 » Site Navigation | | | |  | | 
11-08-2007, 05:48 PM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: LA
Posts: 9,871
Thanks: 860
Thanked 769 Times in 476 Posts
| | |
I am not even going to bother with a rebuttal. When it gets to the point where a critic is concerned, contra hundreds of pages of evidence, with a *psychological* critique, there is no point in discussing. At this point, why bother with logical arguments or with evidence?
__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College
|
11-08-2007, 05:49 PM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: LA
Posts: 9,871
Thanks: 860
Thanked 769 Times in 476 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace  Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianLanier I like how 'Amazing Grace' (as a anti-thonomist) knows what the *true* intentions of theonomists are despite the fact that *actual* theonmists, al a Bahnsen, clearly state otherwise.
Another example of first-rate scholarship.
Please excuse the ad hominem (nothing against you AG, just using your recent posts as springboards to a more general point), but it is really tiresome to see theonomy attacked from people who obviously haven't actually read primary sources enough to understand the conceptual territory involved in the debate.
Again, I am not interested in providing postive arguments for theonomy, just defending it, as I would most positions, against ridiculous attacks. If someone is going to be effective in a critique, and not embarrass herself, she need to do the necessary homework to understand the issues involved *before* publishing her remarks (even if on an internet site). This is just responsible scholarship, and I am sick of it lacking in reformed circles. BTW, this has nothing to do with theonomy per se, just general academics/polemics. This goes for other issues as well. | Agreed brian. But I have. Not exhaustively, but enough to get a good sense of it. If anyone believes CR main goal is anything other than a Christianized society, brought about by the means of the penal sanctions of the mosaic code, they are only kidding themselves. Hence Driving them towards their own postmil world. | Theonomy and CR are distinct propositions. CR is the application of other principles besides theonomy. Really, you need to stop posting and study the issue a little bit more.
__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College
|
11-08-2007, 05:54 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,583
Thanks: 370
Thanked 280 Times in 176 Posts
| |
Steve,
I appreciate you taking the time to give such a detailed response. 
__________________
Ryan Barnhart - Pastor of OGBC
Husband to a beautiful wife, Father to two beautiful girls
"But by the grace of God I am what I am." I Corinthians 15:10
"I confess to you, that if I can but live and die serving the Lord Jesus, it will make no difference to me whether I am eaten by Cannibals or by worms. And in the Great Day my Resurrection body will rise as fair as yours in the likeness of our risen Redeemer." - John Paton
|
11-08-2007, 06:46 PM
|  | Puritanboard Postgraduate | | Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Wrightwood, CA
Posts: 4,748
Thanks: 1,730
Thanked 404 Times in 240 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Spear Dane Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianLanier I like how 'Amazing Grace' (as a anti-thonomist) knows what the *true* intentions of theonomists are despite the fact that *actual* theonmists, al a Bahnsen, clearly state otherwise.
Another example of first-rate scholarship.
Please excuse the ad hominem (nothing against you AG, just using your recent posts as springboards to a more general point), but it is really tiresome to see theonomy attacked from people who obviously haven't actually read primary sources enough to understand the conceptual territory involved in the debate.
Again, I am not interested in providing postive arguments for theonomy, just defending it, as I would most positions, against ridiculous attacks. If someone is going to be effective in a critique, and not embarrass herself, she need to do the necessary homework to understand the issues involved *before* publishing her remarks (even if on an internet site). This is just responsible scholarship, and I am sick of it lacking in reformed circles. BTW, this has nothing to do with theonomy per se, just general academics/polemics. This goes for other issues as well. | Agreed brian. But I have. Not exhaustively, but enough to get a good sense of it. If anyone believes CR main goal is anything other than a Christianized society, brought about by the means of the penal sanctions of the mosaic code, they are only kidding themselves. Hence Driving them towards their own postmil world. | Theonomy and CR are distinct propositions. CR is the application of other principles besides theonomy. Really, you need to stop posting and study the issue a little bit more. | Is there a good history of CR out there, Jacob, or is it a new idea?
|
11-08-2007, 07:16 PM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: May 2006 Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 573
Thanks: 27
Thanked 140 Times in 97 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK
Is there a good history of CR out there, Jacob, or is it a new idea?
| As far as I know there is no good full history of CR out there. Somebody did a reasonable review of CR's early history (to 1990) as a Master's thesis but he got (at least) one fact wrong and "as dead flies give perfume a bad smell" his account is not accepted as reliable by CR folk because of that error.
__________________
In Christ's love and service
Mr. Tim Cunningham, Dip. CS (Regent College)
Member, First Baptist Church
Vancouver, BC
------------
"The Reformation was a time when men went blind, staggering drunk because they had discovered, in the dusty basement of late medievalism, a whole cellar of 1500-year-old, 200 proof grace—a bottle after bottle of pure distillate of Scripture, one sip of which would convince anyone that God saves us single-handedly. The word of the gospel—after all these centuries of trying to lift yourself into heaven by worrying about the perfection of your own bootstraps—suddenly turned out to be a flat announcement that the saved were home-free before they started. Grace was to be drunk neat: no water, no ice, and certainly no ginger ale." – Robert Farrar Capon
|
11-08-2007, 08:07 PM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: LA
Posts: 9,871
Thanks: 860
Thanked 769 Times in 476 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK Quote:
Originally Posted by Spear Dane Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace
Agreed brian. But I have. Not exhaustively, but enough to get a good sense of it. If anyone believes CR main goal is anything other than a Christianized society, brought about by the means of the penal sanctions of the mosaic code, they are only kidding themselves. Hence Driving them towards their own postmil world.
| Theonomy and CR are distinct propositions. CR is the application of other principles besides theonomy. Really, you need to stop posting and study the issue a little bit more. | Is there a good history of CR out there, Jacob, or is it a new idea? | Any forward by Gary North tells roughly the same story (albeit in colorful terms). But to be fair, I take a little credit for that. My pastor wrote his master's thesis defending theonomy. He was dear friends with Greg Bahnsen. So, he knows his stuff and is a valid source on theonomy. However, contra some of the "novel" (to put it nicely) posts on the previous page, he is neither postmillennial nor Reconstructionist. So, there you go.
But let's look at our terms and it will be obvious. Theonomy simply means the abiding validity of God's law properly defined and qualified (even the critics would agree with this). Christian Reconstruction is a socio-political agenda (I say that in the fairest sense). It uses many of the same tenets as theonomy, but is not theonomy. It is an inference--perhaps even a valid one--to move from theonomy to Christain reconstruction. But in making this inference you are admitting that they are two, distinct propositions.
So therefore, Theonomy is not dependent on CR.
Therefore, theonomy is not dependent on postmillennialism.
Logic emerges triumphant on the field of battle.
__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College
| | The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ivanhoe For This Useful Post: | |
11-08-2007, 08:15 PM
|  | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Lancaster County, PA
Posts: 6,195
Thanks: 285
Thanked 186 Times in 106 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by clstamper Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK Lev 19:27: Quote: |
Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
| Shouldn't all theonomists have a beard like Rushdoony? How does the theonomist interpret such an OT law? | Judaizers, Anabaptists and legalists worry about things like this. Orthodox Christians take the hint and realize that this law expired with the Hebrew state and was fulfilled in Christ. This should be easy stuff. | HAH! Yes and no. The Amish grow theirs, but only after marriage. The Mennonites forbid it. Charity (the group...not the virtue) and the Beachy Amish-Mennonites grow beards, but keep them trimmed.
They worry about and aren't in agreement...but due more to the idea of distinguishing their groups from one another rather than the law (though some may use the law to try and argue their point).
(yes, we can pick out which church you go to by your vehicle, your face, your kapp, your hat, cut of your dress, and whether or not you wear suspenders)
*Rich, we need a smiley that rolls it's eyes*
And yes, the female in me, read the first page, picked on that post, and found thread was actually 5 pages long. :blush: *Rich, can we have a blushing smiley also?* I just couldn't believe, or understand why, all these people were sooooo interested in why some theologian cut his beard. Thought it was like arguing over beer or something. 
__________________
JC
URCNA
PA
"Forgiveness is primarily for our own sake, so that we no longer carry the burden of resentment. But to forgive does not mean we will allow injustice again." --Jack Kornfield
|
11-08-2007, 08:22 PM
|  | Administrator | | Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 7,976
Thanks: 882
Thanked 832 Times in 523 Posts
| |
But we have them!  
Figured I'd never get a chance to use those together.  | | The Following User Says Thank You to NaphtaliPress For This Useful Post: | |
11-08-2007, 08:36 PM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Lancaster County, PA
Posts: 6,195
Thanks: 285
Thanked 186 Times in 106 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress But we have them!
Figured I'd never get a chance to use those together. | Ahhh, I always ignored the [more] button.
Okay, I think I've hit my public humiliation limit for the evening. 
__________________
JC
URCNA
PA
"Forgiveness is primarily for our own sake, so that we no longer carry the burden of resentment. But to forgive does not mean we will allow injustice again." --Jack Kornfield
|
11-08-2007, 09:54 PM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 339
Thanks: 8
Thanked 15 Times in 12 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianLanier I like how 'Amazing Grace' (as a anti-thonomist) knows what the *true* intentions of theonomists are despite the fact that *actual* theonmists, al a Bahnsen, clearly state otherwise.
Another example of first-rate scholarship.
Please excuse the ad hominem (nothing against you AG, just using your recent posts as springboards to a more general point), but it is really tiresome to see theonomy attacked from people who obviously haven't actually read primary sources enough to understand the conceptual territory involved in the debate.
Again, I am not interested in providing postive arguments for theonomy, just defending it, as I would most positions, against ridiculous attacks. If someone is going to be effective in a critique, and not embarrass herself, she need to do the necessary homework to understand the issues involved *before* publishing her remarks (even if on an internet site). This is just responsible scholarship, and I am sick of it lacking in reformed circles. BTW, this has nothing to do with theonomy per se, just general academics/polemics. This goes for other issues as well. | Agreed brian. But I have. Not exhaustively, but enough to get a good sense of it. If anyone believes CR main goal is anything other than a Christianized society, brought about by the means of the penal sanctions of the mosaic code, they are only kidding themselves. Hence Driving them towards their own postmil world.
The point is to argue why Bahnsen shaved, is not going to destroy the root. | Here are a set of premises that seek to set out the theonomic position (By David Byron full text here), please show how *any* particular millennial position is entailed or required: Quote:
BAHNSEN'S ARGUMENT FOR THEONOMY -- GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Here are some important premises in the argument that supports the abiding applicability of the judicial and penological case laws:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] If the NT states or implies that the administration of a precept of the OT law has changed, then that precept should now be administered according to the replacement terms provided in the NT; else a precept of the OT law should now be administered according to the terms provided in the OT (with due attention to changes in morally indifferent matters of cultural form and practice); else the precept is not a standing law at all.
[2] The law of the Old Testament (broadly defined as the torah, the histories, the prophets, and the wisdom writings; and narrowly defined as the Mosaic code) includes some precepts that have the primary function of expressing God's justice and some precepts that have the primary function of expressing God's mercy. The precepts of the OT law that primarily express God's mercy are historically qualified (referenced to spatiotemporally particular circumstances) by God in a way that the precepts that primarily express God's justice are not qualified.
[3] The NT states and implies that the administration of those precepts that primarily express God's mercy has changed as a result of the advent and work of the Messiah, in whom their abiding principles are now embodied.
[C1] Therefore, if an OT precept primarily expresses God's mercy, then that precept should now be administered according to the replacement terms provided in the NT;
[4] It is not the case that the NT states or implies that the administration of those precepts that primarily express God's justice has changed.
[C2] Therefore, if an OT precept primarily expresses God's justice, then that precept should now be administered according to the terms provided in the OT (with due attention to changes in morally indifferent matters of cultural form and practice).
| OR demonstrate the entailment or material implication from Bahnsen's 10 theonomic theses: Quote:
1. Since the Fall it has always been unlawful to use the law of God in hopes of establishing one's own personal merit and justification, in contrast or complement to salvation by way of promise and faith; commitment to obedience is but the lifestyle of faith, a token of gratitude for God's redeeming grace.
2. The word of the Lord is the sole, supreme, and unchallengeable standard for the actions and attitudes of all men in all areas of life; this word naturally includes God's moral directives (law).
3. Our obligation to keep the law of God cannot be judged by any extrascriptural standard, such as whether its specific requirements (when properly interpreted) are congenial to past traditions or modern feelings and practices.
4. We should presume that Old Testament standing laws continue to be morally binding in the New Testament, unless they are rescinded or modified by further revelation.
5. In regard to the Old Testament law, the New Covenant surpasses the Old Covenant in glory, power, and finality (thus reinforcing former duties). The New Covenant also supercedes the Old Covenant shadows, thereby changing the application of sacrificial, purity, and "separation" principles, re-defining the people of God, and altering the significance of the promised land.
6. God's revealed standing laws are a reflection of His immutable moral character and, as such, are absolute in the sense of being non-arbitrary, objective, universal, and established in advance of particular circumstances (thus applicable to general types of moral situations).
7. Christian involvement in politics calls for recognition of God's transcendent, absolute, revealed law as a standard by which to judge all social codes.
8. Civil magistrates in all ages and places are obligated to conduct their offices as ministers of God, avenging divine wrath against criminals and giving an account on the Final Day of their service before the King of kings, their creator and Judge.
9. The general continuity which we presume with respect to the moral standards of the Old Testament applies just as legitimately to matters of socio-political ethics as it does to personal, family, or ecclesiastical ethics.
10. The civil precepts of the Old Testament (standing "judicial" laws) are a model of perfect social justice for all cultures, even in the punishment of criminals.
| Again to stress Jacobs point: theonomy, as such, is logically distinct from *any* particular millennial position. Furthermore, if you would like to destory the "root", as you call it, of theonomy, then you should put your energy into refuting some of the premises outlined above that are representative of the theonomic system.
| | The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to BrianLanier For This Useful Post: | |
11-08-2007, 10:14 PM
| | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,583
Thanks: 370
Thanked 280 Times in 176 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Spear Dane But let's look at our terms and it will be obvious. Theonomy simply means the abiding validity of God's law properly defined and qualified (even the critics would agree with this). Christian Reconstruction is a socio-political agenda (I say that in the fairest sense). It uses many of the same tenets as theonomy, but is not theonomy. It is an inference--perhaps even a valid one--to move from theonomy to Christain reconstruction. But in making this inference you are admitting that they are two, distinct propositions. | 
__________________
Ryan Barnhart - Pastor of OGBC
Husband to a beautiful wife, Father to two beautiful girls
"But by the grace of God I am what I am." I Corinthians 15:10
"I confess to you, that if I can but live and die serving the Lord Jesus, it will make no difference to me whether I am eaten by Cannibals or by worms. And in the Great Day my Resurrection body will rise as fair as yours in the likeness of our risen Redeemer." - John Paton
|
11-08-2007, 10:44 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Holland, Michigan
Posts: 1,468
Thanks: 237
Thanked 181 Times in 150 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Spear Dane Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianLanier I like how 'Amazing Grace' (as a anti-thonomist) knows what the *true* intentions of theonomists are despite the fact that *actual* theonmists, al a Bahnsen, clearly state otherwise.
Another example of first-rate scholarship.
Please excuse the ad hominem (nothing against you AG, just using your recent posts as springboards to a more general point), but it is really tiresome to see theonomy attacked from people who obviously haven't actually read primary sources enough to understand the conceptual territory involved in the debate.
Again, I am not interested in providing postive arguments for theonomy, just defending it, as I would most positions, against ridiculous attacks. If someone is going to be effective in a critique, and not embarrass herself, she need to do the necessary homework to understand the issues involved *before* publishing her remarks (even if on an internet site). This is just responsible scholarship, and I am sick of it lacking in reformed circles. BTW, this has nothing to do with theonomy per se, just general academics/polemics. This goes for other issues as well. | Agreed brian. But I have. Not exhaustively, but enough to get a good sense of it. If anyone believes CR main goal is anything other than a Christianized society, brought about by the means of the penal sanctions of the mosaic code, they are only kidding themselves. Hence Driving them towards their own postmil world. | Theonomy and CR are distinct propositions. CR is the application of other principles besides theonomy. Really, you need to stop posting and study the issue a little bit more. | OK jacob, I am done, I spent 35 minutes studying this error, and have it under grasp now... Watching house and will return later.
I obviously was not clear in my assesment. Theonomy is an aspect, the means to get to the goal of A Christianized world..
__________________
N. Robert; Trinity Reformed Church RCA, Holland MI
Once in a while you can get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right."
|
11-08-2007, 11:00 PM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: LA
Posts: 9,871
Thanks: 860
Thanked 769 Times in 476 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace Quote:
Originally Posted by Spear Dane Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace
Agreed brian. But I have. Not exhaustively, but enough to get a good sense of it. If anyone believes CR main goal is anything other than a Christianized society, brought about by the means of the penal sanctions of the mosaic code, they are only kidding themselves. Hence Driving them towards their own postmil world.
| Theonomy and CR are distinct propositions. CR is the application of other principles besides theonomy. Really, you need to stop posting and study the issue a little bit more. | OK jacob, I am done, I spent 35 minutes studying this error, and have it under grasp now... Watching house and will return later.
I obviously was not clear in my assesment. Theonomy is an aspect, the means to get to the goal of A Christianized world.. | You are still inserting *motive* into the discussion, and thus you are continuing a psychological critique. In so doing you have yet to give a claim that has truth-value. To be honest with you, I really don't care about a "Christianized" world. If that happens, then that's wonderful. If it doesn't, oh well, no skin off my hide. I am premillennial. In fact, I expect quite the opposite.
And as critic of theonomy--Claire Davis--has noted, the theonomist is perfectly consistent in positing both 1) a desire for the magistrate to rule according to God's law and 2) the reality that such a desire will bring persecution. This was Davis' argument in Theonomy A Reformed Critique. He didn't see a logical contradiction. I don't see it, either.
__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College
|
11-09-2007, 06:33 AM
| | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Holland, Michigan
Posts: 1,468
Thanks: 237
Thanked 181 Times in 150 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Spear Dane Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace Quote:
Originally Posted by Spear Dane
Theonomy and CR are distinct propositions. CR is the application of other principles besides theonomy. Really, you need to stop posting and study the issue a little bit more.
| OK jacob, I am done, I spent 35 minutes studying this error, and have it under grasp now... Watching house and will return later.
I obviously was not clear in my assesment. Theonomy is an aspect, the means to get to the goal of A Christianized world.. | You are still inserting *motive* into the discussion, and thus you are continuing a psychological critique. In so doing you have yet to give a claim that has truth-value. To be honest with you, I really don't care about a "Christianized" world. If that happens, then that's wonderful. If it doesn't, oh well, no skin off my hide. I am premillennial. In fact, I expect quite the opposite.
And as critic of theonomy--Claire Davis--has noted, the theonomist is perfectly consistent in positing both 1) a desire for the magistrate to rule according to God's law and 2) the reality that such a desire will bring persecution. This was Davis' argument in Theonomy A Reformed Critique. He didn't see a logical contradiction. I don't see it, either. | D we not al have a motive to why we think and implement? Premil eschatology along with thenomic means is some new flavor. I am not speaking of you or michael. i also never said they were inconsistant.
__________________
N. Robert; Trinity Reformed Church RCA, Holland MI
Once in a while you can get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right."
|
11-09-2007, 07:01 AM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: LA
Posts: 9,871
Thanks: 860
Thanked 769 Times in 476 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace Quote:
Originally Posted by Spear Dane Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace
OK jacob, I am done, I spent 35 minutes studying this error, and have it under grasp now... Watching house and will return later.
I obviously was not clear in my assesment. Theonomy is an aspect, the means to get to the goal of A Christianized world..
| You are still inserting *motive* into the discussion, and thus you are continuing a psychological critique. In so doing you have yet to give a claim that has truth-value. To be honest with you, I really don't care about a "Christianized" world. If that happens, then that's wonderful. If it doesn't, oh well, no skin off my hide. I am premillennial. In fact, I expect quite the opposite.
And as critic of theonomy--Claire Davis--has noted, the theonomist is perfectly consistent in positing both 1) a desire for the magistrate to rule according to God's law and 2) the reality that such a desire will bring persecution. This was Davis' argument in Theonomy A Reformed Critique. He didn't see a logical contradiction. I don't see it, either. | D we not al have a motive to why we think and implement? Premil eschatology along with thenomic means is some new flavor. I am not speaking of you or michael. i also never said they were inconsistant. | Sure we all have motive, my beef was just that you are doing psychology, not theology. Anyway, your *motive* critique didn't apply to me, which it should have since all theonomists, so went the argument, wanted a Christianized world.
__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College
|
11-09-2007, 11:48 AM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 112
Thanks: 5
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
| | Quote: |
Judaizers, Anabaptists and legalists worry about things like this. Orthodox Christians take the hint and realize that this law expired with the Hebrew state and was fulfilled in Christ. This should be easy stuff.
| Since labels are being thrown around, you sound antinomian. Consider: Rev 14:12 KJV Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
__________________
Ted Clore
Cascades Fellowship (CRC)
Jackson, MI Contra Mundum
In memory of my friend Dr. Ted Letis. Died June 24, 2005
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: Deu 6:4 KJV | | The Following User Says Thank You to Tallen For This Useful Post: | |
12-01-2007, 10:41 PM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Gibsonia, PA
Posts: 2
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
| | |
Sorry to interrupt. Just testing my new Puritanboard account.
| |
