Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Covenanted Reformation] Re: Why I am Not a Theonomist.......

Expand Messages
  • peter_dawkins1963
    ... I m not denying that. What I find incredible is that someone with virtually no academic or scholarly credentials can accuse one who had both of not
    Message 1 of 131 , Jun 30, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment


      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "timmopussycat" <timmopussycat@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, peter_dawkins1963
      > no_reply@ wrote:>
      >
      > >
      > > I find it amazing that you have enough brass to accuse a scholar of
      > > Bahnsen's caliber of "not seeing the full implications" of
      > something.
      >
      > Tim-It is not a question of brass or lack of brass when one points
      > out that a human may err. Scholars (even good ones) make mistakes
      > all the time. >

      I'm not denying that. What I find incredible is that someone with virtually no academic or scholarly credentials can accuse one who had both of  "not seeing the full implacations of something." THAT takes brass!

       

       

      >
      >> > Perhaps he didn't see it because it isn't there! Be that as it
      > may, you
      > > keep stating your supposition as fact without any basis for doing
      > so.
      > > Matt. 5:18 is an absolute statement. It states a general principle
      > of
      > > the nature of the Law. Hebrews qualifies that statement by showing
      > how
      > > the ceremonial law was altered by the atoning work of Christ. It
      > says
      > > nothing, and neither does the rest of the NT, about any other
      > aspect of
      > > the Law being altered.
      >
      > Tim-What Christ says is that no change whatsoever will occur to the
      > law until everything is accomplished. Hebrews says a change has
      > occurred. Logically this gives us two not possibilites.
      > 1) that Christ was only referring to the ceremonial subset of the
      > law. Anybody who knows how the Jews lived in relation to the law
      > should at least suspect this possibility may be untenable. The
      > charge to which Christ was replying had reference to the law as a
      > whole, he did not qualify his claim that he was only referring to an
      > aspect of the law, and the Jews did not expect Messiah to alter the
      > law in any fundamental way, so it is unlikely in the extreme that he
      > would have been so understood by his hearers.
      > 2) That the change in the law mentioned in Hebrews implies that the
      > change in covenants achieved by Christ in the initiation of the new
      > covenant means that "...all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18)

      Hebrews tells us exactly what was changed and it was the ceremonial aspect of the Law. Nothing else is indicated either in Hebrews or in the rest of the NT.

      Since it seems  from the above that you hold "all is accomplished" at the initiation of the New Covenant, then you must also hold that the Law has passed away, for Jesus said, "Not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." 


      >
      > To say that the Lawgiver can't do that without
      > > engaging in contradiction is foolishness.
      >
      > Tim-The lawgiver can alter the law at any time without engaging in
      > contradiction. What he cannot do without engaging in contradiction
      > is to announce that "not the smallest letter or least stroke shall
      > pass away from the law until all is accomplished" thereby claiming
      > immutability for the law, and then change one or more stipulations
      > of the law while leaving the rest in force. Either all the law is in
      > force, or "...all is accomplished", or Christ is contradicting
      > himself.
      >
      >

      Then Hebrews must be contradicting Christ because what it speaks to is how the ceremonial aspect of the  Law has been altered and why. Nothing else is indicated.


      > >
      > > It would be interesting to see how you would attempt to explain
      > away
      > > Christ's absolute statement in Mark 10:11 regarding divorce. There
      > > Christ also gives no indication that there is an exception to the
      > > general principle, however, later revelation shows us that there
      > is. Did
      > > Christ contradict himself? I'm sure you'll say no, but what will be
      > > interesting is to see how you go about substantiating that without
      > > contradicting yourself.
      >
      > Tim-Do I know you under another online name? The reason I ask is
      > that that point was raised in another group by someone who thought
      > it posed a problem. It doesn't.
      >
      > Basically we may resolve apparent contradictions in Christ's
      > teaching anytime and any alternative understanding that avoids
      > contradiction is admissable, unless Christ himself forbids us to use
      > that altenative. In Matt. 5:18, when Christ says not one jot nor one
      > tittle shall disappear from the law until all is accomplished,
      > abolishing one jot or tittle from the law before all is accomplished
      > creates a contradiction with that statement. So any altenative that
      > proposed altering or abrogating some but not all of the law before
      > all is accomplished is an inadmissable hypothesis since it
      > contradicts Christ.
      >
      > Christ's words in Mk 10 are different. They come as the answer to
      > the discples question about a previous conversation with the
      > Pharisees who had tried to trap him (vv. 2-9). Clearly the Pharisees
      > were trying to seek justification for their belief that a man could
      > divorce his wife for any cause at all(one of the Pharisaical schools
      > so misread Dt.24:1-4 as referring to more than just adultery).
      >
      > Christ answers their trap by showing how the Mosaic provision on
      > divorce was a concession by God to Israelite hardness of heart, but
      > divorce was not part of God's plan from the beginnning. We know from
      > other texts that Christ permits divorce in the case of adultery so
      > the question is does Christ contradict himself in Mk 10:11,12 by
      > saying that any divorce leads to adultery?
      >
      > In Mark 10, his remark to the disciples is an amplification of his
      > earlier remark to the Pharisees that "what God has joined together
      > let not man separate." So in other words: You Pharisees must not sek
      > to break the one flesh covenant relationship which is what marriage
      > is on the basis of something you find indecent. But because Christ's
      > response is ad hominem to the Pharisees in this incident there is a
      > possibility not in view. What happens when the marriage covenant is
      > broken by adultery not on the part of the Pharisee but of the
      > spouse? What is the innocent party to do? Divorce in such a case is
      > not the separating of what God has joined together: the adultery
      > made the separation. So there is no ultimate contradiction here. In
      > the case of a woman committing adultery within marriage, her
      > cuckolded spouse may divorce her without causing her to commit
      > adultery; she has already done so.
      >
      > Tim
      >
      >

      I figured you'd attempt to explain away the obvious. Mark 10:11 is an absolute statement with no indication that it was subject to later qualifications. However, it was later qualified and Christ was not guilty of contradiction.

      Peter Dawkins

    • Fred blahous
      G day Deejay, Just so you know, I definitely wasn t implying that you were old.lol. All the best, Fred. ... music, ... some ... sounds ... soldiers ... makes
      Message 131 of 131 , Jul 15, 2006
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        G'day Deejay,

        Just so you know, I definitely wasn't implying that you were old.lol.

        All the best,
        Fred.

        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com,
        reformed_wild_child <no_reply@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > lol. I know a few folks who would agree with you.
        >
        > well don't think its quite WWII, "Mack the Knife" I like ole
        music,
        > but just to be clear, I ain't THAT old.
        >
        > ~Deejay
        > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Fred blahous"
        > <fritzbau@> wrote:
        > >
        > > G'day Deejay,
        > >
        > > I was cruising by your homepage just a while ago. I have to ask,
        > > what on earth is that song that plays? I know my parents play
        some
        > > weird sounding stuff like Dylan and Melanie, but this stuff
        sounds
        > > like WWII era.
        > >
        > > All the best,
        > > Fred.
        > > (who believes the purpose of music is to frighten off enemy
        soldiers
        > > in battle.lol.)
        > >
        > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com,
        > > reformed_wild_child no_reply@ wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Good point about the word. I used the word I heard someone else
        > > use
        > > > about it.
        > > >
        > > > Sadly, this is only one scenario of the believing world that
        makes
        > > me
        > > > sad. And in the end it all boils down to folks not practicing
        > > what they
        > > > preach, whether that's "Peter Dawkins" decieving (or trying to)
        > > wihle
        > > > defending the application of God's law in all areas of faith
        and
        > > > practice, or Billy no-mark, in our own locations anywhere in
        the
        > > world
        > > > practicing double standards or hypocrisy in some other way. Of
        > > course we
        > > > all have hypocrisy in us, but sometimes its so blatant and
        > > unrelenting.
        > > >
        > > > Christ's name would be much more esteemed, and ready to be
        heard
        > > but for
        > > > folks in great numbers not practicing what they preach I
        think. As
        > > all
        > > > it speaks of is hypocrisy and double standards.
        > > >
        > > > Add to my previous questions, Matt, how does the deceit
        of "Peter
        > > > Dawkins" glorify God at all?
        > > >
        > > > Good verses, Maggie.
        > > >
        > > > ~Deejay
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Maggie"
        > > > <mmpconley@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > "But please stop lying about your idenity, its
        > > > > unethical and dishonest."
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Actually, Deejay, I'd just go with deceitful.
        > > > >
        > > > > Again, a deceitful person is different than
        > > > > someone who may simply sin by deceiving once or
        > > > > twice.
        > > > >
        > > > > Habitual sin is quite another matter than one who
        > > > > errs and repents.
        > > > >
        > > > > Psalm 5:5-6 5 The boastful shall not stand
        > > > > before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity. 6
        > > > > You destroy those who speak falsehood; The LORD
        > > > > abhors the man of bloodshed and deceit.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Psalm 101:7 7 He who practices deceit shall not
        > > > > dwell within my house; He who speaks falsehood
        > > > > shall not maintain his position before me.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Proverbs 12:20 20 Deceit is in the heart of
        > > > > those who devise evil, But counselors of peace
        > > > > have joy.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Proverbs 26:24 24 He who hates disguises it with
        > > > > his lips, But he lays up deceit in his heart.
        > > > >
        > > > > This just makes me sad.
        > > > >
        > > > > Maggie
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.