How does Theonomy account for church discipline?

Roldan · #1 (**permalink**) 05-13-2005, 02:55 PM

The church discipline as taught by Paul in the New Testament.

I mean how can excommunication serve a restoration purpose if the person is dead? In the this theonomic golden age of course.

Ivanhoe · #2 (**permalink**) 05-13-2005, 03:01 PM

You don't understand the theonomic thesis.
We assume Old Testament laws as binding unless God modifies the stipulations for his covenant in areas such as the one you mentioned. That last clause answers your question, if you don't want to read Bahnsen/Gentry on this, at least read some of the old threads on PB.

Ivanhoe · #3 (**permalink**) 05-13-2005, 03:02 PM

I'll explain:
It appears in Corinthians that God has modified the penal sanctions in this area.

Roldan · #4 (**permalink**) 05-13-2005, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Draught Horse
You don't understand the theonomic thesis.
We assume Old Testament laws as binding unless God modifies the stipulations for his covenant in areas such as the one you mentioned. That last clause answers your question, if you don't want to read Bahnsen/Gentry on this, at least read some of the old threads on PB.

Ok, so didn't he modify it in Corinthians? Paul never said excommunicate then turn over to the government.

Maybe I'm confused, help me out.

Roldan · #5 (**permalink**) 05-13-2005, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by paul manata
name the crime, Roldan. Not every crime deserves the death penalty. What about a murderer? Would you excommunicate him if he was unrepentant? Should the state still put him to death? How can he be restored if he's dead?

And what if he is repentant, what if an adultress is repentant do we still hand him over?

Ivanhoe · #6 (**permalink**) 05-13-2005, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Roldan

Quote:

Originally posted by paul manata
name the crime, Roldan. Not every crime deserves the death penalty. What about a murderer? Would you excommunicate him if he was unrepentant? Should the state still put him to death? How can he be restored if he's dead?

And what if he is repentant, what if an adultress is repentant do we still hand him over?

The state is given the sword to kill evildoers (Romans 13).

Ivanhoe · #7 (**permalink**) 05-13-2005, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Also, you're confusing the role of the Church. The church doesn't execute people.

This is a good example why I hold to the church/state distinction ( I no longer use the phrase "separation"). They each have different roles. A fantastic essay on this can be found in The Standard Bearer, "Bahnsen's View of Church and State Mainstream or Tangential" by Lonn Oswalt.

Roldan · #8 (**permalink**) 05-13-2005, 04:39 PM

I agree about the Murderer because its a state law but what about a believer who falls into the sin of adultery one time and confesses to the church and repents, does theonomy teach that this person must still be given over to the civil magistrates?

Quote:

Also, you're confusing the role of the Church. The church doesn't execute people.

Am I? The church doesn't physically execute people but does hand them over to be executed, same difference.

For example.. the murder of Christ. The Romans physically crucified Him but Peter preached that the Jews were the ones who killed him.

Am I tearing down a strawman or is this what theonomy actually teaches?

[Edited on 5-13-2005 by Roldan]

Roldan · #9 (**permalink**) 05-13-2005, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by paul manata
Roldan, let's go slow. You're original argument was:

1. Ecommunication is for restoration (assumed)

2. If we put someone to death then they cannot be restored by the process of excommunication (true by definition)

3. Theonomy teaches that we put people who have committed certain crimes to death. (implied)

4. Therefore theonomy is at conflict with the processs of excommunication. (from 2 and 3)

Your argument is a general blanket statement. Now I'm arguing that you have the same problem. You now tell us you agree with me. So, sticking to your guns would you say that your position is inconsitent with the process of excommunication? I think not.

But now you are bringing up adultary. I don't know what your argument is now since you conceeded my point. Your original claim: "I mean how can excommunication serve a restoration purpose if the person is dead? has been admitted to be irrelevent to the issue of theonomy since we both have this within our system.

To me it looks like you're saying, "well when it's my problem then I allow it, but when it's yours I won't." This doesn't seem fair to your theonomist bretheren.

Also, your point that you,

" agree about the Murderer because its a state law but what about a believer who falls into the sin of adultery one time and confesses to the church and repents, does theonomy teach that this person must still be given over to the civil magistrates?"

Has a couple of problems. Just because something is a state law doesn't make it okay. What about legal abortion on demand? Is murder okay in that sense? No? Well then it's not because the state says so then but because God says so. Well if God said certain things about adultary then why arbitrarally do you jump to the state laws as ultimate? Your comment begs the question against the theonomist. That is, if God said something is the case then it doesn't matter if Roldan disagrees with it, right? And, no, theonomy does not teach this. So I think this is moot, anyway.

hmmmm, ok, I will continue to dig, thanx for your responses its very appreciated.

ps yours to horse guy.