[quote=Ivanhoe;416008][quote=Jon Peters;416004]I'm not sure my position requires hard and fast distinctions between the civil/ceremonial/moral law groups. It seems to me that it is the Theonomistic position that requires clear lines of demarcation, not my own.

__________________
Jon Peters
Member, Reformation Fellowship (OPC) (Roseville, CA)
Folsom, CA

[quote=Jon Peters;416020][quote=Ivanhoe;416008]Maybe theonomy does require it, but when I was in Jackson, capital city of consevative presbyerianism (I went to RTS from 2005-2007), this was the stock response to theonomy.

I gave up theonomy around summer of 2007. I would call myself a chastened post theonomist. But I saw the standard reformed alternative equally undesirable (both operate out of somewhat enlightenment presuppositions). My socio-ethical position is that of Peter Leithart, John Milbank, and Oliver O'Donovan, with appropriate modifications to each.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

BTW, this was not intended to tick off my theonomist brethren. I merely note that trends in ideas follow a predictable course somewhat like trends in other things (e.g., neo-orthodoxy, death-of-God, (hopefully) NPP, etc.).

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Indeed, the gospel has had periods of great increase, and periods of great decline, so truth cannot be assessed by its progress at a certain point in history.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

[quote=Ivanhoe;416024][quote=Jon Peters;416020]I too gave up Theonomy. But my socio-ethical position is that of H.R., Dr. Know, Darryl Jenifer and Earl Hudson.

Maybe I shouldnt have said "given up" but improved. I still share many of the goals of theonomy: kingship of Christ over the nations (and not in a kantian spiritual sense), an attack on statism, etc. I just now think i ahve better arguments which avoid some of th eexegtetical arguments. But fortunately or unfortunately, my position wouldn't be accepted in Jackson Presbyterianism.

Daniel, brother, you are a fire-breather, and I mean that in the nicest possible way.

Did I say that for all theonomists culture triumphs over gospel? No. Did I say that theonomy tends to produce this? Yes.

Is culture triumphing over the gospel tantamount to corrupting the gospel? Not necessarily. The FV guys, I am convinced, arrived at their current convictions by following their particular theonomic assumptions to their logical conclusions. To them, cultural domination is everything. The triumph of the gospel, for them, means a Christianized culture. Thus, baptizing whole tribes, etc. No question that they corrupt the gospel.

CAn a person be a theonomic post-mil, and be a kind-hearted, winsome, soul-oriented experiential Calvinist? Of course they can.

I do think every theonomist needs to ask the redemptive-historical question though. Did Christ come to bring us back to Moses, or to enact a new and better covenant, on better promises, with an eternal city in view?

THere, further qualification needed, brother?

__________________
Kenneth A. Pierce
Senior Minister
Trinity Presbyterian Church (PCA)
5301 Old Canton Rd.
Jackson, MS 39211
(601)977-0774
www.tpcjackson.org

Well if you take something to an extreme you can corrupt the gospel. For instance, a hyper-Calvinist takes the doctrine of God's Sovereignty to an extreme which is unbiblical. But this does not mean that God's Sovereignty is wrong or unbiblical.

As for being a fire-breather, well, I have been called worse.

The "Outside the Camp" guys prove that Calvinism is soul destroying. It tends to sectarianism.

There was supposed to be a smiley after the fire-breather comment.

Yes, I know, the slippery slope fallacy.

But, there is also the "being consistent with one's presuppositions" problem. It could be argued that FV has taken theonomy to its logical conclusions --that is certainly how THEY argue.

Please don't misunderstand: there are plenty of good theonomists out there. I know at least one! But, the sheer number of theonomists that have gone to FV, Catholicism and Orthodoxy ought to make a theonomist pause.

I don't see many experiential Calvinists doing that, do you?

I know it gives me pause about my own latent Kuyperianism to see what Kuyperianism has become in the CRC, and what it became in Kuyper's own pro-Nazi son. And, it checks my Edwardsianism to see what happened to New England theology after Edwards. ONe has to ask, "What is the consequence, and what is a departure?" The line can be a fine one.

All I am saying is that we all need to examine ourselves and our doctrine in light of Scripture all the time, and praise God for brothers who see things differently, that might point out our blind spots.

To me, that's a lot better than responding in angry defensiveness, which, I am sad to say, is a sin in which I often take refuge. (we need a flaming Dutchman smiley here!).

KP

Here I think you have a point; too many Theonomists have simply dismissed experimental Calvinism as pietism, but this is not the case, one can believe in experimental Calvinism without being a pietist. On my own blog I once pointed out that this was one of the chief weaknesses of modern Theonomists.

I'll keep that in mind when reading your future posts.

__________________
Tim Vaughan, 48 years old, member Redeemer OPC, Santa Maria CA.

Hmmm.

I thought there was a certain command from Christ that had to do with a "Christianized culture" (world) and the bapizing of whole tribes (i.e., nations).

It was a perty important command as far as I remember, having the titles "great" and "comission."

So the act of carrying out the great commision is now considered to be corrupting the gospel?

Looks like the gospel is to triumph..a Christian culture to be established, and whole tribes, or all nations are to be baptized.

Notice the verse, you have:
- All authority on earth given to Christ
- All nations are to be baptized
- All nations are to be made disciples
- All are to observe the commands of Christ

__________________
Shawn
Orthodox Presbyterian
Denver, Colorado

Open my eyes Lord, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law. Psalm 119:18
http://reformedmoses.blogspot.com/

You know, or you should know, that the FV thinks we ought to do this regardless of faith.

A classic postmil will say there is a time when this WILL happen, because the nations will be predominantly Christian. I have no problem with that.

The FV guys say we should do it now.

Please tell me that's not what you're saying.

A quote from an FV guy teaching that we should baptize adults who have no faith in Christ would be beneficial...being you make that accusation.

As for me, no I am not saying that we should baptize those who have no faith...That limits the great commision.
We are to Baptize nations, and make them DISCIPLES, and teach them to follow Christ's commandments. That implies/requires faith.

But...we have to carefully define faith and not fall into the baptist error of faith being an outward work of man.

You baptize infants who do not adequately express their faith.
Therefore, in one way you do exactly what you accuse the FV folks of doing, i.e., you baptize without the baptizee's faith being outwardly displayed.

Moses,

Re the FV and tribes --pretty common knowledge, spoken often in public forums. I doubt Doug Wilson would deny saying it. So, it's not an accusation. Just because I don't have a book at hand that has the quote.

Yep...rumors often are common knowledge in public forums.

The hard thing is getting the truth. It takes a lot of effort to find out what someone actually said themselves and the context of thier saying it.

Note: I am no FVer...I have listened to a lot of the opponents of the FV, and i must say a lot of what has been said is mere heresay, rumors, etc..and I have yet to find solid scholarship and honest quotes of ones opponent.
But hey, I still got a lot of reading to do...perhaps I will stumble across an honest scholar who is accurate and articulate and respectful in representing anothers position.

So, you've just impugned, I guess, Guy Waters, Rick Phillips, Cal Beisner, Doug Kelly, Sinclair Ferguson, the OPC, PCA, URC, Joe Morecraft, etc. They aren't honest, and are rumormongerers, in your estimation?

And yet you take me to task for reciting something that is common knowledge, and that the speaker of the quote himself continues to assert?

Please.

I just said
"but hey, I've still got a lot of reading to do"

But on the other hand...If you've read all of that stuff so exhaustively yourself, that you know the truth of the whole matter.

Then why did you not articulate the truth of what you said instead of just saying it's common knowledge.

If it is so common (to you at least) then please enlighten me.

Note: Obviously it was not "common knowledge" to me. (perhaps that is some indication that it is not as "common" as you think)