Some time back I wondered about the lack of support for 2k among Vossians. Recently over at Reformed Forum Jared Oliphint seemed to give some eschatological encouragement to 2kers when he wondered about the possibility of redeeming the stuff of creation:
What about the rest of creation? Is it being redeemed? Did Christ accomplish redemption for the rest of creation when he died and was raised?
For those who believe that all of creation is currently being “redeemed” in the eschatological sense, there’s a very simple test to see whether that is in fact the case. As a friend of mine puts it, you are tasked to find a single atom, molecule, object, anything that has the permanence of the everlasting, eternal new heavens and new earth. Such a thing would be indestructible, and would most likely exhibit characteristics that literally indicate an other-world. That would be quite a find.
Or take the language we sometimes find within evangelical circles of “redeeming the city”, for example. Is this appropriate language given what we know of the biblical use of redemption? That depends. People are redeemed by the Holy Spirit regenerating their hearts, having faith in Christ, repenting of their sins, and receiving Christ and his saving and renovating benefits from his accomplished work in history. Christ did not directly accomplish redemption for buildings, neighborhoods, cities, towns, or any other particular group or entity whatsoever. Christ’s benefits do not apply to a local diner or run-down gym. They do not apply to capitalism, to philosophy, to Wal-Mart, to the Icelandic courts of law, or any other non-human not made in the image of God.
Oliphint backs away from some of the implications of this point, but his assertion is one that should prompt the critics of 2k (it is dispensationalist, it is Lutheran, it is defeatist, it doesn’t lead to rallies in the nation’s capital) to pause and reflect. The powers that redemption and its means opposes are not poor working conditions, undrinkable water, economic inequality, or unimaginative artworks. The powers of this age that Christ continues to subdue are those of Satan and his kingdom.
Luther himself deflates any hope for transformationalism in a sermon from 1544:
For [the devil] seeks at all times to take possession of the Kingdom of God and to become lord of Christendom. He will to be seated and to rule, in the pure and holy Temple of God.
What, then, shall we do to him? This we, and especially those who preach the Word of God, should joyfully consider, that we must hope for no peace here, but should recollect that we are Christ’s warriors, in the field, always equipped and ready, for when one war ends another immediately begins.
For we are called by christ and already enroldled (in Baptism) in the army which shall fight under Christ against the devil. For He is the God who is a Prince of war and a true Duke who leads His regiment in battle, not in heaven above among the holy spirits where there is no need of battle, but here on earth in His Church. Yes (even though He is seated at the right hand of the Father) He is Himself with His warriors leading them against the enemy, whom no human power and weapons can withstand, resisting and restraining him with His Word, which He has given to His men.
If culture warriors (i.e., neo-Calvinists, theonomists, and social conservatives) think that reforming society or teaching a biblical w-w of botany are a part of the kingdom coming, then they have forgotten how powerful the enemy is that they battle and they have lost sight of who is responsible for winning the battle.
256 Comments
Sean, my apparent *stumbling* was trying to understand where you’re coming from. God rules sovereignly, period. That’s my answer.
Does God have a different relationship with his covenant people, than those outside?
Yes. See? No stumbling around, that was easy.
I guess my confusion is trying to figure out why you would ask such an obvious question? But I assure you, I never peed my pants, moreover, I wasn’t even defensive
I added a dose of post mill thought near the end, and I guess that’s what threw you; if of course you’re not on board yet, with postmillennialism. I would suggest you read “He Shall Have Dominion” for a start, it’s written by Kenneth Gentry. After absorbing that book, the scales will start falling off your eyes, God willing.
Rest in his completed work,
Doug
@Sean, Sean, Sean, if the “soft under belly” of my theonomy was exposed, please tell me how? Pssssst, I am more than willing to explain how Escondido’s radical two kingdom theology is incoherent. Nobody on you’re side, and I mean *nobody* can give a rational or standard, on how we are to punish crime today. Can you??? Not long ago, I asked Dr Hart how he thought America should punish child molesters, and do you know what his answer was? He said, and I quote: “I don’t know if my wife or Pastor knows how I feel about that”. LOL! LOL!
After you’re done laughing, if you’re scratching your head, then good for you! Even with DGH’s keen sense of natural law and general revelation, (which he thinks is sufficient) he’s clueless when it comes to answering that basic question.
So please don’t say *natural law*; since that’s incoherent.
I won’t hold my breath, but if you’re willing to step up to the plate, then please do what no one else at Escondido has been able to do. Just answer that “oh so simple” question in a coherent way. If you’re able, I’ll quit calling that defect, 2K’s soft under belly. By the way Sean, answering in a *coherent* manner is where I’m setting the bar.
I’m praying for you bro, and I’ll leave the light on
Doug
Doug,
I’m not going to turn this into an opportunity for you to preach theonomy. I just wanted to show you how groundless your divining or interpretation of Zrim and/or Darryl’s feelings or even the quality of responses actually was. But, I was sincere about the detailed specific listing of penal retribution for any assortment of societal ‘misbehaviors’ you deem worthy of criminal prosecution and how you came up with it, and what sort of consensus you’ve been able to cobble together amongst yourselves(theonomists) and what you plan to do about it. Quite frankly, I take the Islamisists much more seriously about their claims to institute God’s law and their sacrifices to that end. You guys just seem to like the rhetorical game as opposed to putting some ‘rubber to the road’. And don’t try to enlist my help with that, I agree with my favorite theologian that it(theonomy) is a ‘misreading of scripture on a massive scale’. I do have a recommendation however in your pursuit to put clothes on that naked emperor, Don’t do Tyler all over again.
Sean, theonomy is not a panacea; it’s a starting point, or a rational. Call it a standard, if you will. Are there nutty theonomists? Dugh! Is there one theonomist on planet earth that has it all figured out? Of course not! I don’t know about Tyler, but I will concede that theonomists are sinners, just like R2Kers. Do you want me to lump you in with Jason Stellman?
That’s not the point. My question is far more basic; by what standard should any given society punish crime? Is there such a thing as socio political morality and justice? If so, what’s the standard? Or, or we left with, “whatever we do is probably okay”.
Frankly Sean, I’m not sure *how* to apply God’s Law in a new covenant context in every circumstance. *We*, the body of Christ need to come together in unity, and study the Bible and ask God for wisdom. I strongly believe that with the full council of God’s Word and the fruit of the Spirit, with all humility *we* will grow into full maturity and make great strides, in contemporary culture. We’re obviously not there yet. (Corporately as well as personally) As we pray in faith, they kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven.
After all, that’s the purpose of the church, amen? Ephesians 4:9 “that he might fill all things”
Doug, are you a nutty theonomist? Why do you look at everyone not a theonomist as if they have no standard for morality? You not only condemn 2kers, with that “rationale.” But you also condemn the OPC, the PCA, Clearnote Fellowship, and also your beloved, Doug Wilson’s CREC. No communion is theonomic (unless you’re worshiping at James Jordan’s congregation.)
Doug,
I give you credit for being honest about your own limitations with applying theonomy. The brighter lights in the movement can’t figure it out either. The fact that you’re willing to admit the inability may run you up the ladder to the brighter lights in short order. Let me offer that the reason it hasn’t been done and it’s a struggle to ‘figure out’ how to do it, is because it’s a fool’s errand. There is no legitimate way, much less practical way, and finally any legitimate biblical theological way to divorce mosaic civil case law from theocratic ethnic Israel and apply it to ‘common’ non-theocratic nations. Why? Because it was never intended for that purpose, no other nation-state before or since has privileged status from God to appropriate to itself that charter or a similar one. Instead, that charter has been taken up, spiritualized and applied to the NT church not as mandate for some sort of camelot, or cultural evangelical dominaton but instead as the temple and the kingdom of God takes manifestation within the church body proper, with it’s own set of officers, means of grace, discipline and privileged application afforded members of a rightly ordered church by means of election and adoption. To put it in Pauline terms; True Israel is and always has been spiritual Israel. Your standard without way to put it into practice is no more than a paper tiger, an assertion without substance. It sounds good but when we press into the details of what, when and how, we realize it’s bankrupt. So for all the maligning of NL for it’s inexactitude and lack of exhaustiveness we in turn find out that theonomy, christian reconstruction and the like is D.O.A. It’s not doable because it was never meant to be doable in our current socio-political context and worse yet, the insistence of marshalling mosaic civil case law to this purpose ends up gutting the case law of it’s true intended purpose of both pointing us forward to Christ and bringing us to the end of ourselves in terms of self-righteousness. Quite frankly, if you need special revelation to reveal to you the wrongness of such actions as beastiality, murder, theft et al, than your state is worse than the gentiles of rom 2:14-15 who know such things innately. We have a diagnosis and a place for those with no working moral conscience, it’s called jail, execution by the state when necessary, and institutes for the mentally unstable and incapable-sociopaths. If you feel or know that your neighbor has no functioning moral conscience by all means call the authorities and lock your doors. This is not the norm however and we all, at the end of the day, end up trading on the existence of the imago dei in the unregenerate and regenerate alike. That they are not epistemologically self-aware does not prevent them from conducting themselves according to the divine imprimatur placed there by God himself. Are there those who don’t? Absolutely, but then that includes the redeemed as well, as you noted, so If those with the law fail often and daily in their efforts, I’m a little perplexed what you think you will accomplish in terms of conformity by giving the law to those, aside from the sociopaths, who know the law innately; rom 2:14-15. It’s not a problem of education but sin, that as it turns out, plagues both the regenerate and unregenerate alike.
Zrim,
You said: “But if we can be bad neighbors, and if by God’s grace we’re not as bad as we could be, what does this do to the worldviewist project?”
In response to this, you need to watch the end of the move “Collision” and listen to the conversation with Douglas Wilson to Christopher Hitchens.
Sean,
You said: “Quite frankly, if you need special revelation to reveal to you the wrongness of such actions as beastiality, murder, theft et al, than your state is worse than the gentiles of rom 2:14-15 who know such things innately.”
It’s amazing that you are so confident in natural revelation given the fact that very few people agree with how to punish the above crimes you cite. Quick example, the rescindency rate for child molesters is extremely high, 80-90%. Yet, the MAJORITY of Americans do not believe in putting them to death, like the Bible commands. So we let them out and 8 or 9 out of 10 repeat the same crime. Yet your WORLDVIEW of radical two kingdomism does NOTHING to address this problem.
Also, you complain that there is no uniformity in the theonomic camp. Your solution: give up. Don’t even try. Just say the Bible doesn’t speak to world issues at all (almost exact quote from Zrim) and then you can never be wrong. That it, unless, the Bible DOES say how the world should go . . . .
Sean,
Since all Christian denominations disagree on certain points, does that mean they are all fundamentally wrong? Should you leave Christianity since there are differences among the denominations? Does that make it DOA?
Sean,
There’s so much to comment on in your posts, I don’t know what to do with myself. Oh well, here’s another: “You guys just seem to like the rhetorical game as opposed to putting some ‘rubber to the road’.”
Whoa! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Every time I ask Darryl or Zrim a SPECIFIC question, I always get 1) a vague, generalized statement, 2) witty, humorous rhoetoric, or sometimes 3) sarcasm or mockery (“Jon, the hole in your head. . . .”).
But seriously, this seems to be a pie in the sky philosophy. Whenever we press for a specific answer, we get the above 3 options. That tells me something’s amiss. So heavenly minded, no earthly good?
Theonomists, and even neo-cals may not agree on exact details of application, but at least they have a solid foundation from which to work.
Jon,
First off, knowing that something is wrong and knowing exactly what punishment to render, are two different considerations. The theonomists can’t figure out HOW exactly to prosecute the crime either, ask more than two of them. My solution isn’t ‘give up’ from a theonomy perspective, rather, it’s a non-starter. It’s simply not possible to divorce mosaic civil case law from it’s typical aspects, and oh btw, we don’t have a charter for any other theocratic nation outside OT ethnic Israel. See Daniel’s behavior in Babylon. A number of the promises and sanctions are not only tied to the land, but require being in the land.
Jon, you exhibit what Clark would call QIRC, a quest for illegitimate religious certainty. Scripture doesn’t answer every possible temporal consideration while still being more than adequate to address the questions of the nature of God, man, sin and salvation. And as for your lack of confidence in NL/2k, even the confession argues that some things pertaining to WORSHIP, are ordered by the light of nature. So, the divines don’t share your skepticism as to man’s ability to act and order this temporal life arightly, and even when they don’t, scripture isn’t proposed as some ‘fail-safe’ to bridge the deficit. I don’t know how to help your dilemma, and neither does theonomy aside from offering empty, illegitimate promises of a way forward. Zrim and others have talked to you about the idea of ‘proximate’ justice. It isn’t perfect, but we ‘approximate’. I’m afraid brother that it doesn’t get any better than that, this side of the new heavens and the new earth. Nothing wrong with being politically active and doing your part, but in the words of Lynn Anderson; “I never promised you a rose garden………….”
Jon, wouldn’t that mean I’d have to buy the movie and thereby fund Moscow and thereby fund FV? Per your logic on taxes, that would make me guilty of promoting FV. So maybe you could just give me the basics of that Wilson-Hitches convo here instead?
But also, you say to Sean that natural revelation is insufficient to govern civil life because people allegedly read it wrong (though I’m not sure raising the bar on capital punishment to only be for capital crimes is wrong). But this common theonomic reasoning is like saying that because some students get their times tables wrong arithmetic is an insufficient template to learn times tables, thus we need the Bible to do math. What this reasoning reveals is a complete negligence of the doctrine of abiding human sin and a remarkable inability to recognize that people are the problem, not God’s natural or special revelation. The Bible doesn’t even solve the differences between Roman Catholics and Reformed Christians because it depends on sinners to discern it. What makes you people think it will help anybody figure out how to punish criminals? But 2k actually believes that while both general and special revelation are perfectly clear, but sin abides so deeply that it obscures our understanding of either.
Jon, and what exactly is your w-w doing to address the problems of immorality in our society? If we executed child molesters would that be a solution? If we made child molestation a capital offense would that remove the problem? Do you really think the law solves anything?
Zrim, I do thank God every day that by his grace I am one of his. You seem to think that I think this makes me “better”. Where did you ever get that idea? But my unbelieving neighbor is headed to hell no matter how good or how nice he/she is. That’s what antithesis is really about. By God’s grace I do have a “better” , more truth religious posture toward God than my unbelieving neighbor.
Zrim,
The problem with your above example is that taxes are COMPULSORY while the free market is . . . .free.
Wilson just makes the point to Hitchens that given 4 people: a nice Christian neighbor and a mean one, and a nice atheist neighbor and a mean one, that the nice Christian and the mean atheist are the most consistent within their respective worldviews.
Re: natural revelation – I agree that it is perspicuous. It is our sin (noetic effects of sin, in fact) that keep us from seeing the obvious truth. It is the 2K view that does not do justice to this. Why do you say that sin clouds our ability to read the book of natural revelation clearly? Didn’t you and DGH just say that unbelievers and believers have equal abilities to read NR? But if I am saved and the scales are lifted off my eyes, and I go down the road towards progressive sanctification, I can see the world no clearer – not 1% clearer – than the foulest of pagans. How does 2K answer this?
But remember, as Van Til pointed out, special revelation was given BEFORE the fall! Before sin even entered the equation! Why would we need special revelation if natural revelation is adequate?! You can’t say for redemptive purposes only because it was pre-fall. Seems to me like a conundrum for 2K.
Jon,
Re; Natural revelation- Rom.2:14-15 says it’s not an issue of education. We know the law. What is it exactly that you think regeneration causes you to see more clearly as it involves, data, information, knowledge? I agree it makes you more amenable to it, as it concerns religious fealty and worship and even grants you a new ambition, soli deo gloria, but it doesn’t give new information as it regards ordering temporal life, in fact it should keep you off the temptation of trying to marry cultic imperatives to the common grace city. IOW, we should more sharply see the distinction between the city of man and the city of God. You know; ‘waiting on a better city’. There is a second advent out there we are all eagerly anticipating.
Who says natural revelation is adequate to the ordering of the cult and cultic worship, EVER? That’s what special revelation is for pre and post lapsarian, even if in Eden it’s declared via walking in the cool of the evening with our God and maker. What natural revelation IS adequate for is NON-cultic, temporal life. And oh btw, even though NR is inadequate for cultic practice, even here our confession talks of SOME of worship being ordered according to the light of nature, which you’d expect if it’s the same God ruling over both spheres but differently. Why is this so hard? Every theonomist I ever met trades on 2k principles, they just deny it when they start philosophizing and in their mind push the antithesis over the edge and into the abyss of epistemological certitude.
Jon, are you talking about NR and general revelation or merely about morality? Way back when this discussion started, Algebra was a topic. And the last I checked, the Christian schools are not teaching morality 24/5, but things like Shakespeare, biology, and volleyball. If you want to reduce the entire debate to morality, fine. Unbelievers suppress it whether its general or special — not to mention that believers are also prone to wander.
But then you jump from a limited (though very important) part of general and natural revelation to what is going to be the basis for society. Believe it or not, this is not wise and it is not even Christian. I asked you a lot of questions about what theonomy solves. The reasons was to argue that the law solves nothing. It only condemns. If you want laws that will be enforced, that is one thing, though lots of public policy folks and lawyers would say that legislation really solves nothing — the problems of people and society go deeper. But if you want a solution — sorry to sound like a bumper sticker — then Christ is the answer. Remember what Paul wrote, “the law is not of faith.”Jon, are you talking about NR and general revelation or merely about morality? Way back when this discussion started, Algebra was a topic. And the last I checked, the Christian schools are not teaching morality 24/5, but things like Shakespeare, biology, and volleyball. If you want to reduce the entire debate to morality, fine. Unbelievers suppress it whether its general or special — not to mention that believers are also prone to wander.
But then you jump from a limited (though very important) part of general and natural revelation to what is going to be the basis for society. Believe it or not, this is not wise and it is not even Christian. I asked you a lot of questions about what theonomy solves. The reasons was to argue that the law solves nothing. It only condemns. If you want laws that will be enforced, that is one thing, though lots of public policy folks and lawyers would say that legislation really solves nothing — the problems of people and society go deeper. But if you want a solution — sorry to sound like a bumper sticker — then Christ is the answer. Remember what Paul wrote, “the law is not of faith.”
Terry, what I think is that worldviewry can’t help but pronounce believers epistemologically superior, and if epistemologically superior then necessarily superior in all other ways. I understand you don’t like this—no neo-Calvinist does—but that’s the implication of worldviewry. That discomfort you’re having about it may be your 2k intuition telling you something’s not quite square with neo-Calvinism. If you don’t like saying we’re better than unbelievers then maybe stop speaking in ways that clearly imply it.
Like I’ve intimated before, 2k doesn’t have any problem saying believers are right with God and unbelievers are not right with God. And it has no need to do the sorts of linguistic calisthenics (which include putting words like “better” in quotation marks) that say we’re not really better, but really we are. Huh? But being eternally right with God doesn’t imply anything about provisional superiority. Neo-Calvinists may want to agree, but their worldviewism sure seems to pull them in the exact direction of such superiority.
Jon, when it comes to good and bad behavior, I really don’t care about epistemological consistency. I want my atheist and my Christian alike to give me correct change, protect my reputation and my life. Neos way overestimate what it means to win the epistemological game. When you get the right change from the pagan, do you really worry much over how she did it, or are you satisfied that she treated you justly and go on your merry way? My guess is that you are satisfied and merry. Which means you live like a 2ker but pontificate with a chip on your shoulder like a neo-Calvinist.
Theonomy’s problem is similar to FV’s: where FV sees grace pre-fall, so theonomy sees special revelation pre-fall. But both law and natural revelation were adequate pre-fall to save. The fall into sin is what necessitates both grace and special revelation; post-fall law and natural revelation correspond to provisional life (or lower things), grace and special revelation to eternal life (or higher things). This is why natural revelation is inadequate to save, but if, as Paul says in Romans, natural law is sufficient to eternally condemn then why is it not sufficient to temporally govern?
Jon, here is Kuyper on the wisdom you esteem:
Does it follow, therefore, that the sooner we stop our observation of life the better, so that we can seek the rules of state polity outside life in Holy Scripture? This is how some mistakenly think that we reason…However, the opposite is true. Calvinism has never supported this untenable position but has always opposed it with might and main. A state polity that dismisses and scorns the observation of life and simply wishes to duplicate the situation of Israel, taking Holy Scripture as a complete code of Christian law for the state, would, according to the spiritual fathers of Calvinism, be the epitome of absurdity. Accordingly, in their opposition to Anabaptism as well as the Quakers, they expressed unreservedly their repugnance for this extremely dangerous and impractical theory.
If we considered the political life of the nations as something unholy, unclean and wrong in itself, it would lie outside of human nature. Then the state would have to be seen as a purely external means of compulsion, and every attempt to discover even a trace of God’s ordinances in our own nature would be absurd. Only special revelation would then be capable of imparting to us the standards for that external means of discipline. Wherever, thus, this special revelation is absent, as in the heathen worlds, nothing but sin and distortion would prevail, which would therefore not even be worth the trouble of our observation…However, if we open the works of Calvin, Bullinger, Beza and Marnix van St. Aldegonde, it becomes obvious that Calvinism consciously chooses sides against this viewpoint. The experience of the states of antiquity, the practical wisdom of their laws, and the deep insight of their statesmen and philosophers is held in esteem by these men, and these are cited in support of their own affirmations and consciously related to the ordinances of God. The earnest intent of the political life of many nations can be explained in terms of the principles of justice and morality that spoke in their consciences. They cannot be explained simply as blindness brought on by the Evil One; on the contrary, in the excellence of their political efforts we encounter a divine ray of light…
…with proper rights we contradict the argument that Holy Scripture should be seen as the source from which a knowledge of the best civil laws flow. The supporters of this potion talk as though after the Fall nature, human life, and history have ceased being a revelation of God and As though, with the closing of this book, another book, called Holy Scriptures, as opened for us. Calvinism has never defended this untenable position and will never acknowledge it as its own…We have refuted the notion that we entertain the foolish effort to patch together civil laws from Bible texts, and we have declared unconditionally that psychology, ethnology, history and statistics are also for us given which, by the light of God’s Word, must determine the standards for the state polity.
Boy, he sure sounds way more 2k-ish than theonomic.
Zrim says: “This is why natural revelation is inadequate to save, but if, as Paul says in Romans, natural law is sufficient to eternally condemn then why is it not sufficient to temporally govern?
Come on Zrim! Both you and Darryl don’t have the slightest idea what we should do with a kidnapper! If natural law is clear, then it’s as clear as mud! Unless you think natural law is pro-sodomy.
Once you repent, and accept God’s written Word as authoritative in all spheres of life, *even the civil realm*, the scales will fall from your eyes. And you will suddenly be able to answer basic questions. Because right now Zrim, you’re tripping all over your self.
Sean said: There is no legitimate way, much less practical way, and finally any legitimate biblical theological way to divorce mosaic civil case law from theocratic ethnic Israel and apply it to ‘common’ non-theocratic nations.
Sean, most of America’s laws were taken from God’s law, for the most part, during our Nations inception. Over the last hundred years or so, our Nation has drifted from a deep respect for Biblical standards of morality, to a *anything goes* mentality when it comes to sexual mores. Let me ask you a question; were our laws illegitimate back then?
Could our founding fathers read natural law better than our leaders today?
Doug, in point of fact, you don’t have a clue about Romans 1 which says that general revelation reveals the attributes of God. If it can reveal that, what to do with kidnappers is a piece of cake.
Doug,
Again I keep waiting for you guys to actually do something about it. Barney Frank is going to marry his partner, are you gonna get your rocks together and make a stand or just stay on the sidelines and whine about it and blame everyone else. When is it going to be your turn to be the man, and make a change?! I’m pretty sure our founding fathers would’ve taken a stand by now if they believed as strongly as you about it. I know what the Islamisists would do, but they seem to be more serious about their faith than you. I’m waiting for you guys to stop posturing and stand in the gap for your God. Time to man up Doug. Who cares what I believe, you need to stop being distracted and kick this revolution off.
Sean, I do know what the approipriate punishment is for child molesters, rapists, sodomites, kidnappers, murderers, young men who beat they’re parents, thieves, adulterers, and blasphemers.
And I can answer with specificity. Something Zrim and Hart can’t do
Check out 1 Tim 1:9-13 Paul claims that the *law* in the sense of civil punishments found in the Mosaic law, is in accord to the gospel of Christ. Notice Paul is using present tense. Frankly, I’m surprised that you aren’t aware of this verse. But Paul says those punishments *are* good, when used lawfuly.
Zrim, that’s what you say. Doesn’t make it true.
Zrim, Kuyper sounds Kuyperian (aka neo-Calvinist). Imagine that. You must like neo-Calvinism if you like Kuyper there. Your conflation of theonomy with neo-Calvinism leads you to call Kuyper a 2k advocate. How funny!
Doug, everything turns on what to do with a kidnapper. Fine, Romans 13 says for the magistrate to punish him. Are you going to call on Paul to repent for not being more specific?
Terry, but the 2k laughs keep coming. Have you ever read what 2k Kuyper said about revising theocratic Belgic 36? It would make theonomic Doug cry (if that bit just above doesn’t already).
Zrim, yep. Kuyper (and neo-Calvinists) are not theonomic. Please admit that. But that doesn’t make him 2k. There’s a better way.
Zrim, every theonomist I know believes that the magistrate should punish crime. What you fail to add, is Paul also calls the magistrate, a minister of God. It only stands to reason, that once the magistrate is converted, or feels the pressure from a “Christian influence” that he should bear the sword in just manner. Not all punishment is justice.
Justice is a synonym for theonomy. God’s law defines for us what “eye for and eye” means. It’s not to be taken in a wooden literal way, it’s poetry for *perfect justice*.
The punishment *should* fit the crime. That is what God’s law (regarding socio political morality and justice) personified, it was always “eye for and eye, tooth for a tooth”, as in “perfect justice”, the epitome of morality and justice.
Sean, one can drive a thousand to flight, two ten thousand. Unless or until the body of Christ comes into agreement in the true knowledge of Christ, in maturity, and by faith, God will not move. Once salt loses its saltiness, its sometimes only good for being stepped on by the foot of the Gentile. Isn’t that what were watching right in front of our faces? Queer Nation gets more brazen, and the Church stands by listening to the likes of Dr Hart, and doesn’t know what to say. With leaders like Hart, he’s already lost the battle, because he refuses to look to God’s revealed Word and speak with authority.
So, how will God use his people to fight the good fight? Sean, it’s not by might, not be strength, but by my Spirit says the LORD.
The battle belongs to the LORD. We need to come together in agreement, and watch God move. It’s really all about faith. Trust and obey, for there’s no other way.
Sean, are you the same Sean, that is posting over at Greenbaggins regarding theistic evolution?
Doug,
You’re still hiding behind the church?! And what the church will do?! Come on man, our founding fathers didn’t hide behind the church. Where is your heart man. Enough of the Vision forum playing at it, you guys are outfitting your boys in knickers, knee socks and plastic swords, and the Islamist’s are working on the summer selection of suicide vests. I already know who’s taking this seriously and who’s hiding behind mama. When is it gonna be your turn, our founding fathers took on the strongest military force in the world and overcame with bloodshed and revolution. You think your independence and way of righteousness is going to come any different?! We’ve already got one generation indoctrinated with ‘Heather has two mommies and 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. How many generations do you plan on losing before it’s enough. This is God’s country man! The city set on a hill. When are you gonna “give em Watts boys”.
I can tell you this Doug; You’re no founding father. You’re no founding father at all.
Terry, all theonomists are neo-Calvinist but not all neo-Calvinists are theonomic. There are soft neos who are more transformationalist and want to transform the world from the inside out (make more Christians because the more Christians, the better the world), and hard neos that are theonomic who want to transform the world from the outside in (make more Christian nations and laws and it will all trickle down and make a better world). In other words, there is a spectrum of neo-Calvinism, all of which is principally different from 2k which isn’t interested in transforming the world in any way but rather reconciling God with sinners.
Doug, yes, I know theonomy is synonymous with law. Theonomy by definition is a system obsessed with law. This is what should bother anybody who puts the accent on gospel. When will you see that theonomy is a variant of Protestant liberalism which wants to see righteousness legislatively embodied?
Zrim, can’t you get anything right? I guess not
I said theonomy is synonymous with justice. Because God’s law personifies justice in the socio political arena. There are three uses of the law. And if you mix these up, you will find yourself (right where you are) in a bog of confusion. How we punish crime is a function of the third use of the law. You keep mixing up categories, and I’m beginning to wonder if you’re doing this on purpose, or are you just an idiot? Regardless, you need to take a little time off and get you’re act together, because as of late, you’re not making a bit of sense. You’re a category off, as per usual.
I’ll keep the light on for you.
Zrim, *you* instructing Terry on theonomy? LOL! LOL! LOL!
Darryl says: Doug, in point of fact, you don’t have a clue about Romans 1 which says that general revelation reveals the attributes of God. If it can reveal that, what to do with kidnappers is a piece of cake.
Doug says: Talk about clueless! You haven’t the slightest idea what to do with a kidnapper! And ask ten people on the street, and you’ll probably get ten different answers. Ask Darryl, and he says: “I don’t know if my wife or Pastor even knows how I feel”.
Now who’s clueless Darryl?
Pssst, I know the answer to that question, why don’t you?
Doug, punishing crime falls under the first use of the law (usus politicus sive civilis), the the third. Talk about confused categories.
Dancing Doug says;
“Because God’s law personifies justice in the socio political arena. There are three uses of the law. And if you mix these up, you will find yourself (right where you are) in a bog of confusion.”
“The punishment *should* fit the crime. That is what God’s law (regarding socio political morality and justice) personified, it was always “eye for and eye, tooth for a tooth”, as in “perfect justice”, the epitome of morality and justice.”
More Dancing Doug;
“Once you repent, and accept God’s written Word as authoritative in all spheres of life, *even the civil realm*, the scales will fall from your eyes. And you will suddenly be able to answer BASIC QUESTIONS. Because right now Zrim, you’re tripping all over your self.”
And finally humbled, apparently still scaly-eyed(gross), all hat no cattle, Dancing Doug:
“Frankly Sean, I’m not sure *how* to apply God’s Law in a new covenant context in every circumstance.”
That’s what I already knew and so do Zrim and Dr. Hart. We just keep waiting on you to figure it out. Zrim and Dr. Hart are real nice guys though, they’re likely to overlook the offense and tell you the same thing 38 different ways to try and help you out.
Dancing Doug says;
“Because God’s law personifies justice in the socio political arena. There are three uses of the law. And if you mix these up, you will find yourself (right where you are) in a bog of confusion.”
Zrim(remedial teacher);
“Doug, punishing crime falls under the first use of the law (usus politicus sive civilis), the the third. Talk about confused categories.”
Sean, while I’m not sure how to apply the fourth commandment in a new covenant context, I do know how we should deal with kidnappers, murderers, rapists, child molesters, blasphemers, thieves, sodomites, and young men who beat there parents. So I’m light years ahead of you all
Notice my list Sean? Many of the very sins (crimes) that are running rampant in our society today, and called gender issues by the politically correct crowd. Sins that have brought down whole Nations in times past, (see Sodom and Gomorrah) and Zrim and Darryl have no idea what to do. Zrim has even said he may vote *for* homosexual marriage. Isn’t that nice? Whoa to those who call evil, good.
And just because I don’t understand all of God’s law, in no way means I don’t understand the bulk of it. I can answer most of the moral quandaries that trip up the likes of Hart and Zrim. With no dancing, yea! Bottom line Sean, I’m light years ahead of Zrim and Hart, only because I don’t divorce myself from the revealed Law of God.
But, Doug, the rampant a- and anti-sabbatarianism in both cult and culture are a problem. For such a light of the future, I’d hope you’d have an answer for them. But in the meantime, 2k will settle for addressing it in the church and that by way of gospel, and in worse case scenarios excommunication and never execution.
Doug,
Since Pope Zrim and Dr.Hart (playing Dabney to Zrim’s Stonewall Jackson) have the church on “lockdown”. It really is gonna be up to you Moscovites to move the church forward on this stuff. Every time we try over here behind the lines, we get 2ked into submission. But that’s why you’ve got Ayatollah Wilson to lead you into theonomic nirvana, plus I hear he still gets input from Dad Jordan, so, you’re definitely on your way……….to something. But do hurry it up. The whole country is starting to spin from all the gayness and kidnappers and murderers and rapists and and and obamacare. Of course last I heard, O’esteemed one of Moscow told everyone the way forward was to go; “read a book”. So, there you go.
Zrim, when’s the last time you had a kidnapper in you’re church? People in the human slave trade don’t normally want to partake of communion, let alone go to church. What’s the R2K answer? Look to Natural law that no one seems to be able to define? Zrim, you’re an embarrassing advocate for R2K, because you can’t put someone on church discipline who’s not even a member!!!
Sean, are you the same Sean that’s posting over at Greenbaggins?
Yeah Zrim, I’m embarrassed. You can’t be disciplining non-members!!! Fix it!!! You’re beginning to remind of Dear Henry, Zrim…”but there’s a hole in the bucket dear Liza, dear Liza there’s a hole in the bucket dear Liza(musical pause) a. hole.
Okay Sean, go ahead and mock God’s law. It’s outdated, right? Just remember that fearful day is coming when Jesus will say too many, I never knew you, you who practice lawlessness.
What law do you suppose they were disobeying? Hmmmm?
Sounds an awful lot like what I’m hearing from you 2K mockers of God’s revealed law for society in general. So if I were you, I would drop the pejoratives about men who revere God’s law, as a standard of righteousness for all men and nations.
Like I intimated to Darryl, it’s one thing for me to joist with you all, but when you start mocking God’s law, you should tread lightly. It’s never right to deprecate God’s law as just Neanderthal. Which is what I keep hearing from you, Zrim, and Hart.
Doug,
I am major Tom, I was a space monkey. I am the Pope’s alter-ego, and he didn’t make no LOSER alter-ego. I render fat and sell it back to them. We are all project Mayhem.