Postmill - Theonomy - Presuppositionist Distinctions

[crhoades]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
At least we can all agree that we love God's Law, being Reformed. Well, I hope so.

At this point, I would be happy emphasizing that and leaving what separates alone for a bit.

 

[JohnV]

Chris:

All I'm trying to do is fix the way this is addressed, that's all. If we're going to talk about theonomy, then I am with you and Jacob and any other Theonimists in wanting to stay away from ad hominems and name-calling. Lets just be honest with one another, deal with topics, and not feel offended so quickly. Its just as wrong for me as it is for anyone else.

So, OK, let's let it rest. Let's all think about it for awhile before we jump into it again.

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by JohnV
Chris:

All I'm trying to do is fix the way this is addressed, that's all. If we're going to talk about theonomy, then I am with you and Jacob and any other Theonimists in wanting to stay away from ad hominems and name-calling. Lets just be honest with one another, deal with topics, and not feel offended so quickly. Its just as wrong for me as it is for anyone else.

So, OK, let's let it rest. Let's all think about it for awhile before we jump into it again.

Ditto again...I apologize for not breaking my thread into two. The last little bit about pausing was in no way directed to you or anyone in particular. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by JohnV

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Why can't we throw that chip off our shoulders and just discuss the truth as submissively as we truly ought to be to what is higher than any of us?

Because she started out with definitions that:

1)Begged the question against theonomists
2)Begged the question against presuppositionalists
3)Begged the question against postmillennialists
4)Begged the question against postmillennialists who are not theonomists (Johh Jefferson Davis, Virginia Huguenot)
5)Begged the question against presuppositionalists who are neither postmillennial nor theonomic (John Frame, Richard Gaffin)

Furthermore, theonomy has been equated with "almost heresy" while she can't even properly define my position.

Don't worry, if you're standing by the truth then you will be able to stand up to the most able scholar in the field, because it is the truth. No one can knock that down. So what can such petty things do to you, if it is so beneath you, so childish, so petty? Why can't you shrug it off as such? Why do you take this as a personal attack instead of seeing the need in the person and addressing that? Even if it is an attack, why take it so? It can't do you any harm. Not if you are holding your views with intergrity and wisdom. But it can help the person if you handle it with discretion.

I am making a fuss of it for her sake. If my position is "almost heresy" then there better be very good arguments showing that I am holding a position worthy of the inhabitants of hell. We have seen no such arguments as of yet from her. Yeah, I can shrug it off. I am not worried that her arguments are even going to touch the theonomic thesis. Now, somebody like Andrew might give me a run for my money.

 

[Romans922]

Theonomic thesis? It will be hard to do that, since almost all theonomists have a different thesis. Most today however are just takes off of Bahnsen, North, and the gang. All who are great arguers, have great style, but are far from Truth. Young people love these guys!

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Romans922
Theonomic thesis? It will be hard to do that, since almost all theonomists have a different thesis. Most today however are just takes off of Bahnsen, North, and the gang. All who are great arguers, have great style, but are far from Truth. Young people love these guys!

I meant for the person saying we are "almost heretics" to take Bahnsen's argument in Theonomy in Christian Ethics; analyze the key statements, and show why they logically commit their holders to hell (remember, it just as well would be heresy).

[Edited on 8--18-05 by Draught Horse]

 

[Romans922]

Ah, I was just making a general statement (I am sure I am done now).

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Romans922
Ah, I was just making a general statement (I am sure I am done now).

I know. It wasn't directed at you. The moderators need to close this thread.

 

[Romans922]

lol, I would probably agree with that statement.

 

[RamistThomist]

While this thread should be closed already, I will continue to bury it while it is open.

Not all theonomists are postmil, but most are. If one holds an amil view, theonomy is less attractive. We're not (I hope ) looking for a means to "transform" the world. Those ardent Kuyperians who talk in those terms are, in my view, crypto-postmils. Transformationalism is inherently postmil. Kuyper was quite inconsistent in this regard.

Why not joyfully adopt with Dr Cornelius Van Til "Pro Rege" as our slogan (Bahnsen, CVT: R&A, 20)? Why truncate our worldview between sacred & secular, leaving some things outside of the redemptive value of Christ? Why not carry our worldview into the secular arena, like Greg Bahnsen, and do battle against Satan's army? Van Til again: "The Biblical summum bonum reuires the absolute destruction of sin and evil in the individual and in the society....We have the further obligation to destroy the consequences of sin in this world as far as we can" (The Defense of the Faith, quoted in CVT, 21).

Yes, let us save souls but let us not stop there! Let us affirm with the Lord Jesus that Satan's kingdom will be destroyed, the strong man's house plundered, and Christ's people taking the field of battle. "Accoding to the teaching of Scripture, in all that happens in the world of men and things Christ is establishing his kingdom as he destroys the kingdom of Satan...This is called man's "cultural mandate"" (Protestant Doctrine of Scripture, 103).

When asked of the limits of Christ's lordship, Van Til heroically responds, "There is not a square inch of a space where, not a minute of time when, the believer in Christ can withdraw from the responsibility of being a soldier of the cross...Satan must be driven from the field and Christ must rule (Christianity in Conflict, 1:ii).

Or we can say with Bill Gaither, that great theologue, that "if you ask me how I know he lives, he lives (and rules) within my heart."