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

[Covenanted Reformation] Re: Some more on politics and Christianity

Expand Messages
  • Ic Neltococayotl
    ... Chris- In other words...human autonomy & a baptised anarchism...then when it does not conflict with the latter the Bible can have its place...that s what
    Message 1 of 23 , Oct 6, 2007
      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "forisraelssake"
      <c_tylor@...> wrote:
      >
      >that is the wrong model for us I
      > believe. The free society and libertarianism is I think the correct
      > view for the NT period.
      >
      > Sincerely,
      > Chris
      >
      Chris-

      In other words...human autonomy & a baptised anarchism...then when it
      does not conflict with the latter the Bible can have its place...that's
      what it sounds like to me.

      Roger Williams and American style pluralism of religion is one of the
      biggest woes the Church has had to endure. What better way to weaken
      and make effeminate the Church than to divide her and split her as she
      is today?

      Your views are dangerous to the glory of Christ's Church and Law. The
      magistrate has a duty to execute physical Biblical justice against those
      that violate the 10 Commandments. The Church Court has the duty to
      execute spiritual Biblical justice against those that transgress the 10
      Commandments.

      -Edgar
    • forisraelssake
      You are at liberty to think what you want, Edgar. Chris
      Message 2 of 23 , Oct 6, 2007
        You are at liberty to think what you want, Edgar.

        Chris


        > Chris-
        >
        > In other words...human autonomy & a baptised anarchism...then when it
        > does not conflict with the latter the Bible can have its place...that's
        > what it sounds like to me.
        >
        > Roger Williams and American style pluralism of religion is one of the
        > biggest woes the Church has had to endure. What better way to weaken
        > and make effeminate the Church than to divide her and split her as she
        > is today?
        >
        > Your views are dangerous to the glory of Christ's Church and Law. The
        > magistrate has a duty to execute physical Biblical justice against those
        > that violate the 10 Commandments. The Church Court has the duty to
        > execute spiritual Biblical justice against those that transgress the 10
        > Commandments.
        >
        > -Edgar
        >
      • wraezor
        ... As a father, am I no longer allowed to mandate to my children how they must live their life while under my authority? (through Biblical correction,
        Message 3 of 23 , Oct 6, 2007
          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "forisraelssake"
          <c_tylor@...> wrote:

          > I am afraid of the idea of someone who is not God telling someone else
          > how they must live their life. Even with the best of intentions and a
          > benevolent respect for God's authentic moral will, that is still
          > enslaving someone else against their will to your dictates, which is
          > still a type of slavery.

          As a father, am I no longer allowed to mandate to my children 'how
          they must live their life' while under my authority? (through Biblical
          correction, education, example-setting, house order, etc.)

          I may be flawed and frail (and I'm certainly not God), but I'm still
          given the authority to make and enforce a decision that "as for me and
          my house, we will serve the Lord".

          As we discussed before, I still maintain that the family is less of a
          'voluntary' authority than the state is. So the argument holds
          equally true when the subjection is more voluntary.

          Jordan
        • Deejay
          Chris, that would seem the same argument used by a minority, to legitimize calling themselves Christian homosexuals. As for Bahensen, I know many
          Message 4 of 23 , Oct 7, 2007
            Chris,

            that would seem the same argument used by a minority, to legitimize
            calling themselves "Christian homosexuals."

            As for Bahensen, I know many Presbyterians, who are not followers of
            and disagree with Bahensen on many, many issues. I'm a bit confused
            what Bahensen or his theonomic view has to do with much of anything in
            this.

            ~Deejay


            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "forisraelssake"
            <c_tylor@...> wrote:

            >
            > I am afraid of the idea of someone who is not God telling someone else
            > how they must live their life. Even with the best of intentions and a
            > benevolent respect for God's authentic moral will, that is still
            > enslaving someone else against their will to your dictates, which is
            > still a type of slavery. I don't believe States have any more power
            > than the individuals who compose it, so if you don't have power to
            > tell someone how to live their life when your own life, liberty and
            > property are not at stake, then neither does the State made up of
            > people like you.
            >
            >
            > > And how can the magistrate be called the minister of God for good,
            and
            > > a terror to those who do evil, and not raise his sword against
            public
            > > evil such as adultery, fornication, sabbath-breaking, etc?
            > >
            >
            > Because that is exactly what he was called by Paul in the Holy Spirit
            > when that exactly is what happened, namely he (e.g. Nero Caesar) did
            > not raise his sword against adultery, fornication, and
            > sabbath-breaking and yet Paul told us he, and all other kings and
            > states, existed providentially to punish evil. I think Romans 13 is
            > talking about the same thing as Isaiah 10 is. In Isa 10, this state
            > itself is just as worthy as death as all those it was wiping out, and
            > yet it was for that time a providential ordinance to restrain evil and
            > carried the sword to avenge God's outrage against the nations
            > (including Israel), then after a while, it was not the providential
            > ordinance, as it easily collapsed and something else became the de
            > facto ordinance of God, and Assyria was wiped out itself as it had
            > done to so many others before it.
            >
            >
            > > That the duty of the civil magistrate is to defend and enforce both
            > > tables of the law is just good Calvinism, isn't it? It's good old
            > > Reformed doctrine, is it not?
            > >
            > > What's going on, Chris, is there anything we can do to help?
            > >
            > > gmw.
            > >
            >
            > Thanks for your sympathy Jerry but I think I made a big mistake when I
            > got involved with paleo-presbyterianism. I know that's not what you
            > wanted to hear but that is the root of these remarks. I warmly embrace
            > the riches of Calvinism and I am a member of a Dutch Reformed church
            > (if you were wondering who I primarily fellowship with), but like many
            > Reformed and Presbyterians today, I don't think something like
            > Bahnsen's Theonomy is true, even if it more or less was the historic
            > Presbyterian view. I can totally see in WCF 23:3 the Jewish Theocratic
            > State between Saul and Zedekiah, but that is the wrong model for us I
            > believe. The free society and libertarianism is I think the correct
            > view for the NT period.
            >
            > Sincerely,
            > Chris
            >
          • forisraelssake
            ... Hi Deejay, I have no idea what you re even talking about with respect to homosexuality. This discussion has been about two things, first theonomy vs.
            Message 5 of 23 , Oct 7, 2007
              > Chris,
              >
              > that would seem the same argument used by a minority, to legitimize
              > calling themselves "Christian homosexuals."
              >
              > As for Bahensen, I know many Presbyterians, who are not followers of
              > and disagree with Bahensen on many, many issues. I'm a bit confused
              > what Bahensen or his theonomic view has to do with much of anything in
              > this.
              >
              > ~Deejay
              >

              Hi Deejay,

              I have no idea what you're even talking about with respect to
              homosexuality.

              This discussion has been about two things, first theonomy vs.
              libertarianism, so rather than being an inessential side-point, it is
              the point. Do we, in the New Testament, respond retributively to
              violations of all 10 Commandments--and enforce God's complete morality
              through the sword/at gun-point, or do we respond retributively only
              against aggressions and assaults against person and property--while
              preaching God's complete morality in all the catholic churches?

              We've also started talking about a second related point, is freedom of
              religion desirable or undesirable, which more or less collapses back
              into the first point about theonomy vs libertarianism.


              Chris
            • forisraelssake
              ... Perhaps we don t disagree. This is what Rothbard wrote about parental rights and children s rights: http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp By
              Message 6 of 23 , Oct 7, 2007
                > As a father, am I no longer allowed to mandate to my children 'how
                > they must live their life' while under my authority? (through Biblical
                > correction, education, example-setting, house order, etc.)
                >
                > I may be flawed and frail (and I'm certainly not God), but I'm still
                > given the authority to make and enforce a decision that "as for me and
                > my house, we will serve the Lord".
                >
                > As we discussed before, I still maintain that the family is less of a
                > 'voluntary' authority than the state is. So the argument holds
                > equally true when the subjection is more voluntary.
                >
                > Jordan
                >

                Perhaps we don't disagree. This is what Rothbard wrote about parental
                rights and children's rights:
                http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp

                By virtue of your natural rights as father you and your wife have
                parental rights of control and guardianship over your helpless
                children. Beyond your legal rights, you do have additional moral
                rights as well, that go beyond legal obligations but will last yours
                and their lifetimes (things such as seeking your consent and blessing
                for their major life decisions).

                The Christian concept ennobles and enriches the relationship and
                deepens it with the ties of love and self-sacrifice.

                Remember what I am saying is strictly about the law and using force to
                enforce, and not about what is morally proper or required which is a
                completely distinct idea.

                To give a classic example, it may be legal for a person to separate
                from or divorce their spouse 'for no good reason'--in that it would be
                slavery and tyranny for somehow use force and violence to keep them in
                the home, but on the other hand it would very immoral and wrong to
                separate from or divorce one's spouse for no good reason, and is
                certainly actionable by one's church for spiritual discipline.

                Chris
              • gmw
                ... Others may bring Bahnsen and Rushdooney into this, I will not, as I have not been influenced by them. I don t believe Calvin or the Westminster Assembly
                Message 7 of 23 , Oct 7, 2007
                  --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "forisraelssake"
                  <c_tylor@...> wrote:

                  > I know it is natural for people like us to think that way, given the
                  > WCF 23:3 Reformers we pretty much exclusively read on the one hand,
                  > and the strong preference everyone in our perspective has always shown
                  > for Bahnsen and Rushdooney against opponents of their views.

                  Others may bring Bahnsen and Rushdooney into this, I will not, as I
                  have not been influenced by them. I don't believe Calvin or the
                  Westminster Assembly members went to their classes either. Whatever
                  similarities I may be displaying, I've never read Rushdooney, and read
                  very little of Bahnsen. Credit Calvin and the Assembly for my
                  influences. (I mean no disrespect to those men, I'm just saying).

                  > As morally outraged as you would be in the above cases of sex, and
                  > desirous of making me promptly die of lead-poisoning, would you put
                  > your family members in the same category and want to kill them too?
                  > You said kill me in that case, you didn't talk about killing them as
                  > well, but it is not clear what the difference would be.

                  However I answer your question is inconsequential to the point -- a
                  "victimless crime" does not tend to leave a broken hearted man, who
                  feels like he's lost everything, crying for justice, does it? Why the
                  great temptation to load the gun? What has the man lost in this
                  victimless crime to make him so hurt, angry, and desirous of justice?

                  And do you not see the PUBLIC harm this behavior causes? Look around
                  very carefully, it's there for you to see. As Canada and the United
                  States become less and less influenced by Christianity, they have more
                  and more adopted the "adultery and fornication and sabbath breaking
                  are victimless crimes not to be punished" tact, have they not? Or
                  shall an argument be made that we are more and more adopting the
                  Biblical view, after the Puritan and Calvinistic influences messed us
                  up so much early on?

                  > What is the State's 'duty' anyway? Punish all sin with violence?

                  What theologian worth his salt has ever advocated that the duty of the
                  magistrate is to punish all sin with violence? Is this what you
                  believe the WCF and Calvin taught? Or even Bahnsen and Rushdooney for
                  that matter?

                  > The
                  > distinction between private sins and public sins does not seem well
                  > conceived and well-demarcated to me any more,

                  Are you able to distinguish between public and private ~anything~, or
                  is it just the case of sin that they become undistinguishable? Is
                  there no difference between my breaking my own coffee mug in anger,
                  and going around the neighborhood breaking everyone's coffee mugs in
                  anger? (pausing to calmly sip some coffee...)

                  > so that I can say "well of course all PUBLIC sins should be
                  > punished, but PRIVATE sins are not
                  > the State's right to punish". What does that even mean in the case
                  > of people's private decisions and actions made with their free,
                  > un-coerced consent?

                  Orgy on my front lawn, Ok under your scheme? Suicide party over at my
                  place, cool with you?

                  > I agree you should be offended at the sins against both our neighbors
                  > as well as the sins against God. All sin should grieve the Christian.
                  > God himself is continually offended by them as well, as he tells us in
                  > his Word.

                  Good, agreed.

                  > Yet where is the moral foundation for one person telling
                  > another person how they must live their life when no aggression is
                  > involved in the sin. Where is the victim in victimless crimes?

                  Is it your argument that there was no moral foundation for punishing
                  witches, sodomites, zoophiles, sabbath-breakers, etc., in the Old
                  Testament economy?

                  I'm quite libertarian ~in some areas~. I don't think the government
                  should be spending all the time and money and effort to keep Joe
                  Smoker from smoking a spliff on his couch. That's a "victimless
                  crime" as I understand it.

                  But if that stoner starts driving his car around my neighborhood under
                  the influence, this becomes more public, now doesn't it?

                  > I am afraid of the idea of someone who is not God telling someone else
                  > how they must live their life.

                  Like a minister? A parent?

                  > Because that is exactly what he was called by Paul in the Holy Spirit
                  > when that exactly is what happened, namely he (e.g. Nero Caesar) did
                  > not raise his sword against adultery, fornication, and
                  > sabbath-breaking and yet Paul told us he, and all other kings and
                  > states, existed providentially to punish evil.

                  Ok, let's plug this in and see how it works --

                  "Let every soul be subject unto NERO, For there is no NERO but of God:
                  the NERO that is, is ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth
                  NERO, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist NERO shall
                  receive to themselves damnation. For NERO is not a terror to good
                  works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of NERO? do that
                  which is good, and thou shalt have praise of NERO: For NERO is the
                  minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil,
                  be afraid; for NERO beareth not the sword in vain: for NERO is the
                  minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
                  Wherefore ye must needs be subject TO NERO, not only for wrath, but
                  also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for
                  NERO AND HIS LIKE are God's ministers, attending continually upon this
                  very thing. Render therefore to NERO his dues: tribute to NERO, to
                  whom tribute is due; custom to NERO, to whom custom is due; fear to
                  NERO, to whom fear is due; honour to NERO, to whom honour is due."

                  Could this be what Paul meant, that if you don't want to be afraid of
                  Nero, just do good, then Nero will praise you instead of punish you, etc.?

                  DOES THAT MATCH ANYTHING WE KNOW OF NERO?

                  Nero, and all other tyrants, would love to have that poster on their
                  wall, and would order all the government sponsored ministers to preach
                  this in every pulpit (oh... wait...
                  http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57219 ).

                  Maybe Paul (who did good, and yet was probably beheaded by Nero) meant
                  something else?

                  > Thanks for your sympathy Jerry but I think I made a big mistake when > I
                  > got involved with paleo-presbyterianism. I know that's not what you
                  > wanted to hear but that is the root of these remarks.

                  No, I'm not thrilled about hearing that, but I do appreciate you
                  explaining this.

                  Have a good and profitable Lord's Day,

                  gmw.
                • gmw
                  ... Is that how you view your opposition? -- that we that hold to theonomy believe that the government should use the sword/gun against you for violating
                  Message 8 of 23 , Oct 7, 2007
                    --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "forisraelssake"
                    <c_tylor@...> wrote:
                    >

                    > This discussion has been about two things, first theonomy vs.
                    > libertarianism, so rather than being an inessential side-point, it is
                    > the point. Do we, in the New Testament, respond retributively to
                    > violations of all 10 Commandments--and enforce God's complete morality
                    > through the sword/at gun-point,

                    Is that how you view your opposition? -- that we that hold to
                    "theonomy" believe that the government should use the sword/gun
                    against you for violating "thou shalt not covet?"

                    gmw.
                  • Deejay
                    Hi Chris, ... Sorry, I didn t mean to lose the plot! Just that this statment, (following) is the very same argument I have heard used as to why practicing
                    Message 9 of 23 , Oct 7, 2007

                      Hi Chris,

                      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "forisraelssake" <c_tylor@...> wrote:
                      >

                      > I have no idea what you're even talking about with respect to
                      > homosexuality.

                      Sorry, I didn't mean to lose the plot! Just that this statment, (following) is the very same argument I have heard used as to why practicing homosexuals can legitmately call themseves Christians.  That mere men have no right to tell them how they should live their lives.  It's a different  subject, but its still the same argument which arounses both suspicion and caution just by it being so.

                      >>>m afraid of the idea of someone who is not God telling someone else
                      how they must live their life. Even with the best of intentions and a
                      benevolent respect for God's authentic moral will, that is still
                      enslaving someone else against their will to your dictates, which is
                      still a type of slavery. I don't believe States have any more power
                      than the individuals who compose it, so if you don't have power to
                      tell someone how to live their life when your own life, liberty and
                      property are not at stake, then neither does the State made up of
                      people like you.

                      >
                      > This discussion has been about two things, first theonomy vs.
                      > libertarianism, so rather than being an inessential side-point, it is
                      > the point. Do we, in the New Testament, respond retributively to
                      > violations of all 10 Commandments--and enforce God's complete morality
                      > through the sword/at gun-point, or do we respond retributively only
                      > against aggressions and assaults against person and property--while
                      > preaching God's complete morality in all the catholic churches?
                      >

                      Thanks for restating the points!  I don't think most people desire retribution in the eye for an eye tooth for tooth variety of the old Testament  unless its very clear that it should be so. (Murder for instance) In fact, I think that's one of the fundamental flaws in Theonomy.  In that goes from divine retribution, and turns into a form of "revenge" by the severity it sometimes advocates.  I have read Bahnsen in the past, but haven't retained much of it.  I don't believe Bahnsen was one of the bad guys,  I just disagree with him some.

                      ~Deejay



                    • still_loving_u_143
                      ... legitimize ... followers of ... confused ... anything in ... is ... morality ... of
                      Message 10 of 23 , Nov 17, 2007
                        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "forisraelssake"
                        <c_tylor@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > > Chris,
                        > >
                        > > that would seem the same argument used by a minority, to
                        legitimize
                        > > calling themselves "Christian homosexuals."
                        > >
                        > > As for Bahensen, I know many Presbyterians, who are not
                        followers of
                        > > and disagree with Bahensen on many, many issues. I'm a bit
                        confused
                        > > what Bahensen or his theonomic view has to do with much of
                        anything in
                        > > this.
                        > >
                        > > ~Deejay
                        > >
                        >
                        > Hi Deejay,
                        >
                        > I have no idea what you're even talking about with respect to
                        > homosexuality.
                        >
                        > This discussion has been about two things, first theonomy vs.
                        > libertarianism, so rather than being an inessential side-point, it
                        is
                        > the point. Do we, in the New Testament, respond retributively to
                        > violations of all 10 Commandments--and enforce God's complete
                        morality
                        > through the sword/at gun-point, or do we respond retributively only
                        > against aggressions and assaults against person and property--while
                        > preaching God's complete morality in all the catholic churches?
                        >
                        > We've also started talking about a second related point, is freedom
                        of
                        > religion desirable or undesirable, which more or less collapses back
                        > into the first point about theonomy vs libertarianism.
                        >
                        >
                        > Chris
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.