Does Matthew 21:43 damage the theonomist's argument?

Talk amongst yourselves...

__________________
Since it is incomparably the greatest dignity to be introduced into the company of angels, nay, to be made the associates of Christ, he who estimates this favor of God aright, will regard all other things as worthless. Then neither poverty, nor contempt, nor nakedness, nor famine nor thirst, will make his mind so anxious, but that he will sustain himself with this consolation. "Since the Lord has conferred on me the principal thing, it behooves me patiently to bear the loss of other things, which are inferior."--John Calvin

The whole Bible damages the Theonomist's argument

__________________
~Wayne Wylie~
Member, Mid Cities Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Ruling Elder - Inactive
http://www.mcopc.org
Bedford, TX

Job 28:28 - And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

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

Solo Christo - What is your interpretation of the verse that might lead to that possible conclusion? IOW, where are you coming from in regards to this verse?

wsw201 - Does not! :P

__________________
Chris Rhoades -33
Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church (PCA) Nashville, TN-Under Care

Vera theologia non theoretica, sed practica est; Finis siquidem eius agere est hoc est vitam vivere deiformem. - Martin Bucer
""True theology is not theoretical, but practical. The end of it is living, that is to live a godly life."

crhoades - does toooo

Well, the question was sparked from a short article that I read. I'll leave the author's name out to minimize premature bias. Here it is...

"The closer we get to Dominion Theology the closer we get to living by the sword. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world my disciples would fight." This seems to mean that we are not moving toward a true understanding of the kingdom of God in this world as we move toward a greater and greater use of the sword to authorize kingdom values.

It is not the priests who are given the sword but the magistrates. And the magistrates rule not by virtue of their claim to revelation but by virtue of their claim to providential authorization. In some cultures this providential authorization has been through a line of kings, in other cultures through various contests, and in our own culture through a democratic representative process.

It seems that the theocratic ideal of Israel in the Old Testament was specifically abandoned in the New Testament as the Gospel ceased to be focused on an ethnic and political reality called Israel (Matt. 21:43) and became a multicultural, multiethnic worldwide movement without ethnic or political definition. It will be fitting, when Christ returns, that he be given the right to establish a kingdom of more specific political boundaries. But in the meantime we do well to exert our influence in ways that do not put the sword into the hands of the priests."

Solo Christo -

I've got to run to a lunch meeting...sorry for not quickly responding to everything you just wrote. Will later...In the mean time, the quote

"It seems that the theocratic ideal of Israel in the Old Testament was specifically abandoned in the New Testament as the Gospel ceased to be focused on an ethnic and political reality called Israel (Matt. 21:43) and became a multicultural, multiethnic worldwide movement without ethnic or political definition."

- gives me pause. What is your definition of theocracy? Was God's rule limited *only* to Israel in the OT? Was the gospel limited *only* to Israel in the OT?

If someone wants to reference some of Andrew's scripture references in the posts regarding the military that would help. Sorry Andrew for not hopping into your fray.

I didn't write it so I cannot speak for the author.

Providentially, no. Covenantally, yes. (Eph 2:11-12).

Quite frankly I am offended by that assertion. I see the verse in question as Christ condemning the Jews for their failure to be a light to the Gentiles and for rejecting the self-revelation of God in Christ.

In what respect do you mean that? You have to make distinctions here because in the Great Commission Christ said that all authority in heaven and earth is given him. Anyway, I HAVE NEVER ASSERTED, NOR HAS ANY SERIOUS THEONOMIST THAT GOD'S KINGDOM WILL COME BY VIOLENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By the way, I want to thank JohnV and Andrew for while they disagree firmly with the theonomic thesis, they do not erect straw men in desperation to attack theonomy. I consider them formidable debate opponents worthy to be taken seriously. As for the above argument....

So when do Christians use the sword? We have had about 20 threads on this board discussing the resistance to tyranny led by the lesser civil magistrate. Anyway, the ability to assert above slander means the author of the article is thinking like a NeoCon; i.e., use the sword under the name of spreading peace.

[Edited on 4--15-05 by Draught Horse]

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

Talk about straw men!

"It is not the priests who are given the sword but the magistrates...in the meantime we do well to exert our influence in ways that do not put the sword into the hands of the priests"

WHAAT? Theonomists *firmly* believe that church and state are seperate spheres of power. No one is giving priests the sword! However BOTH church and state are to submit to God and the authority of his word.

"And the magistrates rule not by virtue of their claim to revelation but by virtue of their claim to providential authorization."

???? This guy has a really shallow view of biblical magistracy. God's providence is no more authorization for magistrates as it is for any other office or action. God's approbation of a magistrate, a minister, or anything must be tested by what his REVEALED will (ie revelation) says concerning the matter not his secret will.

__________________
*Peter Gray* Elkins Park RPCNA

"Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief. " Mk 9:24
"The greatest thing we can desire, next to the glory of God, is our own salvation; and the sweetest thing we can desire is the assurance of our salvation. In this life we cannot get higher than to be assured of that which in the next life is to be enjoyed. All saints shall enjoy a heaven when they leave this earth; some saints enjoy a heaven while they are here on earth." Joseph Caryl

Who wrote the article?

Google to the rescue! You'll trip when you follow the link!

Article with quote

I remember reading this now. Anyway,

Yes, the theocratic ideal of Israel did fade away due to a number of factors, Rome being one of them. Still, it begs the question by what standard are nations to be governed today?

Though I do not like to set up straw men, I also don't particularly like to have them erected in front of me either. The reaction against Theonomy is warranted, and that needs to be addressed and confessed. I have said this so many times: it is the Theonomist that ought to be most in the fray against the abusers, the pretenders, the boasters who say far too much in their Theonomic frenzy. They hurt the Theonomist cause the most, not those of us who oppose it. I am content to keep to the strict arguments and the text of the Scriptures, and to interact with those on this Board who claim to hold to Theonomy. Personally, I think if we could lose the term and be more difinitive, we might actually see that there are probably only a few who are Theonomists, and only a few that deny the theonomic basis in the gospel. I see this mostly as a contention over words, and a confusion of ideas.

I agree with Wayne, the entire Bible speaks against Theonomy. I refer to the Theonomy that can strictly be called Theonomy, not by definition but by the convention within which it is held. Unless theonomists distance themselves from this group of Theonomists, such as seeing that Piper is arguing against the same Theonomists that I would take issue with, and for the same reasons, (because they DID proffer the priests taking up the sword in their boastfulness, only they bend everything now to deny it now that they are not so boastful anymore), and not against themselves, we really cannot come to a consensus on this matter.

I emphasize again, there are Theonomists and there are theonimists, and there is a theonimic principle in the gospel. These are three different camps. As I see it, Piper was referring to the first; some members on this Board are of the second, and some of us are of the third.

__________________
JohnV :detective:

John Vandervliet
Ontario, Canada
member of: Canadian Reformed Church
"In coming to understand anything we are rejecting the facts as they are for us in favour of the facts as they are" C.S Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism

Wow. This got pretty interesting since I last posted. Sorry that the author was leaked. We could have had some meaningful discussion. Now it's all lopsided and there is no turning back. Oh well.

I disagree with Piper's argument, but I am not a theonomist. Just wanted to see where this would go.

Yeah, well ... Piper's a Baptist.

I rest my case.

[Edited on 4-16-2005 by Solo Christo]

Would it make a difference if it were a Presbyterian? How about Ligon Duncan, Sinclair Ferguson, Robert Godfrey?

Be that as it may, Greg Bahnsen, Doug and Howard Phillips, Ken Gentry, Gary Demar, Joe Morecraft III all deny such accusations. Nowhere in Bahnsen's writings (and his should be most thoroughly dealt with if one is to talk of theonomy) does he want Christians to go off half-cocked against the government. In By this Standard he spends 20 pages arguing precisely the opposite. No, I do not have to answer for above said slander. They are not the real theonomists. The ones I just mentioned--quoting from any of them in discussing theonomy-- are the true representatives of the theonomic thesis.

Where are Piper's sources? If he had quoted from the above men I mentioned he would have to modify his thesis and realize that he is erecting a bogus straw man.

Isn't Piper talking about "Dominion theology'? I heard that was a more Pentecostal thing, asserting God's dominion over satanic strongholds, prayer-walks, et al.

__________________
The man who is disposed to think of his sin as a great calamity, rather than as a heinous crime, is not likely either to reverence God or to respect His law. - John Kennedy, 1873
Meg
Blog
Member, Intown Presbyterian Church,PCA, Portland, OR

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

Because Piper is talking about Dominion Theology, he is talking about a different Theonomy than what you hold to. I wouldn't worry, if I were you. Believe me, its a horse of different colour.

Now, I still disagree with you about theonomy. But you don't hold to Five-Pillar Theonomy, which has as one of its pillars Dominion Theology. It puts together Postmillennialism, Presuppositonalism, Theonomy, and Dominion Theology. It throws in (to make five) Calvinistic Soteriology. But I would dispute that they actually hold to that last one. I think it is there to identify them with Reformed theology, but not out of conviction.

The difficulty I see is that some of us who oppose Theonomy see it happening around us, while those who support theonomy don't see it. All that needs to be done is to deny that Bahnsen, Demar, Gentry, etc., never said such things, or if they said it they never meant it that way. Well, that's fine. There still are those who hold to Theonomy who do mean it that way, at least until they are called on the carpet for it. And even then, they walk away innocent while people like me take the brunt of it. At least for now.

But let me ask you this. Where would your own convictions concerning Theonomy be without us? Is it not more honed than before? Yet, have we who oppose Theonomy betrayed your trust? We remain opposed, but we also remain your brothers in love.

That is not the way I was treated in the church. If anyone of us has a right to come out charging against Theonomy, "Full speed ahead, damn the torpedos", it is myself. I have been and am being put out of the church for remaining true to our Confessions and to the Word. I did not act arrogantly, but yet it is regarded that way because I was firm. All the evidence points the other way, but the decision against me was unanimous, and guilty on all counts except one. The only reason that they did not convict me on one count is not that they ruled I was not guilty of it, but because they ruled that it did not apply directly to the case.

This is how Theonomy works in actual practice. Of course Bahnsen, Demar, Gentry, etc., don't cover this. And of course they would deny it. But my question is, do you too deny it? If so, then let us stand together in opposing such overstatements and actions. These are Theonomists all the same, no matter what it is that Bahnsen et al deny or affirm.

Otherwise we have a very troubling scenario: Theonomists say and do things for which they need make no answer simply because Bahnsen, Demar, Gentry, etc. didn't promote such things. People like me can be excommunicated because Theonomists must be allowed their excesses. And their justification for whatever excess they champion is that they were just misunderstood because Bahnsen, Demar, Gentry, etc., did not affirm those excesses. Those who must pay for these excesses are those who oppose or don't allow the excesses. And no one ought to help them. Theonomy must be protected at all costs. Even at the cost of innocent members of the Church.

This may be harsh, but that is exactly what happens. But if you really champion theonomy, then join us in opposing Theonomy. After all, it is they, not us, who do you the most damage.

Ok, you are correct in this. We had our experience of theonomy in different ways. I respect you as a brother and your posts are always well-thought and reflective. I still hold to my convictions but I apologize if I seemed harsh or angry. In some ways we might have to agree to disagree on this topic.

It works both ways, Jacob. The convictions of Theonomists have helped me a great deal in handling my own situation. I too will hold to my convictions I have concerning in incompatibility of sound Biblical theology and Theonomy.
I can respect a person convicted of things if he really believes the Bible says so.

"Honest and earnest controversy, conducted in a Christian and catholic spirit, promotes true and lasting union." Phillip Schaff

While I'm at it, here are a few more quotes for careful thought:

"Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man, and writing an exact man." Francis Bacon

"But the discipline of law creates a desire which it cannot satisfy, and points beyond itself." Phillip Schaff

"The greatest of faults, I should say, is to be conscious of none." Carlyle

"He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot reason is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave." Drummond

"Trust not yourself, but your defects know,
Make use of every friend - and every foe.
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate te brain,
And drinking deep largely sobers us again." Alexander Pope

"Now, they who reach Parnassus' lofty crown,
Employ their pains to spurn some others down;
And while self-love each jealous writer rules,
Contending wits becomes the sport of fools." Pope, again

"'Tis with our judgments as with our watches, none
Go just alike, yet each believes his own." Pope, again

For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice,
the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6

"Teach me the way I should go
for to Thee I lift up my soul." Ps. 143: 8b

John i must say eventhough i do not agree with you i must that i constantly appreciate how you respectful and honest you are. you are a good brother.

__________________
Herminio Hernandez, Jr.
member of Holy Trinity Presbeterian Church (PCA)
Tampa, FL

...e