Why did Bahnsen shave his beard?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Coram Deo

Puritan Board Junior
Ok, I have tried to stay how of this debate but I can not see a way out of it.... :p

The past month I have been studing the Case Laws. Does not the command to not shave your beard fall under the priest of the sons of Aaron?

Leviticus 21:1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto the priest the sons of Aaron, and say to them,

Leviticus 21:5 They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall thyee shave off the corner of their beard..

Even if this was meant for the people, wasn't it a law to seperate the physical Israel out from the nations and so according to John Gill, a Judical law that is no longer binding since it has no moral character.

Oh and Jerusalem Blade, I guess I am in trouble since I am a Baptist, Covenantal Historic Premillennial, and THEONOMIC...... :think:
 

Amazing Grace

Puritan Board Junior


In recent years, the issue has come to the attention of Reformed Christians in North America through the movement known as Christian Reconstruction. As an aspect of its postmillennial eschatology, Christian Reconstruction teaches that in the future a majority of people will become Christians. Civil government then will be in the hands of Christians, indeed, Presbyterian Christians. It will be the duty of civil government to establish the Presbyterian church as the one church of the realm, to throw the whole weight of the government behind the true church, to decree the political laws of the Old Testament (“theonomy”), and to punish idolaters, vocal heretics, and other transgressors of the Old Testament statutes with physical punishments, including death.

JB, this hits the perverbial nail on the head. I have thought about this subject much in recent weeks and looked at posts on this subject. Manata, and others have stated certain arguements given here against CR (christian reconstructionism)/Theonomy are weak. They are correct. And the reason being is myself and others who find the profession appalling are attacking small branches and not the root. When one argues against any said profession, we must attack the root, what drives this thought. Just as the root of the roman catholic church is the "infallability and sacramental system" was attacked by Luther, causing the rest to fall, anti-theonomists must attack the root of their thought. The root is not case law, mosaic code binding on the NT Assembly, it is their skewed perversion of postmil thought. You must go to the end, and once this is crumbled, all this stuff about penal sanctions will immediately cease to make sense. This is a perfect example of the thought that ones eschatology, determines all the rest. So once the neurotic eschatology of Bahnsen, North, Rush et all is shown to be against scripture, all this other stuff about beards, stoning heretics will fall by the sword of truth too. The goal of CR is a Chrisianized world. That is it. Ruled by the civil govt with the mosaic code in hand. To quote Englesma,"to throw the whole weight of the government behind the true church, to decree the political laws of the Old Testament (“theonomy”), and to punish idolaters, vocal heretics, and other transgressors of the Old Testament statutes with physical punishments, including death.

There would be no need for this thought if they did not have a perverted view of a post mil eschatology. So in closing I thank manata and jacob, and whoever else when they have said certain arguments against theonomy are weak. They are correct. But that is because we are attacking the branches and not the root.
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Michael, while part of you is hiding from the posse, the other part will shout out, "Here he is!"


Nicholas, thanks for the good summary.
 

Coram Deo

Puritan Board Junior
John Gill was not a Post Millennialist and he held to Theonomy.... John Gill was a Covenantal PreMillennialist... He held to a Tri-partite Division of the Law with another Tri-partite division of Judical Law....

Defending Post Millennialism will not end theonomy.... It is not the goal, aleast not mine to Christianize the world, but the Civil Leaders are to punish evil doers... That means those who are immoral...... Now how are the civil leaders going to punish evil doers? Where do they get morality from? The Scriptures... Now how are dead in trespasses and sin leaders (even Christian leaders) going to create justice on there own? They can't... Only God's law and the penal sanctions that God gives are just and holy..... Left to ourselves, we can never create a just and perfect legal system.. It is the Depravity of Man..... A Central Tenet of Calvinism..... To defeat Theonomy, one must defeat Total Depravity and the sphere of authority God gives upon man, Church, Civil, and Family.

Michael





In recent years, the issue has come to the attention of Reformed Christians in North America through the movement known as Christian Reconstruction. As an aspect of its postmillennial eschatology, Christian Reconstruction teaches that in the future a majority of people will become Christians. Civil government then will be in the hands of Christians, indeed, Presbyterian Christians. It will be the duty of civil government to establish the Presbyterian church as the one church of the realm, to throw the whole weight of the government behind the true church, to decree the political laws of the Old Testament (“theonomy”), and to punish idolaters, vocal heretics, and other transgressors of the Old Testament statutes with physical punishments, including death.

JB, this hits the perverbial nail on the head. I have thought about this subject much in recent weeks and looked at posts on this subject. Manata, and others have stated certain arguements given here against CR (christian reconstructionism)/Theonomy are weak. They are correct. And the reason being is myself and others who find the profession appalling are attacking small branches and not the root. When one argues against any said profession, we must attack the root, what drives this thought. Just as the root of the roman catholic church is the "infallability and sacramental system" was attacked by Luther, causing the rest to fall, anti-theonomists must attack the root of their thought. The root is not case law, mosaic code binding on the NT Assembly, it is their skewed perversion of postmil thought. You must go to the end, and once this is crumbled, all this stuff about penal sanctions will immediately cease to make sense. This is a perfect example of the thought that ones eschatology, determines all the rest. So once the neurotic eschatology of Bahnsen, North, Rush et all is shown to be against scripture, all this other stuff about beards, stoning heretics will fall by the sword of truth too. The goal of CR is a Chrisianized world. That is it. Ruled by the civil govt with the mosaic code in hand. To quote Englesma,"to throw the whole weight of the government behind the true church, to decree the political laws of the Old Testament (“theonomy”), and to punish idolaters, vocal heretics, and other transgressors of the Old Testament statutes with physical punishments, including death.

There would be no need for this thought if they did not have a perverted view of a post mil eschatology. So in closing I thank manata and jacob, and whoever else when they have said certain arguments against theonomy are weak. They are correct. But that is because we are attacking the branches and not the root.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
I am not postmillennialist and...well, maybe theonomy.

Theonomy's truth-claim is logically distinct from postmillennialism's truth-claim. Trying to refute one by refuting the other is logically fallacious.
 

Amazing Grace

Puritan Board Junior
I am not postmillennialist and...well, maybe theonomy.

Theonomy's truth-claim is logically distinct from postmillennialism's truth-claim. Trying to refute one by refuting the other is logically fallacious.

Notice I said "Their perverted understanding of a post mil world" It is EXACTLY how one destroys anothers belief. There is no way the main focus of theonomy is the binding penal sanctions on the NT believer. That is not their ultimate goal. Is is directly connected to their post mil eschatology Jacob. Just as I showed Luthers attack on the rcc, He did not go after lighting candles, praying to dead saints, holy day's, etc etc etc. He went for the foundation, and that is their sacramental system and infallibility of the church. Hence the same should follow in anyones quest.

The point is not all theonomists have to be post mil, the point is the goal of theonomy is a Christianized society, which is eschalogical thought. So regardles is one is premil, post mil, whatever mil, and incorporates bringing this end to fruition thriugh the mosaic code, all error.

Michael, you may deny it all you wish, but it would make no sense whatsoever to seperate why something must be done, without looking at the result. Just as God's purpose for doing as He pleases comes first and foremost, so are man's. So to state a Christianized society is not what motivates you, but instead total depravity and sphere sovereignty is a cloak to the real reason. There is just too much evidence in the writ where the Law is spoken of as being dead to the NC believer. One would have to do way too much biblical hopscotch to argue for theonomy, a Law centered, mosaic code society with the inspired witness of Paul and Christ himself in the new dispensation. The new household management of uncircumcision. Just a cursory reading of Paul, especially his book of Galatians and Romans, leads one to understand how the NT believer is not Torah bound judicially at all. It takes a tremendous amount of scriptural gymnastics to determine otherwise.


"My kingdon is not of this world"...

And dont say this means its origins are not of this word, that is frist semester greek

Kingdom now, dominian theologyCR/theonomy is a terrible error against the whole witness of the NT.

To deny ones eschatology forms their other beliefs is impossible, regardless if one realizes it or not.
 
Last edited:

BrianLanier

Puritan Board Freshman
I like how 'Amazing Grace' (as a anti-thonomist) knows what the *true* intentions of theonomists are despite the fact that *actual* theonmists, al a Bahnsen, clearly state otherwise.

Another example of first-rate scholarship.

Please excuse the ad hominem (nothing against you AG, just using your recent posts as springboards to a more general point), but it is really tiresome to see theonomy attacked from people who obviously haven't actually read primary sources enough to understand the conceptual territory involved in the debate.

Again, I am not interested in providing postive arguments for theonomy, just defending it, as I would most positions, against ridiculous attacks. If someone is going to be effective in a critique, and not embarrass herself, she need to do the necessary homework to understand the issues involved *before* publishing her remarks (even if on an internet site). This is just responsible scholarship, and I am sick of it lacking in reformed circles. BTW, this has nothing to do with theonomy per se, just general academics/polemics. This goes for other issues as well.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Never mind the hundreds of pages of Bahnsen I have read underscoring the fact that theonomy doesn't entail postmillennialism (or vice-versa), AG just ran a psychological critique and all of a sudden knows "what our true intentions are." I won't even bother with a rebuttal.
 

Amazing Grace

Puritan Board Junior
I like how 'Amazing Grace' (as a anti-thonomist) knows what the *true* intentions of theonomists are despite the fact that *actual* theonmists, al a Bahnsen, clearly state otherwise.

Another example of first-rate scholarship.

Please excuse the ad hominem (nothing against you AG, just using your recent posts as springboards to a more general point), but it is really tiresome to see theonomy attacked from people who obviously haven't actually read primary sources enough to understand the conceptual territory involved in the debate.

Again, I am not interested in providing postive arguments for theonomy, just defending it, as I would most positions, against ridiculous attacks. If someone is going to be effective in a critique, and not embarrass herself, she need to do the necessary homework to understand the issues involved *before* publishing her remarks (even if on an internet site). This is just responsible scholarship, and I am sick of it lacking in reformed circles. BTW, this has nothing to do with theonomy per se, just general academics/polemics. This goes for other issues as well.

Agreed brian. But I have. Not exhaustively, but enough to get a good sense of it. If anyone believes CR main goal is anything other than a Christianized society, brought about by the means of the penal sanctions of the mosaic code, they are only kidding themselves. Hence Driving them towards their own postmil world.

The point is to argue why Bahnsen shaved, is not going to destroy the root.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
I am not even going to bother with a rebuttal. When it gets to the point where a critic is concerned, contra hundreds of pages of evidence, with a *psychological* critique, there is no point in discussing. At this point, why bother with logical arguments or with evidence?
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
I like how 'Amazing Grace' (as a anti-thonomist) knows what the *true* intentions of theonomists are despite the fact that *actual* theonmists, al a Bahnsen, clearly state otherwise.

Another example of first-rate scholarship.

Please excuse the ad hominem (nothing against you AG, just using your recent posts as springboards to a more general point), but it is really tiresome to see theonomy attacked from people who obviously haven't actually read primary sources enough to understand the conceptual territory involved in the debate.

Again, I am not interested in providing postive arguments for theonomy, just defending it, as I would most positions, against ridiculous attacks. If someone is going to be effective in a critique, and not embarrass herself, she need to do the necessary homework to understand the issues involved *before* publishing her remarks (even if on an internet site). This is just responsible scholarship, and I am sick of it lacking in reformed circles. BTW, this has nothing to do with theonomy per se, just general academics/polemics. This goes for other issues as well.

Agreed brian. But I have. Not exhaustively, but enough to get a good sense of it. If anyone believes CR main goal is anything other than a Christianized society, brought about by the means of the penal sanctions of the mosaic code, they are only kidding themselves. Hence Driving them towards their own postmil world.

Theonomy and CR are distinct propositions. CR is the application of other principles besides theonomy. Really, you need to stop posting and study the issue a little bit more.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
I like how 'Amazing Grace' (as a anti-thonomist) knows what the *true* intentions of theonomists are despite the fact that *actual* theonmists, al a Bahnsen, clearly state otherwise.

Another example of first-rate scholarship.

Please excuse the ad hominem (nothing against you AG, just using your recent posts as springboards to a more general point), but it is really tiresome to see theonomy attacked from people who obviously haven't actually read primary sources enough to understand the conceptual territory involved in the debate.

Again, I am not interested in providing postive arguments for theonomy, just defending it, as I would most positions, against ridiculous attacks. If someone is going to be effective in a critique, and not embarrass herself, she need to do the necessary homework to understand the issues involved *before* publishing her remarks (even if on an internet site). This is just responsible scholarship, and I am sick of it lacking in reformed circles. BTW, this has nothing to do with theonomy per se, just general academics/polemics. This goes for other issues as well.

Agreed brian. But I have. Not exhaustively, but enough to get a good sense of it. If anyone believes CR main goal is anything other than a Christianized society, brought about by the means of the penal sanctions of the mosaic code, they are only kidding themselves. Hence Driving them towards their own postmil world.

Theonomy and CR are distinct propositions. CR is the application of other principles besides theonomy. Really, you need to stop posting and study the issue a little bit more.

Is there a good history of CR out there, Jacob, or is it a new idea?
 

timmopussycat

Puritan Board Junior
Is there a good history of CR out there, Jacob, or is it a new idea?

As far as I know there is no good full history of CR out there. Somebody did a reasonable review of CR's early history (to 1990) as a Master's thesis but he got (at least) one fact wrong and "as dead flies give perfume a bad smell" his account is not accepted as reliable by CR folk because of that error.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Agreed brian. But I have. Not exhaustively, but enough to get a good sense of it. If anyone believes CR main goal is anything other than a Christianized society, brought about by the means of the penal sanctions of the mosaic code, they are only kidding themselves. Hence Driving them towards their own postmil world.

Theonomy and CR are distinct propositions. CR is the application of other principles besides theonomy. Really, you need to stop posting and study the issue a little bit more.

Is there a good history of CR out there, Jacob, or is it a new idea?

Any forward by Gary North tells roughly the same story (albeit in colorful terms). But to be fair, I take a little credit for that. My pastor wrote his master's thesis defending theonomy. He was dear friends with Greg Bahnsen. So, he knows his stuff and is a valid source on theonomy. However, contra some of the "novel" (to put it nicely) posts on the previous page, he is neither postmillennial nor Reconstructionist. So, there you go.

But let's look at our terms and it will be obvious. Theonomy simply means the abiding validity of God's law properly defined and qualified (even the critics would agree with this). Christian Reconstruction is a socio-political agenda (I say that in the fairest sense). It uses many of the same tenets as theonomy, but is not theonomy. It is an inference--perhaps even a valid one--to move from theonomy to Christain reconstruction. But in making this inference you are admitting that they are two, distinct propositions.

So therefore, Theonomy is not dependent on CR.
Therefore, theonomy is not dependent on postmillennialism.

Logic emerges triumphant on the field of battle.
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
Lev 19:27:
Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

Shouldn't all theonomists have a beard like Rushdoony? How does the theonomist interpret such an OT law?

Judaizers, Anabaptists and legalists worry about things like this. Orthodox Christians take the hint and realize that this law expired with the Hebrew state and was fulfilled in Christ. This should be easy stuff.

HAH! Yes and no. The Amish grow theirs, but only after marriage. The Mennonites forbid it. Charity (the group...not the virtue) and the Beachy Amish-Mennonites grow beards, but keep them trimmed.

They worry about and aren't in agreement...but due more to the idea of distinguishing their groups from one another rather than the law (though some may use the law to try and argue their point).

(yes, we can pick out which church you go to by your vehicle, your face, your kapp, your hat, cut of your dress, and whether or not you wear suspenders)

*Rich, we need a smiley that rolls it's eyes*


And yes, the female in me, read the first page, picked on that post, and found thread was actually 5 pages long. :blush: *Rich, can we have a blushing smiley also?* I just couldn't believe, or understand why, all these people were sooooo interested in why some theologian cut his beard. Thought it was like arguing over beer or something. :lol:
 

BrianLanier

Puritan Board Freshman
I like how 'Amazing Grace' (as a anti-thonomist) knows what the *true* intentions of theonomists are despite the fact that *actual* theonmists, al a Bahnsen, clearly state otherwise.

Another example of first-rate scholarship.

Please excuse the ad hominem (nothing against you AG, just using your recent posts as springboards to a more general point), but it is really tiresome to see theonomy attacked from people who obviously haven't actually read primary sources enough to understand the conceptual territory involved in the debate.

Again, I am not interested in providing postive arguments for theonomy, just defending it, as I would most positions, against ridiculous attacks. If someone is going to be effective in a critique, and not embarrass herself, she need to do the necessary homework to understand the issues involved *before* publishing her remarks (even if on an internet site). This is just responsible scholarship, and I am sick of it lacking in reformed circles. BTW, this has nothing to do with theonomy per se, just general academics/polemics. This goes for other issues as well.

Agreed brian. But I have. Not exhaustively, but enough to get a good sense of it. If anyone believes CR main goal is anything other than a Christianized society, brought about by the means of the penal sanctions of the mosaic code, they are only kidding themselves. Hence Driving them towards their own postmil world.

The point is to argue why Bahnsen shaved, is not going to destroy the root.

Here are a set of premises that seek to set out the theonomic position (By David Byron full text here), please show how *any* particular millennial position is entailed or required:
BAHNSEN'S ARGUMENT FOR THEONOMY -- GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Here are some important premises in the argument that supports the abiding applicability of the judicial and penological case laws:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] If the NT states or implies that the administration of a precept of the OT law has changed, then that precept should now be administered according to the replacement terms provided in the NT; else a precept of the OT law should now be administered according to the terms provided in the OT (with due attention to changes in morally indifferent matters of cultural form and practice); else the precept is not a standing law at all.

[2] The law of the Old Testament (broadly defined as the torah, the histories, the prophets, and the wisdom writings; and narrowly defined as the Mosaic code) includes some precepts that have the primary function of expressing God's justice and some precepts that have the primary function of expressing God's mercy. The precepts of the OT law that primarily express God's mercy are historically qualified (referenced to spatiotemporally particular circumstances) by God in a way that the precepts that primarily express God's justice are not qualified.

[3] The NT states and implies that the administration of those precepts that primarily express God's mercy has changed as a result of the advent and work of the Messiah, in whom their abiding principles are now embodied.

[C1] Therefore, if an OT precept primarily expresses God's mercy, then that precept should now be administered according to the replacement terms provided in the NT;

[4] It is not the case that the NT states or implies that the administration of those precepts that primarily express God's justice has changed.

[C2] Therefore, if an OT precept primarily expresses God's justice, then that precept should now be administered according to the terms provided in the OT (with due attention to changes in morally indifferent matters of cultural form and practice).

OR demonstrate the entailment or material implication from Bahnsen's 10 theonomic theses:
1. Since the Fall it has always been unlawful to use the law of God in hopes of establishing one's own personal merit and justification, in contrast or complement to salvation by way of promise and faith; commitment to obedience is but the lifestyle of faith, a token of gratitude for God's redeeming grace.

2. The word of the Lord is the sole, supreme, and unchallengeable standard for the actions and attitudes of all men in all areas of life; this word naturally includes God's moral directives (law).

3. Our obligation to keep the law of God cannot be judged by any extrascriptural standard, such as whether its specific requirements (when properly interpreted) are congenial to past traditions or modern feelings and practices.

4. We should presume that Old Testament standing laws continue to be morally binding in the New Testament, unless they are rescinded or modified by further revelation.

5. In regard to the Old Testament law, the New Covenant surpasses the Old Covenant in glory, power, and finality (thus reinforcing former duties). The New Covenant also supercedes the Old Covenant shadows, thereby changing the application of sacrificial, purity, and "separation" principles, re-defining the people of God, and altering the significance of the promised land.

6. God's revealed standing laws are a reflection of His immutable moral character and, as such, are absolute in the sense of being non-arbitrary, objective, universal, and established in advance of particular circumstances (thus applicable to general types of moral situations).

7. Christian involvement in politics calls for recognition of God's transcendent, absolute, revealed law as a standard by which to judge all social codes.

8. Civil magistrates in all ages and places are obligated to conduct their offices as ministers of God, avenging divine wrath against criminals and giving an account on the Final Day of their service before the King of kings, their creator and Judge.

9. The general continuity which we presume with respect to the moral standards of the Old Testament applies just as legitimately to matters of socio-political ethics as it does to personal, family, or ecclesiastical ethics.

10. The civil precepts of the Old Testament (standing "judicial" laws) are a model of perfect social justice for all cultures, even in the punishment of criminals.

Again to stress Jacobs point: theonomy, as such, is logically distinct from *any* particular millennial position. Furthermore, if you would like to destory the "root", as you call it, of theonomy, then you should put your energy into refuting some of the premises outlined above that are representative of the theonomic system.
 

Barnpreacher

Puritan Board Junior
But let's look at our terms and it will be obvious. Theonomy simply means the abiding validity of God's law properly defined and qualified (even the critics would agree with this). Christian Reconstruction is a socio-political agenda (I say that in the fairest sense). It uses many of the same tenets as theonomy, but is not theonomy. It is an inference--perhaps even a valid one--to move from theonomy to Christain reconstruction. But in making this inference you are admitting that they are two, distinct propositions.

:ditto:
 

Amazing Grace

Puritan Board Junior
I like how 'Amazing Grace' (as a anti-thonomist) knows what the *true* intentions of theonomists are despite the fact that *actual* theonmists, al a Bahnsen, clearly state otherwise.

Another example of first-rate scholarship.

Please excuse the ad hominem (nothing against you AG, just using your recent posts as springboards to a more general point), but it is really tiresome to see theonomy attacked from people who obviously haven't actually read primary sources enough to understand the conceptual territory involved in the debate.

Again, I am not interested in providing postive arguments for theonomy, just defending it, as I would most positions, against ridiculous attacks. If someone is going to be effective in a critique, and not embarrass herself, she need to do the necessary homework to understand the issues involved *before* publishing her remarks (even if on an internet site). This is just responsible scholarship, and I am sick of it lacking in reformed circles. BTW, this has nothing to do with theonomy per se, just general academics/polemics. This goes for other issues as well.

Agreed brian. But I have. Not exhaustively, but enough to get a good sense of it. If anyone believes CR main goal is anything other than a Christianized society, brought about by the means of the penal sanctions of the mosaic code, they are only kidding themselves. Hence Driving them towards their own postmil world.

Theonomy and CR are distinct propositions. CR is the application of other principles besides theonomy. Really, you need to stop posting and study the issue a little bit more.

OK jacob, I am done, I spent 35 minutes studying this error, and have it under grasp now... Watching house and will return later.

I obviously was not clear in my assesment. Theonomy is an aspect, the means to get to the goal of A Christianized world..
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Agreed brian. But I have. Not exhaustively, but enough to get a good sense of it. If anyone believes CR main goal is anything other than a Christianized society, brought about by the means of the penal sanctions of the mosaic code, they are only kidding themselves. Hence Driving them towards their own postmil world.

Theonomy and CR are distinct propositions. CR is the application of other principles besides theonomy. Really, you need to stop posting and study the issue a little bit more.

OK jacob, I am done, I spent 35 minutes studying this error, and have it under grasp now... Watching house and will return later.

I obviously was not clear in my assesment. Theonomy is an aspect, the means to get to the goal of A Christianized world..

You are still inserting *motive* into the discussion, and thus you are continuing a psychological critique. In so doing you have yet to give a claim that has truth-value. To be honest with you, I really don't care about a "Christianized" world. If that happens, then that's wonderful. If it doesn't, oh well, no skin off my hide. I am premillennial. In fact, I expect quite the opposite.

And as critic of theonomy--Claire Davis--has noted, the theonomist is perfectly consistent in positing both 1) a desire for the magistrate to rule according to God's law and 2) the reality that such a desire will bring persecution. This was Davis' argument in Theonomy A Reformed Critique. He didn't see a logical contradiction. I don't see it, either.
 

Amazing Grace

Puritan Board Junior
Theonomy and CR are distinct propositions. CR is the application of other principles besides theonomy. Really, you need to stop posting and study the issue a little bit more.

OK jacob, I am done, I spent 35 minutes studying this error, and have it under grasp now... Watching house and will return later.

I obviously was not clear in my assesment. Theonomy is an aspect, the means to get to the goal of A Christianized world..

You are still inserting *motive* into the discussion, and thus you are continuing a psychological critique. In so doing you have yet to give a claim that has truth-value. To be honest with you, I really don't care about a "Christianized" world. If that happens, then that's wonderful. If it doesn't, oh well, no skin off my hide. I am premillennial. In fact, I expect quite the opposite.

And as critic of theonomy--Claire Davis--has noted, the theonomist is perfectly consistent in positing both 1) a desire for the magistrate to rule according to God's law and 2) the reality that such a desire will bring persecution. This was Davis' argument in Theonomy A Reformed Critique. He didn't see a logical contradiction. I don't see it, either.

D we not al have a motive to why we think and implement? Premil eschatology along with thenomic means is some new flavor. I am not speaking of you or michael. i also never said they were inconsistant.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
OK jacob, I am done, I spent 35 minutes studying this error, and have it under grasp now... Watching house and will return later.

I obviously was not clear in my assesment. Theonomy is an aspect, the means to get to the goal of A Christianized world..

You are still inserting *motive* into the discussion, and thus you are continuing a psychological critique. In so doing you have yet to give a claim that has truth-value. To be honest with you, I really don't care about a "Christianized" world. If that happens, then that's wonderful. If it doesn't, oh well, no skin off my hide. I am premillennial. In fact, I expect quite the opposite.

And as critic of theonomy--Claire Davis--has noted, the theonomist is perfectly consistent in positing both 1) a desire for the magistrate to rule according to God's law and 2) the reality that such a desire will bring persecution. This was Davis' argument in Theonomy A Reformed Critique. He didn't see a logical contradiction. I don't see it, either.

D we not al have a motive to why we think and implement? Premil eschatology along with thenomic means is some new flavor. I am not speaking of you or michael. i also never said they were inconsistant.

Sure we all have motive, my beef was just that you are doing psychology, not theology. Anyway, your *motive* critique didn't apply to me, which it should have since all theonomists, so went the argument, wanted a Christianized world.
 

Tallen

Puritan Board Freshman
Judaizers, Anabaptists and legalists worry about things like this. Orthodox Christians take the hint and realize that this law expired with the Hebrew state and was fulfilled in Christ. This should be easy stuff.

Since labels are being thrown around, you sound antinomian. Consider:

Rev 14:12 KJV Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
 

timmopussycat

Puritan Board Junior
The prison system as is solves no problems long term. It is gulag and barbaric and fankly....creates worse criminals..

Prisons should sequester violent and anti-social criminals from society. I agree that the American's prison are barbaric, but I don't see that as an argument against prisons themselves.

All I am saying is this...suppose some 19 year old steals a set of tires....ok..yes it is criminal and sinful. But at the same time it BREAKS my heart this kid will probably be victimized in a way for 5 years and that this "justice" is no justice at all.....the punishment would not meet the crime.:2cents:

:amen:
Seen in biblical terms, prison sentences as criminal punishments are, an injustice to the criminal as well as the victim and the state for they are not equivalent in equity to the biblical punishments for the same crimes. Cf. Vern Poythress, "A Critique of Prisons" in The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses :judge:
 

Julio Martinez Jr

Puritan Board Freshman
Continuity or Discontinuity?

Lev 19:27:
Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

Shouldn't all theonomists have a beard like Rushdoony? How does the theonomist interpret such an OT law?

Judaizers, Anabaptists and legalists worry about things like this. Orthodox Christians take the hint and realize that this law expired with the Hebrew state and was fulfilled in Christ. This should be easy stuff.

Buddy, you sound like a Dispensationalist. The whole Law was not abrogated but fulfilled in Christ. Perhaps you should read Matthew chapter 5 in its proper context. This is simply a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument. The Law continues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top