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

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

Expand Messages
  • timmopussycat
    Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Why I am Not a Theonomist....... timmopussycat wrote: Tim- Speculating as to why Bahnsen never took back any errors is moot
    Message 1 of 131 , Jul 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Why I am Not a Theonomist.......

      timmopussycat wrote:
      Tim- Speculating as to why Bahnsen never took back any errors is
      moot

      Kevin
      I don't think so. Bahnsen was an unusually self-critical scholar
      who, from my understanding, was ever examining his own position in
      minute detail from a Scriptural point of view.

      Tim-Take a look at the sections of TFAF where Fowler's and Long's
      original criticisms are provided together with Bahnsen's responses.
      Also note what he omits from his citation of Wenham's article.

      Tim
      , but it is not unknown for first class scholars to persist in
      errors. Look at Tom Wright v. Don Carson(depending on which side of
      the current justification by faith only controversy you are on) or
      Gordon Fee (on women in church leadership) for cases in point.

      Kevin
      As I said above, Bahnsen critiqued himself from a Scriptural point
      of view.

      Tim-And every one of the men I have named will say that they are
      attempting to do likewise. I hope you don't want to impute inerrancy
      to Presbyterian scholars as opposed to first class men in other
      denominations. The rightness of Bahnsen's ecclesiology and
      soteriology are not relevant when the issue is the meaning of a
      given text which deals with a matter outside those areas. The most
      we can say is that Bahnsen critiqued himself from what he thought
      was a Scriptural position, but that still does not guarantee freedom
      from error, because it is possible for first class scholars to err
      in what they think Scripture says.

      All that said, however, a couple of comments can be made. I do not
      think Bahnsen ever encountered a full critique of his work from a
      Reformed perspective.

      Kevin
      I'm afraid you are sincerely wrong here. One need merely look at
      the OT scholar Meredith Kline who, as early as 1978, began a
      scathing attack against Bahnsen's point of view. And, following
      Kline, was his disciple David Gordon who was quite thorough and
      detailed in his arguments against Bahnsen. In fact the attacks were
      so prolonged that it's taken Gentry to continue the Bahnsen
      apologetics.
      Bahnsen faced withering criticism in his own day. And that from
      the "big guns" themselves.

      Tim-I knew Bahsnen had encountered criticism from early days, but I
      should have been more specific and said that AFAIK Bahnsen never
      encountered a full critique of his exegesis of Matt. 5;17-20 nor
      competent counterarguments to his view that Theonomy will not
      utterly fail even if those verses cannot be read in Bahnsen's
      desired sense.

      Kline simply does not critique Bahsnen's exegesis but engages in a
      theological assault: you will not find Kline for example
      demonstrating, contra Bahnsen, that the presence of "alla", instead
      of forcing the meaning "confirm" on plhrw, must instead have its own
      meaning determined by otherwise established meanings of katalusai
      and pleroo and Gordon, although telling at a couple of points, also
      does not provide a comprehensive critique of Bahnsen's exegetical
      work. And that is something that is still needed and the gap I have
      attempted to fill.

      Tim

      Tim
    • 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
      • 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.