Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace  Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianLanier 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: Quote:
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: Quote:
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.
|