I am listening to Jim Jordan's theocratic critique of theonomy. I am becoming convinced of Jordan's position.

That being said, some things are still the same:

Pluralism is a logical and biblical joke. It cannot, by definition, be defended.

I love Greg Bahnsen. He is the most powerful communicator and teacher I have ever listened to. I am literally in tears at times listening to his lectures.

None of Bahnsen's critics ever answered him. Bahnsen/North/Gentry won the theonomy debate 4-0.

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

That wasn't you that said "antinomian rubbish", sorry! Obviously if someone is actually trying to assault you...fire away!


oops, wrong thread!

[Edited on 10-7-2005 by turmeric]

__________________
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?

Define the theocratic position. I myself take the Westminsterian/ Gillespian approach to the Law, practically I think this view is 99% in agreement with Theonomy.

__________________
*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

Yah, I would also like to know what you mean by theonomy, and how that would be different from Jordan's position.

Cheers,
Shawn

__________________
Shawn Lazar
West Island Baptist Church Montreal, Canada
Currently at Lighthouse Baptist in Amsterdam
B.Th. (McGill), M.Th. Cand. (Free University, Amsterdam)

I can only do it in short for the moment (and I do not fully agree with some of Jordan's distinctions, either).

I define the theocratic position (and this is a broad definition that I hope can inlcude Covenanters, theonomists, and whatever Jordan is) as seeking the Reign of Christ within space-time. Practically speaking, the state should be a Christocracy (not an ecclesiocracy, though). I respect a proper-separation of church and state, although not the modern one which has gutted the American church and prevented the stopping of slaughtering babies.

I believe, as with theonomists, that God's word should be the guiding principle to law, poltiics, education, economics, etc. I do not believe that "right reason" or "common grace" should be the standard for law and society.

I disagree (or am starting to question) the theonomic approach to case laws in the OT. Casuistry is valid, to be sure, and inevitable to a degree. As a theonomist, I have always been uncomfortable with their neat (although admittedly not easy) categorizations of case law [in other words, I don't think some laws they call case laws are case laws]. (LOL, I already know the theonomic rebuttal and will address that later).

Critics have always accused theonomists of not taking-redemptive history seriously. Unfortunate for them, they never could define which aspects of RH that theonomists erred on. And of course, if they could define it then by what standard is it valid and what viable alternative drawn from the bible do they propose? No answer.

Jim Jordan has come close to giving an answer. I will try to flesh this out over the next week.

Theocratic Alternatives to Theonomy?

__________________
Andrew Myers
Husband of Jessica, Father of Jackson, Katie and Samuel
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church of Northern Virginia
Warrenton, VA USA
Editor, The Matthew Poole Project

"Let your Morning Thoughts, and your last Evening Thoughts, be what shall become of you to all Eternity." -- Matthew Poole

Much as I am not a theonomist, I would not take advice on just about anything theological from Jordan. He is an unreliable teacher, as well as one who presided over one of the worst incidents of abuse of church power in the 20th century.

He was and continues to be dangerous.

__________________
Fredrick T. Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

You will answer for this Jacob or my name isn't poimen!

__________________
Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of Grace Reformed Church (URCNA)
Leduc, Alberta CANADA
Church Blog

"there is no creature, either in heaven or on earth, who loves us more than Jesus Christ"
Belgic Confession, Article 26

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

That's why I separate the person from the idea.

You can't do that. You could do that if it was a moral issue, but this is a theological issue. If someone is known for theological aberration, he is not trustworthy.

It is highly dangerous to think that one can sift out wheat from a bushel of chaff - especially if the one doing the sifting is not incredibly well versed in wheat yet.

After reading and digesting Calvin a dozen or so times, along with all the other giants, then maybe you should waste some time on Jordan. Reading him is asking for trouble.

Jacob:

Forgive me please, but because I haven't had my mind of this topic for a while I'm not following this. I mean, is the bottom line of your view on righteous government based on a rejection of the civil status quo? Or is this an enquiry into what God means by lawful government, not biased even by your own presuppositions? Are you reading Jordan and other non- or anti-theonomists to get a more objective understanding, by working out the pros and cons yourself?

__________________
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

__________________
~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?

How is James Jordan theologically corrupt ? ?

If it is a red herring then send me an email Fred.
I do not want to be contentious or start an argument.
Just curious for my own reasons.

__________________
Misery induces despair, pride induces presumption. The Incarnation shows man the
greatness of his misery by the greatness of the remedy which he required.
~ Pascal, Pensees 526

I don't understand what you mean. I don't seek to reject the status quo if by that you mean anarchy and forced theonomic imposition upon an unwilling society. Rather, I see it as Reformers we ought to Reform the Chruch by the Word and Spirit of God and pray for his outpouring on our country, then we talk righteous government.

But to the extent that a status quo sanctions the slaughter of children, tolerates (and promots) Sodomy, robs the poor and taxes teh church, then I am against it with all my heart and strentgh. In that case I have as much interest in preserving the status quo as I do opium dens.

That;s more to the point. Jordan is following a lot of what Vern Poythress (ie, established Reformed Theologian) has done on Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses. Bahnsen even said taht this book--sort of a response to theonomy--was a good read except for one fatal categorical error: Poythress said that BOTH Kline AND Bahnsen were essentially correct. However, that is introducing a contradiction into one's argument. When that happens I can then by disjunction and addition make the argument say whatever I want it to say.

Poythress's book was good, though.

I don't understand this either, Fred. I would think that you can't not separate the man from the issue, if you're a responsible student.

But wait, as I think about it now, I see what you mean. You're actually saying the same thing, trying to warn Jacob of the things that are hidden that have the appearance of objectivity.

Jacob, it is maturity and time-invested wisdom that allows you to separate the man from the issue. You have to do that, and it is commendable that you attempt it, as we all should. If you can do that with Jordan, then you can do that with Bahnsen too. And I think that reading Calvin is an excellent way of gaining that understanding to do that.

For example, if we put our Calvin against the Catholic Calvin, namely Aquinas, what do you see as the difference? Wasn't Aquinas more a philosopher, relying not solely upon the irrefutable witness of Scripture, but also upon the teachings of man? Calvin, though, was theologian through and through, submitting in every way to the precepts of Scripture. That is what marvels us, not the man himself, or his acumen. He is not our philosopher, but Christ's servant: that is how we respect him. Anything less or more than that makes for hyper-Calvinism.

Is this what you meant, Fred?

I have read through Calvin once and am reading through him again (halfway through). This is a practice I plan to continue for the rest of my life.

Yes, I believe I can separate the man from the issue. Jordan is drawing off Vern Poythress on teh Mosaic law. To make people feel better I will just say that I am following Poythress on this one.

Yes, I do too. I was just asking if you are also subjecting your own arguments and views too. I believe in democratic government, but democracy without a solid godly base is conceited and deceptive.

Fred,
Not sure about presiding, but Jordan is certainly one of the few left who defends the ARC Tyler excommunications.

Otherwise, to your advice.

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Much as I am not a theonomist, I would not take advice on just about anything theological from Jordan. He is an unreliable teacher, as well as one who presided over one of the worst incidents of abuse of church power in the 20th century.

__________________
Chris Coldwell, Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Member
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• The Confessional Presbyterian Journal
• The Blue Banner Archive

The Regulative Principle: Samuel Miller gives a succinct statement of this principle when he writes that since the Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference.”

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum

people will have beef with Poythress's multi-perspectivalism /symphonic theology (actually Bahnsen didn't appreciate his hermeneutic either).

I have listened to the lectures that Jacob is alluding to and in fact even asked him to listen to them to help me sift. I will say that they have done more to challenge me on changing my views on theonomy than anything else I've read or heard. I'm still processing as well. Like JohnV said, I am trying to listen/read to all sides of the issue and want to come out with a Biblical view. Jordan's critique is not going off in a wacko direction. You can tell he has an axe to grind in the lectures.

I hope to relisten to them and jot down the actual arguments and then try to work through them myself, with Jacob, and if it would be alright with the moderators, post them here as well to get everyone's input as well. I think theology is done better in the context of community - which has been a great advantage of my time here on the board. I walk away ever challenged.

[Edited on 10-7-2005 by crhoades]

__________________
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."

James Jordan is a Federal Vision proponent. He is a co-author of The Federal Vison , his chapter of which was discussed at http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/vi...d.php?tid=9429

__________________
Dan Harris. -member of Westminster OPC, Indian Head Park, IL

Looking for piano lessons in the Plainfield, Shorewood, Joliet, IL area?
Contact: Mrs. Jennifer Harris. Visit web site here:
http://www.harrispianostudio.com

And, Jacob, as I recall you have read the City of God.

Maybe one piece of advice. I don't mean to knock the McNeill edition of the Institutes, but try to read through an edition without all the notations and footnotes; just the plain text itself. With a book like this, one reading is hardly enough; and the McNeill edition gives you a four year course in the Institutes in one edition, in two volumes. This is way too much to grasp in one reading. And it can deflect away from getting the arguments Calvin poses.

Hey, I'm not trying to talk you out of not being a theonomist anymore. I'm in favour of that. :bigsmile:

Great point Fred.

I found reading David Chilton's first hand account of the goings on at the church in Tyler to be shocking. Finding that the man behind those horrendous abuses is being treated in some quarters as serious resource for Biblical truth is unfathomable to me.

[Edited on 10-7-2005 by AdamM]