Re: [Covenanted Reformation] public blasphemy laws.........
- I understood James to have been going by a mistaken understanding of
As regards compulsory attendence, the entire history of Israel shows
the necessity of it. This is what is meant by a Christian Kingdom,
is it not?
All the best,
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Larry Bump"
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fred blahous" <fritzbau@...>
> ___snip a lot of typing___
> > Of the first two groups of believers, who do you think was
> > Incidentally, Jerry doesn't call for the execution of non-believers.
> Then I wasn't referring to Jerry, was I? The initial proposition
> person that calls for the execution or deportation of people forthe crime
> of private unbelief. That person would be "beyond the fringe",nicht wahr?
> That's all I was saying; hat this theoretical person would not beholding
> the position of theonomists in general, nor the position of theReformers.
> I also don't think that the person refered to in the initial postwas Jerry,
> but I might have misunderstood.publish
> > Only individuals who obstinantly maintain worship rites and
> > pamphlets contrary to God's own religiion who cannot bereclaimed in
> > any other way.form me.
> That is also the position I stated earlier, so again, no arguments
> > I am assuming he would also support compulsory
> > attendence laws to go with national establishment of
> > Presbyterry. "How will they hear unless they have a preacher?",
> > after all.
> I can see the seeming logic of this, but no Scriptural warrant or