Knocking Obama and Theonomy

NaphtaliPress · #1 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 09:08 AM

Don't know who the writer is but says he writes for the Washington post.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - A Speech That Fell Short
Who knew the term theonomic would come up in presidential campaign coverage?

PuritanCovenanter · #2 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 09:22 AM

Quote:

But haven't George Bush and other Republican politicians accepted the support of Jerry Falwell, who spouted hate of his own? Yes, but they didn't financially support his ministry and sit directly under his teaching for decades.

The better analogy is this: What if a Republican presidential candidate spent years in the pew of a theonomist church -- a fanatical fragment of Protestantism that teaches the modern political validity of ancient Hebrew law? What if the church's pastor attacked the American government as illegitimate and accepted the stoning of homosexuals and recalcitrant children as appropriate legal penalties (which some theonomists interpret as biblical requirements)? Surely we would conclude, at the very least, that the Republican candidate attending this church lacked judgment, and that his donations were subsidizing hatred. And we would be right.

Is this a true representation of theonomy in a few lines?

Coram Deo · #3 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 09:28 AM

Wow, and he termed us theonomist as fanatical, lacking judgment and subsidizing hatred.

He really doesn't know what theonomy is all about.......

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Don't know who the writer is but says he writes for the Washington post.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - A Speech That Fell Short
Who knew the term theonomic would come up in presidential campaign coverage?

Craig · #4 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 09:37 AM

I wondered how a Washington Post columnist would know anything about Theonomy...this guy is an evangelical Christian who went to Westminster Christian Academy and followed that up with Wheaton.

He's been a speech writer for Dole and GW Bush...apparently coining the term "axis of evil"...yeah, I'm sure this guy fairly represented theonomy!

R Harris · #5 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coram Deo

Wow, and he termed us theonomist as fanatical, lacking judgment and subsidizing hatred.

He really doesn't know what theonomy is all about.......

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Don't know who the writer is but says he writes for the Washington post.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - A Speech That Fell Short
Who knew the term theonomic would come up in presidential campaign coverage?

These are the same people who have in history books bashed the Puritans mercilessly, contrary to Perry Miller, who was the head of the history department at Harvard for decades and even mentored Arthur Schlesinger.

People never investigate things fully - they simply abide by their presuppositional biases and bash away. Sadly, there have been numerous reformed pastors who have bashed theonomy and national confessionalism without seriously examining the positions or searching the Scriptures - quite contrary to what the Apostle Paul commanded us to do.

Again, there are obvious presuppositional motives for this, but I won't go into them now.

Daniel Ritchie · #6 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Quote:

But haven't George Bush and other Republican politicians accepted the support of Jerry Falwell, who spouted hate of his own? Yes, but they didn't financially support his ministry and sit directly under his teaching for decades.

The better analogy is this: What if a Republican presidential candidate spent years in the pew of a theonomist church -- a fanatical fragment of Protestantism that teaches the modern political validity of ancient Hebrew law? What if the church's pastor attacked the American government as illegitimate and accepted the stoning of homosexuals and recalcitrant children as appropriate legal penalties (which some theonomists interpret as biblical requirements)? Surely we would conclude, at the very least, that the Republican candidate attending this church lacked judgment, and that his donations were subsidizing hatred. And we would be right.

Is this a true representation of theonomy in a few lines?

Theonomy is not "hatred" as humanists represent it. Scriptural law only allows for the execution of homosexuals caught in the actual act of Sodomy by the mouth of two or three witnesses. No one is to be executed for having homosexual thoughts, but for carrying out the act. As for rebellious sons, it takes the consent of both father and mother, so the son must have to be a real reprobate. Moreover, if this law was upheld today it would surely having a sobering effect on the wild and bold youth of our age. See these post for more:

Teenagers…What would you do with them? « Reformed Covenanter

Theonomy: An Informed Response to Some Critics (Part 2) « Reformed Covenanter

Furthermore, in my next book I have quotes from Martin Luther, John Calvin, Matthew Henry, John Gill, Matthew Poole and Thomas Scott (and possibly others) in favour of upholding this law.

timmopussycat · #7 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Quote:

But haven't George Bush and other Republican politicians accepted the support of Jerry Falwell, who spouted hate of his own? Yes, but they didn't financially support his ministry and sit directly under his teaching for decades.

The better analogy is this: What if a Republican presidential candidate spent years in the pew of a theonomist church -- a fanatical fragment of Protestantism that teaches the modern political validity of ancient Hebrew law? What if the church's pastor attacked the American government as illegitimate and accepted the stoning of homosexuals and recalcitrant children as appropriate legal penalties (which some theonomists interpret as biblical requirements)? Surely we would conclude, at the very least, that the Republican candidate attending this church lacked judgment, and that his donations were subsidizing hatred. And we would be right.

Is this a true representation of theonomy in a few lines?

No, for the above quote is at best a half truth. Although it is true to say that the "ethical perspective of Christian Reconstruction" does teach the modern political validity of the Mosaic judicial laws in exhaustive detail (except where amended by the Lawgiver) and since the statutes providing for the execution of practicing homosexuals caught in the act and the execution of rebellious children (usually understood as adult children guilty of repeated criminal acts) have not been so amended (whether explicitly or implicitly), all followers of Bahnsen's version of "the ethical perspective of" CR will find that such laws remain required today.

But to say that donations to such churches subsidize hatred is a charge that is not necessarily true. There are two reasons why this charge must be rejected. First, the term "hatred" is unqualified. In the context of his argument listing Wright's unsupportable accusations that stimulate hatred for the US governement and those who serve in it, Gerson's point could be read as implying that "theonomic" churches likewise preach that the government is guilty of monstrous crimes (and do so without proof) to stimulate personal hatred for those individuals who disagree with the Recon ethical perspective and such a conclusion is almost certainly wrong when applied to the majority of "theonomic" churches.

Although some Recon's (e.g. North) have strong feelings about the contemporary abuse contemporary politicians have done to the powers constitutionally granted to the US federal government, and the strength of their feelings towards the changes could perhaps fairly be described as "hatred", members of most "theonomic" churches, AFAIK, are not taught from their pulpits by inflammatory rhetoric unsupported by proof that their government has engaged in "the most montstrous crime in history".

The most I think that could be fairly said by outsiders, lacking specific evidence to the contrary which Gerson does not provide, is that a given "theonomic" preacher might possibly descend to Wright's level of invective. But, and this is the second reason for rejecting Gerson's charge, even if one "theonomic" preacher did so, that is would not necessarily mean that the entire school of thought would do likewise.

wsw201 · #8 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 11:32 AM

I would say that most if not all political analyst no very little if anything about theonomy much less basic Christian Theology. That is evidenced by the fact that they consider Wright's teaching as "Christian", which tells me that they no nothing about Liberation Theology much less any of its subsets such as Black Liberation Theology or Feminest Liberation Theology.

What's the difference between a Marxist and a Liberation Theologian? One believes there is a god and the other one doesn't!

victorbravo · #9 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 11:44 AM

There is another current swirling in the background, particularly among conservatives. The argument goes: "If a white man went to a church that preached against Catholics or Jews, wouldn't he be obligated to disown that church for the hateful things being said?"

I've heard variations on this several times. Interesting how, in a rush to condemn Obama's membership in a church, the mainstream is conceding that adherence to tolerance supersedes faith.

I wonder if a candidate holding to any of the historic Confessions could get over the "hate-speech" hurdle these days.

non dignus · #10 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 11:45 AM

I think the author qualified his example as a more radical theonomy. Both Wright and Theonomists are stuck in an era that has passed.

Grymir · #11 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 12:30 PM

To quote the article - WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama has run a campaign based on a simple premise: that words of unity and hope matter to America. Now he has been forced by his charismatic, angry pastor to argue that words of hatred and division don't really matter as much as we thought.

You can tell the writer is a liberal by what he is saying. Pursuant to the latter article, is laws against gays a bad thing? Spanking children a bad thing? The laws of God (which our country was founded on) a bad thing? The writer thinks so.

I just let articles roll off my back and use it as an indicator to what people think.

I had hoped after the first sentence, the author would expound on the idea that people don't want words of unity and hope, but would rather hear about how great America is and that we the little people and our families are what make it great.

Josiah · #12 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Quote:

But haven't George Bush and other Republican politicians accepted the support of Jerry Falwell, who spouted hate of his own? Yes, but they didn't financially support his ministry and sit directly under his teaching for decades.

The better analogy is this: What if a Republican presidential candidate spent years in the pew of a theonomist church -- a fanatical fragment of Protestantism that teaches the modern political validity of ancient Hebrew law? What if the church's pastor attacked the American government as illegitimate and accepted the stoning of homosexuals and recalcitrant children as appropriate legal penalties (which some theonomists interpret as biblical requirements)? Surely we would conclude, at the very least, that the Republican candidate attending this church lacked judgment, and that his donations were subsidizing hatred. And we would be right.

Is this a true representation of theonomy in a few lines?

Theonomy is not "hatred" as humanists represent it. Scriptural law only allows for the execution of homosexuals caught in the actual act of Sodomy by the mouth of two or three witnesses. No one is to be executed for having homosexual thoughts, but for carrying out the act. As for rebellious sons, it takes the consent of both father and mother, so the son must have to be a real reprobate. Moreover, if this law was upheld today it would surely having a sobering effect on the wild and bold youth of our age. See these post for more:

Teenagers…What would you do with them? « Reformed Covenanter

Theonomy: An Informed Response to Some Critics (Part 2) « Reformed Covenanter

Furthermore, in my next book I have quotes from Martin Luther, John Calvin, Matthew Henry, John Gill, Matthew Poole and Thomas Scott (and possibly others) in favour of upholding this law.

Thank you for posting the link to your blog that asks the question of what to do about teenagers.
I am not a Theonomist (I am open to it though), yet I have recently been wondering what the response of a theonomist would be to a continuously rebellious teenager.

Thomas2007 · #13 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 01:13 PM

Wow, God must be a hatemonger to this fellow, He condemned Adam and the whole human race to death for simply eating of an otherwise perfectly good piece of fruit - and that is still applicable today.

Backwoods Presbyterian · #14 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by victorbravo

There is another current swirling in the background, particularly among conservatives. The argument goes: "If a white man went to a church that preached against Catholics or Jews, wouldn't he be obligated to disown that church for the hateful things being said?"

I've heard variations on this several times. Interesting how, in a rush to condemn Obama's membership in a church, the mainstream is conceding that adherence to tolerance supersedes faith.

I wonder if a candidate holding to any of the historic Confessions could get over the "hate-speech" hurdle these days.

Especially if one has an unedited version of the WCF that still includes the words "Synagogues of Satan".

Pilgrim · #15 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Quote:

Originally Posted by victorbravo

There is another current swirling in the background, particularly among conservatives. The argument goes: "If a white man went to a church that preached against Catholics or Jews, wouldn't he be obligated to disown that church for the hateful things being said?"

I've heard variations on this several times. Interesting how, in a rush to condemn Obama's membership in a church, the mainstream is conceding that adherence to tolerance supersedes faith.

I wonder if a candidate holding to any of the historic Confessions could get over the "hate-speech" hurdle these days.

Especially if one has an unedited version of the WCF that still includes the words "Synagogues of Satan".

Every version of the WCF that I know of still includes the words "synagogues of Satan" at 25.5. Perhaps you are thinking about identifying the Pope as Antichrist instead?

tcalbrecht · #16 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Quote:

But haven't George Bush and other Republican politicians accepted the support of Jerry Falwell, who spouted hate of his own? Yes, but they didn't financially support his ministry and sit directly under his teaching for decades.

The better analogy is this: What if a Republican presidential candidate spent years in the pew of a theonomist church -- a fanatical fragment of Protestantism that teaches the modern political validity of ancient Hebrew law? What if the church's pastor attacked the American government as illegitimate and accepted the stoning of homosexuals and recalcitrant children as appropriate legal penalties (which some theonomists interpret as biblical requirements)? Surely we would conclude, at the very least, that the Republican candidate attending this church lacked judgment, and that his donations were subsidizing hatred. And we would be right.

Is this a true representation of theonomy in a few lines?

Why would a liberal have a problem with that? They mostly support Israel after all, a nation full of people who see the "modern political validity of ancient Hebrew law".

The answer to your question is "no".

tcalbrecht · #17 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by non dignus

I think the author qualified his example as a more radical theonomy. Both Wright and Theonomists are stuck in an era that has passed.

No big deal. Liberals and many non-Christians believe anyone who would subscribe the Westminster Standards or 3FU is "stuck in an era that has passed".

DMcFadden · #18 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by victorbravo

I've heard variations on this several times. Interesting how, in a rush to condemn Obama's membership in a church, the mainstream is conceding that adherence to tolerance supersedes faith.

I wonder if a candidate holding to any of the historic Confessions could get over the "hate-speech" hurdle these days.

Absolutely! In the current climate, anything not partaking of painstaking tolerance is viewed as hate speech. Most of the "red letter" words in the Bible (with the exception of the only verse pagans know by heart = "Judge not . . .") would be considered "hate speech" as would the Hebrew prophets, the Apostle Paul, the Apostle John's epistles, and practically everything in the Revelation.

timmopussycat · #19 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Quote:

But haven't George Bush and other Republican politicians accepted the support of Jerry Falwell, who spouted hate of his own? Yes, but they didn't financially support his ministry and sit directly under his teaching for decades.

The better analogy is this: What if a Republican presidential candidate spent years in the pew o