Theonomy? What is it? - Page 7

Me Died Blue · #**241** (**permalink**) 11-30-2004, 07:18 PM

I hear what you're saying Fred, and I agree that it is hypocritical and inconsistent for people who passionately defend theonomy to try and dismiss issues such as the second commandment, the fourth commandment and the RPW applied to holidays in the church as frivolous. I don't, however, think anyone here is doing that.

I also agree with you that it would be very possible for an attempted theonomic society to result in a misconstrued, unbiblical application of God's laws, and that is a risk for which sound believers would have to keep a critical eye out. Potential abuse of theonomy by some, however, of course does not automatically negate theonomy any more than abuse of the second commandment or the RPW negates them, and I know you're not trying to claim it does, either.

Now whether or not the doctrine of theonomy is itself just such an abuse of God's law...well, we could get the whole snowball rolling again on that one if desired

.

fredtgreco · #**242** (**permalink**) 11-30-2004, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
I hear what you're saying Fred, and I agree that it is hypocritical and inconsistent for people who passionately defend theonomy to try and dismiss issues such as the second commandment, the fourth commandment and the RPW applied to holidays in the church as frivolous. I don't, however, think anyone here is doing that.

I also agree with you that it would be very possible for an attempted theonomic society to result in a misconstrued, unbiblical application of God's laws, and that is a risk for which sound believers would have to keep a critical eye out. Potential abuse of theonomy by some, however, of course does not automatically negate theonomy any more than abuse of the second commandment or the RPW negates them, and I know you're not trying to claim it does, either.

Now whether or not the doctrine of theonomy is itself just such an abuse of God's law...well, we could get the whole snowball rolling again on that one if desired

.

Chris,

Hear me that I am not accusing anyone here. Especially Paul - after all, I think he and I agree on the Christmas issue (if I read him right). But Gary North does EXACTLY what I am talking about. It points out that "Theonomy" per se is no solution. After all, we can talk about the necessity for enacting our laws based on God's laws, but it is still a matter of human interpretation. So in North's (and many other Theonomists' ) state, they would encourage what the unanimous opinion of Reformed divines - the very men that they claim for supporting theonomy: Rutherford, Calvin, Gillespie, etc - would have called outright sin and idolatry. Not just a failure to have the best laws (God's as opposed to good human fallible laws); but sin and heresy.

pastorway · #**243** (**permalink**) 11-30-2004, 09:50 PM

yep - that is what I was talking about. MOST of the theonomy I see out there is not a Biblical society and even further from Biblical Christianity!! I would leave because if the predominant ideas of theonomy come to pass here I will end up being persecuted for my faith.

I would rather spend my time preaching the gospel in a completely pagan land - the well have no need of a doctor!

Phillip

pastorway · #**244** (**permalink**) 11-30-2004, 10:05 PM

yeah, exactly, all that stuff in my head.......

So in this theonomy-land who is in charge? Who determines Biblical interpretation? Which confession? Which church? Which denomination....

then we would have a real jihad!!

Once again we see that I should have kept my mouth shut in the thenomy discussion. One day I will learn.

Peter · #**245** (**permalink**) 11-30-2004, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Quote:

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
I hear what you're saying Fred, and I agree that it is hypocritical and inconsistent for people who passionately defend theonomy to try and dismiss issues such as the second commandment, the fourth commandment and the RPW applied to holidays in the church as frivolous. I don't, however, think anyone here is doing that.

I also agree with you that it would be very possible for an attempted theonomic society to result in a misconstrued, unbiblical application of God's laws, and that is a risk for which sound believers would have to keep a critical eye out. Potential abuse of theonomy by some, however, of course does not automatically negate theonomy any more than abuse of the second commandment or the RPW negates them, and I know you're not trying to claim it does, either.

Now whether or not the doctrine of theonomy is itself just such an abuse of God's law...well, we could get the whole snowball rolling again on that one if desired

.

Chris,

Hear me that I am not accusing anyone here. Especially Paul - after all, I think he and I agree on the Christmas issue (if I read him right). But Gary North does EXACTLY what I am talking about. It points out that "Theonomy" per se is no solution. After all, we can talk about the necessity for enacting our laws based on God's laws, but it is still a matter of human interpretation. So in North's (and many other Theonomists' ) state, they would encourage what the unanimous opinion of Reformed divines - the very men that they claim for supporting theonomy: Rutherford, Calvin, Gillespie, etc - would have called outright sin and idolatry. Not just a failure to have the best laws (God's as opposed to good human fallible laws); but sin and heresy.

Their hypocrisy is sad. Theonomists are all about "reconstructing" society & law in conformity with scripture yet when it comes to the most important institution the church and the worship of God they pitifully fall short. Well, I see the double standard and thats why I believe the magistrate should oppose all idolatry. Images, idols, the subject of the 2nd commandment not photos of humans, should be burnt and destroyed. And all false worshipping of God forbidden. Thats what Hezekiah, and Josiah and their lot were deemed good for, right? Cutting down high places and smashing altars.

fredtgreco · #**246** (**permalink**) 11-30-2004, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by paul manata
Fred, I would be really interested in hearing your response to those who say that your avatar violates the second commandment because we are not to make an image of ANY created thing. Would you say that: Well, you're not applying it correctly. Or, you're misunderstanding it? So you see we're not that far apart afterall.

Paul,

I don't think we were ever that far apart. As for your question, I'll answer it the same way I always have done on the board:

Hermeneutics 101 will not allow for an interpretation of the commandment to forbid all representations. If it did, God would be a sinner (Ex. 25:18ff).

Hermeneutics 102 says that the 2nd commandment cannot refer just to worshipping a false god by means of an image - for that would mean that the 2nd commandment is subsumed in the 1st, and has no separate meaning. After all, that is why Papists and Lutherans do not even believe the 2nd commandment exists as a commandment.

The problem comes when North or others tell me that they have the only way to interpret the law, that their distinctions and divisions are the only Biblical means, and to oppose them is to be an "autonomist," one who "doesn't care about God's law" and one who "chooses man rather than God." They do this at the same time that they show me that they can't interpret one of the parts of the Decalogue. And they fail in the face of the unanimous - yes, that again, Dutch, English, Scottish, Calvin, Belgic, Westminster, etc - witness of the Reformed Church. Sorry if I am reluctant to allow such men to shape my entire society. It is as if someone told me that I had to follow all their instructions for cooking, and a main tenet he held to was to never turn on the stove.

C. Matthew McMahon · #**247** (**permalink**) 12-01-2004, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter

Quote:

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Quote:

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
I hear what you're saying Fred, and I agree that it is hypocritical and inconsistent for people who passionately defend theonomy to try and dismiss issues such as the second commandment, the fourth commandment and the RPW applied to holidays in the church as frivolous. I don't, however, think anyone here is doing that.

I also agree with you that it would be very possible for an attempted theonomic society to result in a misconstrued, unbiblical application of God's laws, and that is a risk for which sound believers would have to keep a critical eye out. Potential abuse of theonomy by some, however, of course does not automatically negate theonomy any more than abuse of the second commandment or the RPW negates them, and I know you're not trying to claim it does, either.

Now whether or not the doctrine of theonomy is itself just such an abuse of God's law...well, we could get the whole snowball rolling again on that one if desired

.

Chris,

Hear me that I am not accusing anyone here. Especially Paul - after all, I think he and I agree on the Christmas issue (if I read him right). But Gary North does EXACTLY what I am talking about. It points out that "Theonomy" per se is no solution. After all, we can talk about the necessity for enacting our laws based on God's laws, but it is still a matter of human interpretation. So in North's (and many other Theonomists' ) state, they would encourage what the unanimous opinion of Reformed divines - the very men that they claim for supporting theonomy: Rutherford, Calvin, Gillespie, etc - would have called outright sin and idolatry. Not just a failure to have the best laws (God's as opposed to good human fallible laws); but sin and heresy.

Their hypocrisy is sad. Theonomists are all about "reconstructing" society & law in conformity with scripture yet when it comes to the most important institution the church and the worship of God they pitifully fall short. Well, I see the double standard and thats why I believe the magistrate should oppose all idolatry. Images, idols, the subject of the 2nd commandment not photos of humans, should be burnt and destroyed. And all false worshipping of God forbidden. Thats what Hezekiah, and Josiah and their lot were deemed good for, right? Cutting down high places and smashing altars.

C. Matthew McMahon · #**248** (**permalink**) 12-01-2004, 12:19 AM

Unless of course I had more than a generalization behind my thumbs up based on Theonomy in Christian Ethics.

As Columbo would say: Oh, yessss sir.

Me Died Blue · #**249** (**permalink**) 12-01-2004, 12:22 AM

Paul, I think you may have misunderstood Peter's comment. I know from earlier in this thread that he considers himself a theonomist, in the school of thought of Bahnsen, et al. So I think his comment above was trying to say that the type of theonomists to which Fred is referring are hypocritical, that is, those who disregard the RPW, second and fourth commandments, etc. In that light, his comment about the magistrate rightly prohibiting all idolatry makes sense. I understand, though, how you could have misunderstood him, since he spoke of "theonomists" at the beginning without qualifying it. Am I reading you right, Peter?

luvroftheWord · #**250** (**permalink**) 12-01-2004, 01:06 AM

Come on, Paul. EVERYBODY generalizes. :P

Me Died Blue · #**251** (**permalink**) 12-01-2004, 01:30 AM

There was a girl in my high-school who was very liberal in all areas (politics, religion, philosophy, etc.), and her main claims always revolved around the belief that there were no valid generalizations.

VirginiaHuguenot · #**252** (**permalink**) 12-01-2004, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvroftheWord
Come on, Paul. EVERYBODY generalizes. :P

Aren't generalizations ALWAYS bad?

luvroftheWord · #**253** (**permalink**) 12-01-2004, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Quote:

Originally posted by luvroftheWord
Come on, Paul. EVERYBODY generalizes. :P

Aren't generalizations ALWAYS bad?

ALWAYS bad? C'mon, Andrew. I've told you a million times to stop exaggerating. :bigsmile:

Anyway, back to theonomy...

Peter · #**254** (**permalink**) 12-01-2004, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by paul manata
I wouldn't get caught dead giving a thumbsup to a generalization like that. At best it should be said that SOME theonomists. And, maybe it's true, where we sin we should repent. But as was told to me in the Christmas thread: even if we are inconsistant it doesn't prove us qwrong. hence we see that the inconsistant ones used inconsistancy to argue here; mighty inconsistant

As Hacksaw Jim Dugan would say:

hoooooooo, tough-guy.

Who said we're wrong?

Peter · #**255** (**permalink**) 12-01-2004, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Paul, I think you may have misunderstood Peter's comment. I know from earlier in this thread that he considers himself a theonomist, in the school of thought of Bahnsen, et al. So I think his comment above was trying to say that the type of theonomists to which Fred is referring are hypocritical, that is, those who disregard the RPW, second and fourth commandments, etc. In that light, his comment about the magistrate rightly prohibiting all idolatry makes sense. I understand, though, how you could have misunderstood him, since he spoke of "theonomists" at the beginning without qualifying it. Am I reading you right, Peter?

fredtgreco · #**256** (**permalink**) 12-01-2004, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by paul manata
I'm still waiting for the quotes from Bahnsen in Theonomy in Christian Ethics where he says we can violate the second commandment and he doesn't care about how we worship... tick tock tick tock

anyway, back to the generalizations:P

I don't think I said Bahnsen, although I could look later. I did say North - and I would cite his cupport of "the greatest tool for evangelism ever that affected 0.001% of evangelicals to witness more by buying tickets for unbelievers to the greatest tool for evangelism...."

C. Matthew McMahon · #**257** (**permalink**) 12-01-2004, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Remember, for your thumbsup to work you need to show that ALL theonomists have said that. I'll give you 2 and 1/2 years to complete the task.) Page numbers please Matt.

I'll drop everything for you and get right on it.

JohnV · #**258** (**permalink**) 12-01-2004, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvroftheWord
Come on, Paul. EVERYBODY generalizes. :P

Good one Craig. I got this far in reading the thread and I could not go on for laughing. What a stupendous and arresting use of language.

Me Died Blue · #**259** (**permalink**) 12-01-2004, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Quote:

Originally posted by paul manata
I'm still waiting for the quotes from Bahnsen in Theonomy in Christian Ethics where he says we can violate the second commandment and he doesn't care about how we worship... tick tock tick tock

anyway, back to the generalizations:P

I don't think I said Bahnsen, although I could look later.

I'm pretty sure Paul was referring to Matt on this one, because of his (Matt's) now second-to-last post.

ChristianTrader · #**260** (**permalink**) 01-03-2005, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by webmaster

Quote:

Remember, for your thumbsup to work you need to show that ALL theonomists have said that. I'll give you 2 and 1/2 years to complete the task.) Page numbers please Matt.

I'll drop everything for you and get right on it.

I think the attack on Theonomy in Christian Ethics should either be backed up or recanted. If someone is bold enough to throw out claims based on specific works they should have to stand up and back them up or say they made a mistake.

CT

Me Died Blue · #**261** (**permalink**) 01-03-2005, 02:53 PM

JohnV · #**262** (**permalink**) 01-03-2005, 03:03 PM

Hermonta:

For that to happen there actually have to be specific standard claims made by Theonomists that can be defended or refuted.

Make some unrecantible statements about Theonomy. What are the tenets? What makes it different than the Reformed teaching handed down by the fathers? Is the basic shift away from intrinsic Natural Law toward Legislative Law, or is it vice versa? How is it that the basic Biblical relationship between the law implanted in creation and that which God has written in His Word is seen? Are we even talking about the basic philosophy of law? What is meant by "equity" in relation to law? And is theology primary or secondary to theonomic considerations?

We have to make up our minds whether or not any one author is the textbook authority on Theonomy. Or at least we have to have some kind of formal uniformity to the idea. If its Bahnsen, then what parts of Bahsen's thesis do we together acknowledge as inconsequential, and which of consequence? What is authoritative and what is not?