bestiality. Not many, if any are Christian nations. So it would appear that being a distinctly Christian nation has nothing to do with a society recognizing the evil in that act.
And what is the penalty (still an ethical issue) which should be applied according to this perspicuous-to-all-natural-law, as it were?
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
And what is the penalty (still an ethical issue) which should be applied according to this perspicuous-to-all-natural-law, as it were?
The various states have worked, I believe starting with English common law (though don't quote me there), various penalties for such crimes. If you think the death penalty is more appropriate than by all means petition your local government to adopt that. But consult a lawyer first they will know far better than I ever could why it is that way. In fact they should be able to explain the complexity of our legal system better than me to answer the why question.
I suspect that many don't ever ask the question of why should we change something given the complexity of our legal system? I'm no lawyer so take what I say with a grain of salt.
But let's assume you're successful and it becomes the law of your city or county. Because the accused has legal rights they can appeal on the grounds of "cruel and unusual punishment" this is a basic right of all Americans. The case than moves into appeals court where they will look at case law to determine if this is cruel and unusual. Cruel I don't think so, that's a really sick thing to do, but it is unusual (most penalties under our adopted common law wouldn't require such a punishment). Also I believe the law recognizes that to do something to a human does not carry the same weight as to an animal, or property for that matter. I can beat my table to splinters and no one can do anything because it's my table. An animal is viewed as property but also a living thing making it in a different category than my table. But it's not a human. So crimes against humans are in yet a higher category than animals making penalties even more severe.
In another thread I started, but can't remember where, I proposed an inductive method to analyzing natural law. This legal process is case and point what I meant. The courts inductivlly look at case law and precedent and determine the appropriate penalty (The goal is also to have a case that will be upheld in appeals court).
As a realistic natural law guy I start where I'm at (my country, there laws and proccess) and move out from there. So someone is entitled to believe that certian commandments ought to be illegal under our laws, I always ask how do you get there from here? Can you tweek our existing structure or is wholesale overturning the only way? And is that really the moral thing to do given how much human life might be killed?
 
Last edited:

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
And what is the penalty (still an ethical issue) which should be applied according to this perspicuous-to-all-natural-law, as it were?

I'm certain almost every natural law theorist would have said death. I think you are still operating on the assumption that natural law = grace above nature, as in late Roman Catholicism. But this is not necessarily the case.

Natural law's versatility, as opposed to just copying and pasting the Torah, is that it can address things like international law, piracy, Trump's Space Force, etc. It's equity. It can use the wisdom in the OT but it can also apply it.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
My first problem with this revamped Natural Law theory is that there is no basis for the second table if the first table is eliminated. The Natural Law theory these guys have defined lacks a solid foundation. The new foundation is sand since it is being defined by men and not God. Therefore we are finding ourselves headed in the direction of what we have heard about Canada. The very fabric of a good Society is being eroded and even our gender discussions have turned into mass confusion. Law turns into something ambiguous and the definitions become radically changed.

We do have a defined Confessional understanding about Law and civil government. That understanding is quickly being ignored because of the downgrade and removal of the first table. The second table is being removed bit by bit now. It is so sad.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
My first problem with this revamped Natural Law theory is that there is no basis for the second table if the first table is eliminated. The Natural Law theory these guys have defined lacks a solid foundation. The new foundation is sand since it is being defined by men and not God. Therefore we are finding ourselves headed in the direction of what we have heard about Canada. The very fabric of a good Society is being eroded and even our gender discussions have turned into mass confusion. Law turns into something ambiguous and the definitions become radically changed.

We do have a defined Confessional understanding about Law and civil government. That understanding is quickly being ignored because of the downgrade and removal of the first table. The second table is being removed bit by bit now. It is so sad.
I certainly agree with with broad moral decay we are witnessing. But my question still stands, how would we in America given our current legal situation (constitution, Bill of rights, case laws, and court rulings) institute the first table of law practically speaking? Under our current legal situation that is impossible.
I do appreciate your fondness for the law of God, I too am fond of the law of God. But I see no way to institute the first table of the law in our country without some kind of postmillianalism being true (I'm amil). Or mass revolution that will only end the way every other coup has ended in tyranny and bloodshed.
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
Get rid of the Constitution and bill of rights, case laws, court rulings, repent of them and turn to Jesus Christ since He is King. Then enact godly laws according to the principles of Scripture.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
There must first be a recognition of the two tablets. That would be the first thing to do. Repent of the attack on the two tablets. I am sure you are familiar with how the ACLU and other organizations have made some strong attacks on the posting of the Ten Commandments. We were a Nation that did acknowledge them at one time. The light of those tables is still there even though it has grown dim and hidden behind the clouds as Rutherford says. That is a good first step.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Get rid of the Constitution and bill of rights, case laws, court rulings, repent of them and turn to Jesus Christ since He is King. Then enact godly laws according to the principles of Scripture.
Except that God permits nations other than ancient Isreal to givern themselves apart from what you are suggesting, as we are now under the NC era.
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
Except that God permits nations other than ancient Isreal to givern themselves apart from what you are suggesting, as we are now under the NC era.

False. All nations/rulers must submit to Christ who is King of kings lest they perish in the way (Ps. 2). We are not dispensationalists.

Further, I am not suggesting America be Israel, nor am I stating that America has to be exactly like Israel nor enact laws that were only for Israel.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
Get rid of the Constitution and bill of rights, case laws, court rulings, repent of them and turn to Jesus Christ since He is King. Then enact godly laws according to the principles of Scripture.
I appreciate your honesty. So you would advocate massive bloodshed that would result in losing, being tried convicted and executed (along with any conspirators? Set our religion back in the public eye and leave our country open to attack? There is the concept of necessary evil.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
I appreciate your honesty. So you would advocate massive bloodshed that would result in losing, being tried convicted and executed (along with any conspirators? Set our religion back in the public eye and leave our country open to attack? There is the concept of necessary evil.

The only way to get around that is to posit a nearby-postmillennialism that will make killing Buddhists a moot point.
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
I appreciate your honesty. So you would advocate massive bloodshed that would result in losing, being tried convicted and executed (along with any conspirators? Set our religion back in the public eye and leave our country open to attack? There is the concept of necessary evil.

1) Do you believe that is the only way that what I said could happen? Or are there other possible ways what I said could happen?

2) What does God say about such things? What does He say about who is King of kings? What does He say about who Rulers, Judges, etc. ought to be? What does He say about how a nation reforms? What does He say about where that reform starts?
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
1) Do you believe that is the only way that what I said could happen? Or are there other possible ways what I said could happen?

2) What does God say about such things? What does He say about who is King of kings? What does He say about who Rulers, Judges, etc. ought to be? What does He say about how a nation reforms? What does He say about where that reform starts?
What does he say about genocide? I posted the postmill option. There is no other option legally. You said it yourself get rid of all our laws and start over. How else could you do it.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
There must first be a recognition of the two tablets. That would be the first thing to do. Repent of the attack on the two tablets. I am sure you are familiar with how the ACLU and other organizations have made some strong attacks on the posting of the Ten Commandments. We were a Nation that did acknowledge them at one time. The light of those tables is still there even though it has grown dim and hidden behind the clouds as Rutherford says. That is a good first step.
I like your plan more.
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
What does he say about genocide? I posted the postmill option. There is no other option legally. You said it yourself get rid of all our laws and start over. How else could you do it.

I'm failing to see where you get genocide from? I didn't state anything about that unless you mean the reference to Psalm 2. If that's what you are referring to, Psalm 2 clearly shows that the Lord will cause them (nations/rulers) to perish. They will at some point come to nothing, and be judged eternally.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
I'm failing to see where you get genocide from? I didn't state anything about that unless you mean the reference to Psalm 2. If that's what you are referring to, Psalm 2 clearly shows that the Lord will cause them (nations/rulers) to perish. They will at some point come to nothing, and be judged eternally.
No it is logical. Since you admited implicitly that the only way to get what you want is to get rid of our legal system and replace it. How? Randy did give a third option but before that the only two options I saw was either postmillianalism or some overthow our government that would result in genocide because most people wouldn't go along with it.
Randy's option is much more preferable. My only question is who would decide the law? The theonomist couldn't even handle a denomination. And Christians have had a wonderful track record of getting along with eachother.
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
the only way to get what you want

It's not what I want, but what God wants and will do.

And the logical deduction according to man may be genocide, but that's not what Scripture declares. So I could care less about what man's reasoning is for something to be able to happen. If God says it should be a certain way and it will be a certain way, and will come about it, it will. Thankfully, he also shows in Scripture clearly how it will come about. A postmillennial or historicist (not premillennial) view would be in line with what this line of thinking. A reformed presbyterian (Covenanter) way of thinking would say exactly what I said in post #130, and that absolutely does not require genocide to take place. It requires repentance and faith and submission to Jesus Christ.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
False. All nations/rulers must submit to Christ who is King of kings lest they perish in the way (Ps. 2). We are not dispensationalists.

Further, I am not suggesting America be Israel, nor am I stating that America has to be exactly like Israel nor enact laws that were only for Israel.
The nations will be fully obeying Jesus after He returns, but God allows them to be e governed as they see fit until that time.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
It's not what I want, but what God wants and will do.

And the logical deduction according to man may be genocide, but that's not what Scripture declares. So I could care less about what man's reasoning is for something to be able to happen. If God says it should be a certain way and it will be a certain way, and will come about it, it will. Thankfully, he also shows in Scripture clearly how it will come about. A postmillennial or historicist (not premillennial) view would be in line with what this line of thinking. A reformed presbyterian (Covenanter) way of thinking would say exactly what I said in post #130, and that absolutely does not require genocide to take place. It requires repentance and faith and submission to Jesus Christ.
The culture shall though not be turned To God way in full until Kingdom comes, either pre or post mil version!
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
We have strayed from the OP. We ended up discussing R2K again and now we are seeking the repair of it. Our Confessions have solid statements concerning Civil Government and it's responsibilities. Let's remember that.

Let's get back to comments related to Kliniansims or just let this thread fall into the archives.
 

arapahoepark

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
We have strayed from the OP. We ended up discussing R2K again and now we are seeking the repair of it. Our Confessions have solid statements concerning Civil Government and it's responsibilities. Let's remember that.

Let's get back to comments related to Kliniansims or just let this thread fall into the archives.
I asked about r2k because it seemed to be tied into Klineanism.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
I asked about r2k because it seemed to be tied into Klineanism.
I have no problem speaking about R2K as a result of Klinianism. The topic was straying a bit farther into other things like Postmil or Amil or how do we politically solve the nations problems with law.... I believe R2K is one of the many problems. I actually believe R2K takes us out of Confessional heritage. It is related to Klinianism. As noted earlier in this thread Intrusion Ethics has removed the observance of the creation ordinance of a Sabbath for non-covenanted people. Note what Susan said.
It’s clear that by maintaining that the Sabbath was meant only for a theocratic people and not for non-covenantal people he is at odds with the Confession.

I believe R2K denies responsibility to the first tablet of the Law by the civil Kingdom when everyone is responsible for adherence to the Moral Law of God put forth in the Two Tables.
 
Last edited:

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
One problem I have with Klineanism is from "The Structure of Biblical Authority". His ideas make sense, may not be right but make sense, when applied to the OT but in the section on the NT when he applies the same ideas it really seems like he's stretching it a bit. anyone else get that impression?
 

Henry Hall

Puritan Board Freshman
I'm certain almost every natural law theorist would have said death. I think you are still operating on the assumption that natural law = grace above nature, as in late Roman Catholicism. But this is not necessarily the case.

Natural law's versatility, as opposed to just copying and pasting the Torah, is that it can address things like international law, piracy, Trump's Space Force, etc. It's equity. It can use the wisdom in the OT but it can also apply it.
Evidently, my reply which referred to Escondido, was way off the topic of "Problems with Klineanism," and was deleted by mods.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top