The Sovereignty of God and Civil Law

Status
Not open for further replies.

BayouHuguenot

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).
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
I wish someone would touch on I Corinthians and how Paul applies the law.

This is our clear example of how we should apply the law.



Or, we can follow Jesus' attitude on the law:

In the Gospels, Luke 12, a man approached Jesus wanting His help in a case over a disputed inheritance (i.e. the civil law). Jesus basically says, "That's not my concern..."


Many theonomists, however, see the whole of the Bible through "law lenses." Jesus and the Apostles, however, were concerned with the church and only applied OT laws to inside the church. Death equalled excommunication...that is Paul's example on how to apply general equity.

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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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.

So, would these reformed guys be theonomists? If so, then theonomy has been the reformed position and you have undercut the last 90 posts! If these guys are not theonomists then your argument has no relevance to the position because:

1) Theonomists don't persecute just anyone who disagrees with them.
2) Theonomy doesn't teach what you maintain.

Again, I will say this politely: you need to drop the straw men and actually read up on what theonomists teach. At least I have taken the time (and I am not a theonomist like they are) to see what they actually do say.

Or we can write our own horror stories on what we fear they may say just because that is sensationalism and would likely poison the well in our favor. That's more fun.
 

clstamper

Puritan Board Freshman
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.) Usually, Reformed people were on the receiving end of it all. We had no Inquisition, Star Chamber, Jesuits, or such a thing, The Huguenots asked for toleration and were butchered (or run off to America) by the French. The Dutch Calvinists tolerated Catholics and were eventually overpowered b y them.

2.) Puritan and Covenanter Presbyterians were not theonomists. They wanted an established church. In Scotland, the Free Kirk still does, as do the Reformed Presbyterians outside North America, That's not the same thing. Virtually all theonomists reject church establishments, which has never made sense to me.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
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.."


Again, here is how Paul applies the OT law:


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).
 

clstamper

Puritan Board Freshman
1) Theonomists don't persecute just anyone who disagrees with them.
2) Theonomy doesn't teach what you maintain.

Blasphemy: An indignity offered to God by words or writing; reproachful, contemptuous or irreverent words uttered impiously against Jehovah.

Idolatry: The worship of idols, images, or any thing made by hands, or which is not God. (Webster 1828)

If blasphemy and idolatry were crimes, all sorts of groups would be enemies of the state: Roman Catholics, EOs, Mormons, JWs, televangelists, heavy metal rock bands, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, observant Jews, New Agers, Unitarians, Marxists, Masons, Rosicrucians, most college fraternities, orthodox Darwinists, The Psychic Friends Network, Scientology, D&D players, faith healers, acupuncturists, trekkies, fanboys, you get the idea.
 

clstamper

Puritan Board Freshman
Killing in the name of God is always atrocious. Do you really want me to begin quoting these abuses?

1.) Moses thought the ethnic cleansing of the Canaanites was a good idea. The destruction of Susa the citadel in Esther led to the establishment of Purum. There's also the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, none of which are represented at the United Nations today.

2.) Since the magistrate carries a sword to punish criminals, all capital punishment is "killing in the name of God."

I think you want to say that the church ought to promote universal religious toleration.
 

clstamper

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
I thought you were reading Aquinas? ;)


You fail to deal with Paul here in I Cor. 5. What do you see Paul teaching here?

Yawn. Paul is talking to *the church,* not the state. Theonomy deals with the state, not the church. Therefore what you said does not talk to theonomy.

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.

What exactly do I believe? hmmm...good question. I thought Theonomy a Reformed Critique was a very bad attempt to address Bahnsen, but I do not have cognitive rest on theonomy, so I can't call myself a full theonomist.
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.

You are now equating theonomy with historic presbyterianism. I have no problem with that, but some of your anti-theonomic friends on this board might. :lol:

Killing in the name of God is always atrocious. Do you really want me to begin quoting these abuses?

Being that is not my position, I really don't care if you start quoting or not.

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.."

No, I am not going to do that because you have the obligation to read up on theonomy if you are going to critique it. Anyway, i Have done that on other threads. And my rebutalls stand.


Again, here is how Paul applies the OT law:


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).

Neither me or Bahnsen have any problem with that. And the Frame/Baker quote is dated. Frame's position has been further nuanced.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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.

I know. I remember reading that. I thought it could be reworked. Suffice to say I don't accept socialism. It's hard to say on a message board exactly what I believe. I will say this: I have read everything Bahnsen/Rushdoony/Frame have written. I have read most of what Oliver O'Donovan has written. I have problems with all approaches (the fewest problems with Frame). My ethical position would probably be that of John Frame.
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.

That's a real good point that I might address on another thread.

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.

I have read Rutherford, Calvin, huge amounts of John Knox, Luther. etc.
 

bob

Puritan Board Freshman
When we consider the role that has civil government is to play, namely to punish those that do evil, to what standard should we consider the definition of evil to be derived? Do we agree with the general principle "that righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a reproach to any people"?

If a civil government was to determine that idolatry was sinful and imposed a death sentence upon those that committed the same, would those who are not theonomists oppose such laws? If the civil government were to condemn sodomites to death, would non theonomists consider such a government to be wielding to wide of a sword?

If a christian nation were to exist and the civil rulers would determine that the Mosaic strictures pertaining to the punishment of crimes were a good foundational starting place, should good Christian subjects protest this direction?

Incidentally, I am somewhat unsettled in the area of theonomy. I find much to admire in what Frame has written on this subject.
 

Amazing Grace

Puritan Board Junior
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 yo 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 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
 

Puritan Sailor

Puritan Board Doctor
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.
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.
The ground of infant baptism is not found in the Mosaic adminstration.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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. Anyway, to Matthew 15:

Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother'[a] and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father[c]' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

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

I don't know what you are talking about here, so I will leave that to Daniel.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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.
The ground of infant baptism is not found in the Mosaic adminstration.

But surely it says something about babies and covenant somewhere in there!!

Seriously, I appreciate what you are saying, but you are doing the same thing I am doing: Presuming continuity in the absence of command.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
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.
 

Amazing Grace

Puritan Board Junior
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.

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).
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
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

Nicholas, let me just say that I am not condmening those who honestly admit that they do not know Reformed history, but those who claim to be the standard bearers of Reformed orthodoxy while totally misrepresenting the Reformers and Puritans as teaching that Biblical penal sanctions were part of the ceremonial law and that those who want them upheld today are like the apostates in Hebrews 6 and 10.

1) No. Only God's grace can. The point however is that civil magistrates are required to punish sins against the first-table which constitute crimes.

2) Matt. 15:4. Even if there was not this would still not be conclusive as there is no explicit prohibition against bestiality in the NT.

3) Obviously both. They answer to God for all sin. They should answer to the civil magistrate for crime (Rom. 13). For what it's worth, I do not find Greg Bahnsen's appeal to Rom. 1 particularly convincing either.

:handshake:
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
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.

Chris

With all due respect the context of this comment was in response to an individual who has compared anyone who wishes to apply Biblical penology to the apostates of Hebrews 6 and 10. This is basically calling my Christian profession into question (and that of ministers in good standing in Reformed churches). I would not say that to someone whom I differed with, but such a serious misrepresentation of Reformed history warrants firm reproof. However, I will not respond to Puritan Sailors' latest comment as it would be difficult to do this graciously. Winning arguments does not interest me. Obeying the Law of God does.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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.

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.
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:

Okay.

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.

Right
I see a shred of the Judaizing heresy in theonomic thought.

Aha! The name calling begins! Logic 102: Argument ad hominem, abusive. See above.
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.

I wonder if we can use the same reasoning to do away with all death penalties.

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?
That would be a good point if we were talking about ceremonial laws. I get this type of reasoning from Dispensationalists all the time.

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?

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.

As to the Joseph thing, there are several ways we could look at it. A lot of people use this rebuttal to contradict theonomy. And in the end, perhaps it does. However, I can use the same structure to contradict God's law (and God) in general. Are we pointing to injustices in God's law? Then...well...we don't need to draw the conclusions.


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.

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.

"O foolish Galatians! Who hath bewitched you" (Gal. 3:1).

WCF 19:4
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
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.


Just to clarify, I took extra time to respond after your first warning to ensure I did not say anything over-the-top; therefore, I do not regret any of my measured and accurate remarks. However, the fact that someone can compare his brethren to the apostates in Hebrews 6 and 10, and not be dealt with troubles me greatly. This is an extremely serious accusation as it calls into question the salvation, not only of modern Theonomists, but of all the Reformers, Puritans and early Covenanters who called for any of the Mosaic penalties to be applied today. On this logic even Charles Colson (who only believes that restitution should be reinstituted) is to be categorised with the apostates of Hebrews 6 and 10. In light of the wildness of this accusation, Theonomists have the duty to defend their reputations and highlight the folly of such a view.

Moreover, Puritan Sailor has continually maintained a position which is contrary to the Confessional Standards - namely, that the penal sanctions were part of the ceremonial law - and has compared those who disagree with him with apostates; I fail to see how this is substantially any different to people who come unto discussions about worship and accuse those who adhere to the RPW (the position of the standards) of being Pharisees (in fact I believe it is a whole lot worse). Furthermore, he has accused me of being on the verge of the Federal Vision due to his idiosyncratic interpretation of Hebrews 2:1-3; this is a total slander, yet the moderators do nothing about it. Federal Visionists hate me because of my opposition to their heresies.

While I refuse to answer Puritan Sailor directly until he repents of the disgraceful accusations he has made against me, let me make it clear that I believe Christ bore the eternal wrath of God on behalf of the elect on the cross. However, this does not set aside God's standards of temporal justice in the world, otherwise Paul could not have called the magistrate God's servant who administers God's wrath on the evildoer. Moreover, because Christ has bore God's wrath on behalf of believers, how does this mean that civil rulers are now no longer to punish murderers, rapists, incestuous persons, sodomites etc, etc, in accordance with Biblical law? Christ bore our eternal wrath judicially, but He did not set aside God's standards of temporal justice against those who violate Biblical civil law. If we are to assume that because Christ bore God's wrath on account of the elect, therefore, we cannot apply God's temporal judgments upon those unbelievers who commit crimes, then we must also assume that God will not apply His eternal judgment upon the same people.

Puritan Sailor has made a serious mistake in relation to his interpretation of Heb. 2:1-3. The writer does not say that the penalties have been set aside; what he does say is that because God is just in punishing criminals who transgressed the judicial law of Moses, we can also be certain that He is just in eternally condemning those who reject the gospel. Puritan Sailor has built a case on conjecture and is using this to undermine the orthodoxy of his brethren, yet the moderators allow him to get away with this.
 
Last edited:

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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).
 

Amazing Grace

Puritan Board Junior
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).

Jacob, do you not see the connection? And also notice I said the word "shred". Would it have been better if I left those words out and just compared it to Pauls thought in Galatians? Even Paul withstood Peter to his face. And remained in fellowship. To have a neurotic, unhealthy obsession with Law of any kind, be it ceremonial, moral, judicial, is not in line with the Apostolic witness.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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.
 

Amazing Grace

Puritan Board Junior
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.

Jacob, I was comparing the scare tactic of the dreaded Dispensational thought is used as much as we hear the phrase of "returning to Rome".


Aha! The name calling begins! Logic 102: Argument ad hominem, abusive. See above.

Jacob, you will lose me with any talk of philosophical logic and terms I find no use for. If it walks like a duck and qucks like a duck, well you know the rest. I do not believe I was being abusive, the others did not accuse Paul of abusing Peter when he confronted him, yet they remained brothers.


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.
 

Amazing Grace

Puritan Board Junior
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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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.

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. :cheers2:
 

Amazing Grace

Puritan Board Junior
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. :cheers2:

Yes we are cool. Daniel is the one who has a neurotic unhealthy obsession with Law. As far as things being moderated, like I said, I try not to get to worked up from an internet forum. And Daniel is passionate. Then again, he lives in Ireland. It is in your blood Daniel. Nothing you can do about it. You are probably still beating your chest becasue of the tale told of the Battle of Diamond Hill of 1795.. Keep up the fight Daniel. I repsect you for your passion and zeal. I would guarantee you have blood in your veins from the orange order!!!!!:D
 

clstamper

Puritan Board Freshman
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.

Civil magistrates are instituted by God to maintain social order. Part of social order entails that roads that are reasonably passable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top