Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Law of God' started by KMK, Oct 29, 2007.
So what? Compared to the 100 million people that secular humanism murdered this century (last ct), I do'nt lose much sleep over it. Compared with the rise of paganism today, I won't shy away from what God's word says.
In that case, le'ts just ditch the 10 commandments.
Forgive me for double-posting, but let's analyze this statement a bit more.
First of all, you placed the New England Puritans on the same level with theonomy. In other words, you just historically legitimized theonomy. I don't know if you intended this or not.
Secondly, I am not arguing that the only alternative to Christ-hating tyranny is theonomy.
Thirdly, your argument is a genetic fallacy.
Fourthly, with all the hundreds of millions who die at the hands of anti-christian governments, is it really a bad thing to ask what God's word has to saw about justice? Remember, in a theonomic state the federal government would be drastically reduced and would rarely (sometimes never) touch the lives of its citizens. Even if we were to drop the Mosaic judicials en toto on society (which I think would be a bad idea),your civil liberties would dramatically increase.
No. Let's just excommunicate, not execute.
Theonomy is not a 'Live and let live' model for government. The Mosaic economy certainly wasn't. That it failed is evidence that it's impossible for sinners to have the kingdom now. The American Puritans had bad things and some good things. They did hang some Quakers afterall. If that's OK with you than go on asking, WWBD?
"The Law came through Moses. Grace and Truth came through Bahnsen."
When the government is only financed by 10% of the nations income, there is not much it can do by way of logistics. As to the Bahnsen quote, that's cute. When the argument is lacking, let's resort to ridicule.
So if a man kidnaps a little girl and traumatizes him, about all we can do is just excommunicate him from the church? Or is it binding his Christian freedom if we have him executed?
Would you apply that same reasoning to kidnappers, serial rapists, incorribigly criminal violence?
Philosophical Dictionary: A - E
Some of us have this secretly bookmarked.
I should have figued this much with Jacob. That heel grabber and sohpist he is...
Any basic logic textbook would tell you this. Norman Geisler's Come Let Us Reason and Copi and Cohen's Introduction to Logic are good starters. The latter is the standard text in the field with good reason (no pun intended). As to the latin phrase, I really don't care. It's rather the point that the assertion/position does not have truth-value. As such, it cannot be used to rebut my argument, etc.
Jacob, I was being facecious(sp) I have no interest in philosophic/logic as a discipline for Christianity. I have just noticed that every time one "argues' with you, you throw in these phrases and words. Like I said, it is a good debate ploy to throw the person off. But for me, if I am using one of those so called "Latin words" as an arguement, as long as I believe it has merit... well then it does...
Actually, the standard now is Patrick Hurley's A Concise Introduction to Logic, which just now came out with a 10th edition. It suplanted Copi's.
Well, you should, especially if you want to be better at giving arguments (reasons) to defend your positions to believers and unbelievers alike. (Especially the latter)
Look, our natural reasoning is fallen; we don't naturally reason as well as we should. If studying logic or patterns of sound reasoning helps us identify common problems (fallacies) in arguments, then we should by all means welcome it as it helps up to think more clearly, which is certainly honoring to God.
So to employ these methods in a debate with someone is not a "ploy" or some kind of 'tactic'; it is a valid way to point out where an argument has gone wrong. To call it a "ploy", in this context, is it self a 'ploy' or a red herring.
If you want to step up to a debate and defend your position or attack others, then you should be prepared to do the necessary labor.
Regarding Indentured Servitude, we do that now? Ever hear of alimony, child support? Do we not garnish the wages of those who are behind in taxes, etc.? Why can't we do this with thieves and other non-violent criminals?
BTW: Anyone with a job today is a servant to Caesar, some more than others.
Perhaps. But I have yet to be moved in this direction. As of now, faith is my rudder.
But you just used logic to make that statement.
If I did, I was not aware....
Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
Is that verse supposed to "refute" logic? I am not arguing for worldly philosophy, but quite the opposite--never mind. That's not the point of this thread. Anyway, the verse augments "deceptive and hollow" philosophy, certainly not a Christian view of thinking. In fact, I dare say that said verse supports a "Christianized thinking."
Something a little more on topic:
I am happy to affirm that it is unjust and a sin for the government when criminals who deserve it under Moses' law are not put to death. On the other hand I also believe, as I have posted before, that it is God's (revealed) will that his people will live under unrighteous governments until the time Christ returns. So there is a sense whereby God's people can be happy about certain aspects of the fact that biblical law is not enforced.
If I were to someday, God forbid, commit adultery, I would be very grateful that would not be put to death but have the chance to not only repent, but live a life fitting with repentance from then on. In 1 Cor 5 Paul told the church to throw the fornicator out not so that the state could deal with him, but in the hope of securing repentance and his eventual re-admission into the body. Would it have been unjust for the state to have executed him for his immorality? No. But God's NT people can still be thankful for the fact that such a person had the chance to repent and atone by living a godly life.
No one denies that. We are only exercising our prophetic abilities.
Remember, Paul was writing to the Church, not to the Civil government.
So? Of course we are thankful. But let's apply your maxim on a different level. What about a serial killer? We would rejoice in his conversion, but does that clear him with the civil law?
Agreed. Off course, I believe Paul never wrote to the Civil government because practically speaking, regulation of government is not the church's concern in the NT.
No, it does not clear him with the civil law and the state is completely just to put him to death. If he was genuinely repentent and showed the fruit of conversion, I would still rejoice if for some reason the state dropped the ball and didn't execute him.
In addition, wasn't there a place for atonement and forgiveness under the Mosaic Law, especially in cases of sins of ignorance?
People who oppose theonomy sometimes seem to paint a cruel picture of God's Law in order to bolster their argument.
After all, Aaron was not put to death for his idolotry. Moses was not put to death for misrepresenting God.
Yes. And even if the State wanted to prosecute, logistically it would be very difficult because of its reduced size.
I was being biblical....
Neither was he put to death for killing the Egyptian.
Hey Jacob, serious question, who was supposed to carry out the penal sanctions? And are there any examples of this even happening in the OT?
And dont pull the "Arguement from silence" bologna. I am asking seriously. Not trying to Pigeon hole you. Hey is pigeon whole a sophist word like the rest you use?
But your head looked kinda round in that picture.
Can you elaborate on this? Why are you accusing Jacob of 'sophism'?
That wasn't a crime, but an act of war. Either way, beside the point.
Elders of the gate. # Deuteronomy 19:12
the elders of his town shall send for him, bring him back from the city, and hand him over to the avenger of blood to die.
# Joshua 20:4
"When he flees to one of these cities, he is to stand in the entrance of the city gate and state his case before the elders of that city. Then they are to admit him into their city and give him a place to live with them.
Hopefully my answer shall suffice. But I don't really understand why you asked the question. Your question sort of assumed that God never really intended his law to be carried out. Even the Reformed Relativist believes that the Israelites should have carried it out.
Well, maybe you are right. Maybe it got a little to rounded.