Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Man Bahnsen's doing a good job of turning me to Theonomic principles.

Originally Posted by Jon Peters

What is distinctively Theonomic about the quote?

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

I don't assume that.

He posted something on sanctification.

He then said:

I'm assuming that he's trying to be relevant to his first post.

I then pointed out, fwiw, that his quote shouldn't be something that "turns someone on to theonomic principles."

So, either he brought up the link between his post and theonomy, or else he made a totally irrelevant comment. I chose the first interpretation as it was more charitable . . .

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

Don't you know it's a woman's prerogative to win every argument, not a brilliant Christian that puts a mere mortal like myself in his place.

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

FWIW,

It's a leap to say that God's laws for *personal* holiness should also be the laws for the *state's* holiness.

One reason is that you'd have to say that the *state* should enfource laws against (say) coveting.

So, you'll not get to "theonomy" from his specific claims here on personal sanctification.

Originally Posted by Presbyterian Deacon

This statement by Bahnsen...
...doesn't really address the place of the law in society or state but rather in the heart of the individual believer, IMO.

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Sorry for the confusion. I have clarified my earlier second post.

Here was the previous discussion Barnpreacher was alluding to..

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

I don't think Benjamin would disagree with that, bro. His second post was more of an aside about TiCE than about this particular quote proving theonomic principles.

Originally Posted by Presbyterian Deacon

Sanctification is personal and progressive. As Thomas Watson put it:

"Justification does not admitt of degrees; a believer cannot be more elected or justified than he is, but he may be more sanctified than he is. Sanctification is still increasing, like the morning sun, which grows brighter to the full meridian. Knowledge is said to increase. Col i 10; 2 Cor x 15. A Christian is continually adding a cubit to his spiritual stature."
(Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity, page 242).


This statement by Bahnsen...
...doesn't really address the place of the law in society or state but rather in the heart of the individual believer, IMO.

Originally Posted by Bahnsen

God's law is weighty with relevance for sanctification. The breaking of the very least stipulation of the law generates God's displeasure ... taking an erroneous teaching position with respect to the details of the law (e.g. that the exhaustive details of God's law no longer bind Christians or this period of history) does the same....The antecedent referent of 'these' in verse 19 is clearly the 'jot and tittle' mentioned in verse 18. Verse 19 teaches… that the smallest part of the law of God is a canon for determining personal standing in the kingdom of heaven.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

If Theonomy is Scriptural, non-Theonomic Christians who do not follow, teach and promote the civil laws hinder their sanctification and add to humanity’s rebellion against God.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

If they do not repent, on the last day they will be found among the least in the kingdom of heaven.

Originally Posted by Me Died Blue

Regarding the various passages throughout both the Old and New Testaments that specifically speak of reward for various ways of life, good deeds, and endurance of persecution, I honestly see nothing in the texts that specifically point to or implies anything beyond the reward of eternal life and glorification that all believers are guaranteed on the basis of their unity with Christ and their credit of His active obedience - and I certainly see no (systematic) theological reason to believe such, either.

Theologically, when God looks at us and the lives we lived, why (or even how, logically and in a legally consistent way) would He see the perfect record of our imputed righteousness in Christ when asking, "Are they righteous enough to dwell in my presence and obtain eternal life," yet see the imperfect record of our actual deeds in gradual conformity to Christ when asking, "How righteous are they for the nature and level of the reward and acknowledgment I should give them?" Sounds arbitrary.

Textually, verses like Matthew 10:41-42, Mark 9:41, Luke 6:35 1 Corinthians 3:14, Colossians 3:23-25 and Hebrews 10:35 (often cited as alleged support for the doctrine of degrees of reward in Heaven) all speak of specific good deeds and heart conditions that will lead to "reward" if kept - but many verses throughout the Scriptures likewise speak of works and obedience as being the way to eternal life. We always understand the latter in light of Christ's imputed righteousness, yet somehow seem to forget about or disregard that doctrine when considering the former. Another example is 2 John 1:8, which speaks of winning a full reward, and not losing what we have worked for - but how is that any different than the various salvific warning passages to the visible New Testament congregations, or Philppians 3:11-14 in which Paul speaks of the prize that he is pressing to attain as being "the resurrection from the dead " and "the upward call of God in Christ Jesus"?

I think Proverbs 22:4 is a good verse illustrating the nature of this issue overall: "The reward for humility and fear of the Lord is riches and honor and life." The "riches" and possibly even "honor" spoken of here have the exact same apparent nature and contextual appearance as do the "rewards" spoken of any of the various passages often cited to support degrees of reward in Heaven. Yet in this verse, what is the third benefit indiscriminately spoken of right next to those other two? "Life." And we certainly agree on that being something that we fully and solely obtain through Christ's righteousness. So the burden of proof would seem to be on those who would make the "riches" or "honor" a different story.

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

From Theonomy In Christian Ethics:

...
To summarize what has been said to this point, we can say that salvation is not exhaustively circumscribed by God's pardon of, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to, the sinner; salvation continues beyond the point of justification into the process of sanctification, a process which begins with a definitive break with the bondage of sinful depravity and matures by progressively preparing the Christian to enjoy eternal life with God by the internal purifying of his moral condition. (pg. 160-161)