PDA

View Full Version : Why Theonomy?



Justin (Wiccan)
May 6th, 2005, 08:13 PM
...under US law adultery is not a crime. Adultery should, however, be a crime and if it was a crime like it should be they should be arrested.

OK, let's open this up to everyone.

What is the Biblical justification for theonomic government in Gentile nations?

Justin

Delmar
May 6th, 2005, 08:21 PM
The thread you got it from was open to everyone.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 6th, 2005, 08:29 PM
The thread you got it from was open to everyone.

Yes, it was. But this is a separate topic, and threads that have gone on for a while tend to be ignored by those who have lost interest. I wished to open a new thread.

Justin

Delmar
May 6th, 2005, 08:49 PM
Asserting that adultery should be a crime is not the same thing as asserting that the government should be a Theonomy.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 6th, 2005, 08:58 PM
Asserting that adultery should be a crime is not the same thing as asserting that the government should be a Theonomy.

You're quite correct: I do not state that you are arguing for theonomy. But your statement reminded me of this question, and I wished to ask it.

Justin

Caledvwlch
May 7th, 2005, 08:39 AM
And look at that, no one has answered it, surprise, surprise. I'm a former theonomist turned back to the good side. I don't think Old Testement law should be enforced today, and I don't see much reason to believe that it was ever enforced to it's written extent. There's a lot of weird and scary stuff in there. Deut. 25:11-12 come to mind.

Lighthouse
May 7th, 2005, 04:28 PM
I beleive there are certain things found in the Mosaic Law that should be enforced today, as a criminal code. And I believe the death penalty should be enforced for such things, as murder.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 7th, 2005, 08:32 PM
I beleive there are certain things found in the Mosaic Law that should be enforced today, as a criminal code. And I believe the death penalty should be enforced for such things, as murder.

OK, that's at least a start. However, what I am interested is Biblical support for any aspect of the Mosaic Law applying to Gentile nations today.

Justin

Freak
May 8th, 2005, 04:53 PM
Captial crimes considered under the Old Testament should be considered crimes under the New Covenant, ideally. However, with the sinfulness of humanity, I doubt, that any government of the world will adopt the fulness of Biblical Law. So, it is a moot point. However, we should utilize the Law as a tutor to bring humanity to Jesus Christ.

Lighthouse
May 8th, 2005, 09:22 PM
I'm with Freak on this one.

Carver
May 8th, 2005, 09:36 PM
As a member of the U.S. Military, I can be court martialed for adultery under Article 134 of the U.C.M.J. Maximum punishment is dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and one year confinement.

And for those who don't think that's enough, I'm going to expound a little. One year in the brig isn't much, but it is still going to suck. Forfeiture of all pay and allowances means I no longer have any money. As for dishonorable discharge, well, that ruins the rest of my life. Most job applications either ask for social security number or they ask the question: Have you ever been discharged from the military under other than honorable conditions? From either of those two means, they can determine my conduct in the military. If they see a dishonorable discharge, pretty much guarenteed that I don't get the job.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 8th, 2005, 09:49 PM
I'm with Freak on this one.

OK, you and Jay have expressed that, and I respect your opinions. What I'm more interested in is Biblical justification as to why the Mosaic Law applies to Gentile nations today.

Justin

Lighthouse
May 8th, 2005, 11:01 PM
The Mosaic Law has never applied to Gentile nations. And it does not apply today. However, right and wrong do apply. And the civil laws, if applied, would make for a better situation. If murderers were all put to death for their crimes, less people would commit murder, and no one who had been caught would commit any more murders. Same for many crimes. But as it stands now, sometimes murderers are let back on the street, and they kill, again and again. But if they had been sentenced to death, they wouldn't kill anymore. Same for rapists, and child molesters. Although child molestation is never specifically confronted in the Mosaic Law, I think we can agree that it is wrong. And can you imagine the ramifications for the RCC if child molesters were put to death when found guilty? But, today's las allow molesters back out onto the streets in abuot seven years. That is one of the biggest atrocities of civil law these days.

Jefferson
May 8th, 2005, 11:43 PM
What is the Biblical justification for theonomic government in Gentile nations?First Timothy 1:8-11 - "But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust."

Ninjashadow
May 9th, 2005, 12:33 AM
Deut. 25:12-13 come to mind.

13 is about weights and measures. Did you mean 11-12 or do you find something wrong with 13?

Also, in some states adultery is an arrestable offense as long as it is "open and notorious."

Caledvwlch
May 9th, 2005, 06:30 AM
13 is about weights and measures. Did you mean 11-12 or do you find something wrong with 13?

Also, in some states adultery is an arrestable offense as long as it is "open and notorious."
Yeah, my bad. 11-12. Twisted.

Frank Ernest
May 9th, 2005, 06:35 AM
First Timothy 1:8-11 - "But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust."
BINGO!

Clete
May 9th, 2005, 06:41 AM
Define Theonomy.

It seems to me that the Bible calls for a Monarchy, a Constitutional Monarchy to be more precise. That is to say, that it should be a Monarchy which is run by the rule of law not by the fiat of the king. The king does not make laws he simply enforces the ones that exist and makes rulings on matters of dispute along with a quite elaborate system of judges; the king, of course, being the supreme judge of the land.

This system, it might interest you to know, is not claimed by the Bible, or by God, or anyone else that I know of, to be perfect; only that it is the best possible system given the human beings whom God has given it to run.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Caledvwlch
May 9th, 2005, 06:47 AM
Define Theonomy.

It seems to me that the Bible calls for a Monarchy, a Constitutional Monarchy to be more precise. That is to say, that it should be a Monarchy which is run by the rule of law not by the fiat of the king. The king does not make laws he simply enforces the ones that exist and makes rulings on matters of dispute along with a quite elaborate system of judges; the king, of course, being the supreme judge of the land.

This system, it might interest you to know, is not claimed by the Bible, or by God, or anyone else that I know of, to be perfect; only that it is the best possible system given the human beings whom God has given it to run.

Resting in Him,
Clete
Why a monarchy then? If the monarch does not rule by his word, then why not a representative republic? Why not a dictator?

Granite
May 9th, 2005, 06:49 AM
Theonomy is paranoid, fanatical, potentially violent, and absolutely dangerous.

Caledvwlch
May 9th, 2005, 06:51 AM
Theonomy is paranoid, fanatical, potentially violent, and absolutely dangerous.
Not to put to fine a point on it... :chuckle:

Clete
May 9th, 2005, 07:11 AM
Why a monarchy then? If the monarch does not rule by his word, then why not a representative republic? Why not a dictator?
Well for one reason it is dramatically easier to get one man to repent rather than a commitee.

With committee, which is what a democracy or republic is, the best you can hope for the the average amount of righteousness in a nations leadership. People are evil by nature, the more are involved in being the head of a nation the less righteous that nation will be.

Further, since we are talking about what the Bible would advocate and not what we would come up with on our own, it is important to point out that the Bible never condones representative republics. In fact when the representatives of the people came to Moses with there desire for input in the way things were run, Moses said for all the representatives and those who want to follow them to go stand over there, and all those who want to follow me (Moses) we'll stand over here. Then when they were all situated, God openned up the Earth and swallowed the representatives down alive into Hell.

God does not like representative governments, period. And neither do I.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Caledvwlch
May 9th, 2005, 07:15 AM
Well for one reason it is dramatically easier to get one man to repent rather than a commitee.

With committee, which is what a democracy or republic is, the best you can hope for the the average amount of righteousness in a nations leadership. People are evil by nature, the more are involved in being the head of a nation the less righteous that nation will be.

Further, since we are talking about what the Bible would advocate and not what we would come up with on our own, it is important to point out that the Bible never condones representative republics. In fact when the representatives of the people came to Moses with there desire for input in the way things were run, Moses said for all the representatives and those who want to follow them to go stand over there, and all those who want to follow me (Moses) we'll stand over here. Then when they were all situated, God openned up the Earth and swallowed the representatives down alive into Hell.

God does not like representative governments, period. And neither do I.

Resting in Him,
Clete
So you don't like freedom then. Whenever power is consolidated into one place or onto one man, people suffer. There's no avoiding it. Even King David had a man murdered, and was constantly at war, therefore responsible for countless deaths in and around his nation. The man was a despot, freedom was unheard of. What you're talking about is erasing any semblance of checks and balances and putting all civil power in the hands of one man. Even under the constraints of the Bible, how can such a madman be stopped?

Clete
May 9th, 2005, 07:33 AM
So you don't like freedom then. Whenever power is consolidated into one place or onto one man, people suffer. There's no avoiding it. Even King David had a man murdered, and was constantly at war, therefore responsible for countless deaths in and around his nation. The man was a despot, freedom was unheard of. What you're talking about is erasing any semblance of checks and balances and putting all civil power in the hands of one man. Even under the constraints of the Bible, how can such a madman be stopped?

"Such a mad man" could be stopped much more easily than could an out of control committee of evil men.

King David is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. He clearly did evil things and yet he (singular) repented of those acts and so the whole nation benefited from one man's repentence. As I said, it is not a perfect system; no such perfect system exists. It is clearly the best possible system available.
And of course I like freedom. That was a stupid thing to even say. Democracy is no guarantee of freedom. If you think it is, you're are truly to be pitied. It is the rule of law that guarantees freedom. And in a Biblical government the king would have no authority to make new laws or change existing ones. Laws are not to be made but discovered. God has given us the law, we (including the king) are only to enforce it. Thus there is no undue consolidation of power to one man as you suggest.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Granite
May 9th, 2005, 07:36 AM
Dictatorship no matter how you dress it up is still an offense against liberty and leads to slavery. :dunce:

Clete
May 9th, 2005, 07:38 AM
Dictatorship no matter how you dress it up is still an offense against liberty and leads to slavery. :dunce:
Which is why I am not talking about a dictatorship. Pay attention.

Dictators rule by fiat; their word is law. That would not be the case in a Biblcal government.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Granite
May 9th, 2005, 07:41 AM
Which is why I am not talking about a dictatorship. Pay attention.

Dictators rule by fiat; their word is law. That would not be the case in a Biblcal government.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete, this is a crock of BS and we both know it. David's word was law, and I really don't care how he tried to justify it. Using "the Bible" to justify one-man rule is...well, it's dictatorship. You can call it a "monarchy" or whatever else you fanatics use to honeycoat your totalitarianism, but nothing changes what you would do if given half a chance.

The minute you people get power you abuse it, and there is not a single exception in Christianity's history.

Caledvwlch
May 9th, 2005, 07:53 AM
"Such a mad man" could be stopped much more easily than could an out of control committee of evil men.
I'm still not following you here. A committee, as you put it, stops itself. The point of checks and balances is making sure that the government can't get things done.

King David is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. He clearly did evil things and yet he (singular) repented of those acts and so the whole nation benefited from one man's repentence. As I said, it is not a perfect system; no such perfect system exists. It is clearly the best possible system available.
The best possible system available is the one that safeguards freedom. We're not in total disagreement here. Oddly enough. :chuckle:

And of course I like freedom. That was a stupid thing to even say. Democracy is no guarantee of freedom. If you think it is, you're are truly to be pittied.
I never said anything about democracy. I said representative government.

It is the rule of law that guarantees freedom. And in a Biblical geovernment the king would have no authority to make new laws or change existing ones. Laws are not to be made but discovered. God has given us the law, we (including the king) are only to enforce it. Thus there is no undo consolidation of power to one man as you suggest.

Resting in Him,
Clete
I don't think it is only the rule of law that guarantees freedom. It also requires personal responsibility and self-government. And while it's nice that you say the king would have no authority to make new laws, who's going to stop him if he decides to? Is God going to personally intervene? That would be nice, but I don't think there's really a historical precedent for such an event. Or would we simply wait around for our monarch to repent? The monarchy thing is a bad idea. There's a reason that monarchies are virtually extinct.

Clete
May 9th, 2005, 07:55 AM
Clete, this is a crock of BS and we both know it. David's word was law, and I really don't care how he tried to justify it. Using "the Bible" to justify one-man rule is...well, it's dictatorship. You can call it a "monarchy" or whatever else you fanatics use to honeycoat your totalitarianism, but nothing changes what you would do if given half a chance.

The minute you people get power you abuse it, and there is not a single exception in Christianity's history.
I've already addressed David's failings, which you ignored. You could be the most intellectually dishonest person on this site.

The failings, which you attribute to a Monarchy, are perhaps slowed by a democracy at first, but the same abuses of power take place nonetheless and once they are in place, they are impossible to remove, IMPOSSIBLE. A democracy will inevitably move more and more in the direction of removing the consequences from the people's actions because it is the people who are making the rules. The result will be a break down of society and a collapse of the nation and in the end anarchy, the ultimate expression of the liberal idea of what it means to be free (i.e. no law). In fact, it is just the opposite. Without the rule of law, there can be no lasting or meaningful freedom. Without the rule of law it will truly be the Darwinian’s paradise; survival of the fittest and only the fittest.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
May 9th, 2005, 08:21 AM
I'm still not following you here. A committee, as you put it, stops itself. The point of checks and balances is making sure that the government can't get things done.
The history of this country would belie this point. We have seen a steady errossion of our freedoms in this country and that will undoubtedly continue.


The best possible system available is the one that safeguards freedom. We're not in total disagreement here. Oddly enough. :chuckle:
As the stomach knows good food, so the heart knows truth.


I never said anything about democracy. I said representative government.
Variation on a theme.


I don't think it is only the rule of law that guarantees freedom. It also requires personal responsibility and self-government.
Says who? There is no historical justification for such a statement and there is certainly no Biblical justification for it and God is much smarter than we are.


And while it's nice that you say the king would have no authority to make new laws, who's going to stop him if he decides to?
See Granite! This is the sort of thing that comes up when people who are actually thinking interact with one another. You would do well do pay attention to your fellow pagan here.

The law provides for civil disobedience. In other words, God says that we should not follow any law that a rogue king might attempt to create. Again, it is the law that ultimately rules, not the king.


Is God going to personally intervene? That would be nice, but I don't think there's really a historical precedent for such an event. Or would we simply wait around for our monarch to repent? The monarchy thing is a bad idea. There's a reason that monarchies are virtually extinct.
No, God would not personally intervene. However, the law would not be the convoluted mess that we have today. It would fit on maybe two or three pages and would be simple enough for a third grader to understand. Most people would have the entire thing memorized in a society under a Biblical government and they would be fully aware that they were under no obligation to follow any "new law" that the king handed down.
And while there would no doubt be evil kings who would make the country groan under his rule, such a king would eventually repent or die and then you at least have the potential for righteous leadership. In a representative government the same evil humans simply keep on putting the same sort of idiots into power and those in power keep changing the rules to make it easier for them and their kind to stay in power.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Caledvwlch
May 9th, 2005, 08:42 AM
The history of this country would belie this point. We have seen a steady errossion of our freedoms in this country and that will undoubtedly continue.
Sure it will continue, but not because the system was flawed to begin with, but because guys like Abraham Lincoln, FDR and Woodrow Wilson screwed us over with cool things like abrogation of state's rights and socialism and world government.

As the stomach knows good food, so the heart knows truth.
That remains to be seen.

Variation on a theme.
Not really. Democracy is a completely inaccurate buzzword. It infuriates me that politicians throw that word around as if it was the savior of the world. We never were a democracy, and hopefully, we never will be. A representative government, on the other hand, is not a majority rule system. It is a minority protection system.

Says who? There is no historical justification for such a statement and there is certainly no Biblical justification for it and God is much smarter than we are.
So you don't believe in personal responsibility and self-government? God didn't create us smart enough to govern ourselves? I mean, sure we've had some bumps and bruises over the years, but things have certainly improved, relative to the whole timeline of known history. At least we're not laboring serfs, making sure our lord gets fat.

See Granite! This is the sort of thing that comes up when people who are actually thinking interact with one another. You would do well do pay attention to your fellow pagan here.

The law provides for civil disobedience. In other words, God says that we should not follow any law that a rogue king might attempt to create. Again, it is the law that ultimately rules, not the king.
And if the king went to war on his people? He would be the guy in control of the army, no?

No, God would not personally intervene. However, the law would not be the convoluted mess that we have today. It would fit on maybe two or three pages and would be simple enough for a third grader to understand. Most people would have the entire thing memorized in a society under a Biblical government and they would be fully aware that they were under no obligation to follow any "new law" that the king handed down.
You know that new laws do have to come around from time to time. Before the invention of the automobile, there were no traffic safety laws. Are these laws unbiblical?

And while there would no doubt be evil kings who would make the country groan under his rule, such a king would eventually repent or die and then you at least have the potential for righteous leadership. In a representative government the same evil humans simply keep on putting the same sort of idiots into power and those in power keep changing the rules to make it easier for them and their kind to stay in power.

Resting in Him,
Clete
I still don't see how you can justify the installation of one-man government, using a 3-thousand year-old constitution with things like Deut. 25:11-12 in it. God hasn't revealed any laws to us. Just because it is written, doesn't make it so.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 9th, 2005, 08:52 AM
First Timothy 1:8-11 - "But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust."

OK, now this is a start to an answer of the question I am asking. Let's look at the passage right before the one you cite.

1 Tim 1: 3-7 - "As I urged you when I went into Macedonia--remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm."

The author of 1 Tim is not commending the Law as a "proper" form of government, but is giving a distinction that it is not an appropriate guide for the behavior of Christians. Those who were teaching the Law to the church in Ephesus were teaching "other doctrine"--and at that, these false teachers were "understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm."

Justin

Granite
May 9th, 2005, 09:00 AM
I've already addressed David's failings, which you ignored. You could be the most intellectually dishonest person on this site.

The failings, which you attribute to a Monarchy, are perhaps slowed by a democracy at first, but the same abuses of power take place nonetheless and once they are in place, they are impossible to remove, IMPOSSIBLE. A democracy will inevitably move more and more in the direction of removing the consequences from the people's actions because it is the people who are making the rules. The result will be a break down of society and a collapse of the nation and in the end anarchy, the ultimate expression of the liberal idea of what it means to be free (i.e. no law). In fact, it is just the opposite. Without the rule of law, there can be no lasting or meaningful freedom. Without the rule of law it will truly be the Darwinian’s paradise; survival of the fittest and only the fittest.

Resting in Him,
Clete

David's "failings" are inexcusable: that this randy murderous thug was a man after Jehovah's own heart says more about Jehovah than anything else.

Dictatorship no matter what you call it still leads to tyranny, and Christianity melded with political power has ALWAYS bred abuse; there is no exception.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 9th, 2005, 09:01 AM
Define Theonomy.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theonomy): Theonomy is the idea that God's laws (as interpreted by a specific religious outlook) must be applied to all spheres of public and private everyday life: not only religious mandates – but also political, social, and cultural rules. In this sense, theonomy is generally considered an expansive version of theocracy, which involves conforming civil law to a specific religious group's idea of what is mandated by God's laws.


It seems to me that the Bible calls for a Monarchy, a Constitutional Monarchy to be more precise.

And it seems to me that anyone who makes that statement has completely ignored Samuels warning to Israel regarding what a king would do in 1 Samuel 8.


1 Now it came to pass when Samuel was old that he made his sons judges over Israel. 2 The name of his firstborn was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba. 3 But his sons did not walk in his ways; they turned aside after dishonest gain, took bribes, and perverted justice.

4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, 5 and said to him, "Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations."

6 But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." So Samuel prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD said to Samuel, "Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. 8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day--with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods--so they are doing to you also. 9 Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them."

Now, what was that about the Bible calling for a monarchy?

Justin

Granite
May 9th, 2005, 09:03 AM
Anything to justify Christian totalitarianism, I suppose...

Caledvwlch
May 9th, 2005, 09:06 AM
Anything to justify Christian totalitarianism, I suppose...
Oh granite... I seem to remember a day when someone I know might have been favorable toward such a thing...

Granite
May 9th, 2005, 09:21 AM
Oh granite... I seem to remember a day when someone I know might have been favorable toward such a thing...

Looking in the mirror bud?:chuckle:

Clete
May 9th, 2005, 09:22 AM
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theonomy): Theonomy is the idea that God's laws (as interpreted by a specific religious outlook) must be applied to all spheres of public and private everyday life: not only religious mandates – but also political, social, and cultural rules. In this sense, theonomy is generally considered an expansive version of theocracy, which involves conforming civil law to a specific religious group's idea of what is mandated by God's laws.
In that case, as I suspected from the beginning, I do not support theonomy.


And it seems to me that anyone who makes that statement has completely ignored Samuels warning to Israel regarding what a king would do in 1 Samuel 8.

Now, what was that about the Bible calling for a monarchy?

Justin
To suggest that God is not in favor of a monarchy is to ignore the Bible almost completely. I don't understand why every one always brings this silly point up. It was not God's desire AT THAT TIME for Israel to have a king and there was good reason for that which I will not go into here but it is so obvious that God intended to give them a king that it's just prepostrous to think otherwise. Is it not Biblical to say that Jesus will come and sit on David's thrown as the King of King's? That sounds like a pretty strong endorsement of a monarchy to me.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 9th, 2005, 09:29 AM
In that case, as I suspected from the beginning, I do not support theonomy.

OK, then that answers my question.

As for God recommending monarchy, that is a separate topic from theonomy, but (if we can put the insults and derision to the side) I would like to cover it in a separate thread. However, one teeny-tiny point seems to be escaping you....


Is it not Biblical to say that Jesus will come and sit on David's thrown as the King of King's?

Remember that God's objection to a monarchy was because Israel rejected God as a king. According to your doctrine, Jesus is God: therefore, if Jesus will be king, then is that not God being king? :duh:

Justin

Clete
May 9th, 2005, 10:40 AM
OK, then that answers my question.

As for God recommending monarchy, that is a separate topic from theonomy, but (if we can put the insults and derision to the side) I would like to cover it in a separate thread.
The question was posed in the context of what the Bible recommends so my introduction of a monarchy is on topic. If you do not want to discuss it that's fine but then you won't be discussing what the Bible has to say but what you have to say. Sort of borring if you ask me. And I have not been insulting to you or anyone else on this thread unless they have been intentionally dishonest and unresposive, in which case they deserve to be insulted.


However, one teeny-tiny point seems to be escaping you....



Remember that God's objection to a monarchy was because Israel rejected God as a king. According to your doctrine, Jesus is God: therefore, if Jesus will be king, then is that not God being king? :duh:

Now who's being insulting? Why ask me this question as though I'm too stupid to have realized that Jesus is God? Don't be a hypocrite and we'll get along just fine okay?

What you failed to notice is that I said that Jesus is going to come and sit on DAVID'S thrown. David was not God and Christ sitting on that thrown is a direct endorsement of both David as a king and the monarchy which he ruled.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Granite
May 9th, 2005, 10:41 AM
This childish insistence on scriptural interpretation is one more thing convincing me you people should be the last ones in a position to tell us how to live...

Caledvwlch
May 9th, 2005, 10:42 AM
The question was posed in the context of what the Bible recommends so my introduction of a monarchy is on topic. If you do not want to discuss it that's fine but then you won't be discussing what the Bible has to say but what you have to say. Sort of borring if you ask me. And I have not been insulting to you or anyone else on this thread unless they have been intentionally dishonest and unresposive, in which case they deserve to be insulted.



Now who's being insulting? Why ask me this question as though I'm too stupid to have realized that Jesus is God? Don't be a hypocrite and we'll get along just fine okay?

What you failed to notice is that I said that Jesus is going to come and sit on DAVID'S thrown. David was not God and Christ sitting on that thrown in a direct endorsement of both David as a king and the monarchy which he ruled.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Justin
Even so, how does any of this convince an atheist that a monarchy is a good form of government?

Justin (Wiccan)
May 9th, 2005, 10:56 AM
The question was posed in the context of what the Bible recommends so my introduction of a monarchy is on topic. If you do not want to discuss it that's fine but then you won't be discussing what the Bible has to say but what you have to say. Sort of borring if you ask me.

Well, a simple course in reading comprehension will tell you that I never said that I do not want to discuss it.


And I have not been insulting to you or anyone else on this thread unless they have been intentionally dishonest and unresposive, in which case they deserve to be insulted.

References such as "silly" and "preposterous," with little or no indication as to why you chose such derisive terms, are pretty insulting.


Now who's being insulting? Why ask me this question as though I'm too stupid to have realized that Jesus is God?

Why say that my citation of 1 Sam is "silly" and "preposterous?" Answer that question, and you've answered your own.


Don't be a hypocrite and we'll get along just fine okay?

I return as I have been given. Now, I'm more than ready to dispense with the derision--indeed, I would rather have not had any in the thread to begin with. I would hope that you are as well, because this is a serious issue that requires serious consideration.


What you failed to notice is that I said that Jesus is going to come and sit on DAVID'S thrown. David was not God and Christ sitting on that thrown in a direct endorsement of both David as a king and the monarchy which he ruled.

No, I didn't fail to notice that. Indeed, it's quite in sequence, according to the text:
* God sets up the Mosaic Law, that requires no king but Himself.
* The people don't like it, so they whine about having a king. God appoints judges.
* The people don't like the judges, so they whine about having a king. God appoints a king (Saul).

It is only after the advent of the Kingship in Israel--the human monarchy that God never wanted for His people--that God promises the Messiah will sit on the throne.

Clete, 1 Sam 8 is a direct indightment of any human monarchy.If you assert that your Bible is true, then you must acknowledge that having a human king was, at best, a "lesser evil," and at worst a total screw-up on the part of the people that God allowed them to do, for the hardness of their hearts. According to your text, God knew it was a mistake before Saul was anointed.

Justin

Granite
May 9th, 2005, 10:57 AM
Even so, how does any of this convince an atheist that a monarchy is a good form of government?

I don't think they're interested in convincing. Coercion, yes, but not convincing...

Lighthouse
May 9th, 2005, 11:09 AM
Why a monarchy then?
Because, in a system that is ruled by a static law there has to be hierarchy, and one ultimate head. As long as that head of government is ruled by that law, and does not take matters into his own hands. Of course, that did happen a few times in Israel, and whenever it did, everything went to pot.


If the monarch does not rule by his word, then why not a representative republic?
Because a representative republic means that laws are made, and changed, based on what people think they want. If we were to use a standard law, nothing wold be changed by the whims of the people. It would be constant.


Why not a dictator?
Because, as Clete said, it should not be run by fiat of the ruler.

Granite
May 9th, 2005, 11:12 AM
"The law" is exceedingly disposable if one man's the only guy bound by it.

Clete
May 9th, 2005, 11:49 AM
Even so, how does any of this convince an atheist that a monarchy is a good form of government?

Why would I care to convince an atheist? :confused:

Caledvwlch
May 9th, 2005, 11:53 AM
Why would I care to convince an atheist? :confused:
Because we are a large portion of the population that you wish to enslave under a Biblical despotism.

Granite
May 9th, 2005, 12:04 PM
Of course dissenting voices don't matter if you find a way to shut them up...

Clete
May 9th, 2005, 12:13 PM
Well, a simple course in reading comprehension will tell you that I never said that I do not want to discuss it.
I admit that the sentence structure was confusing. I wasn't sure what you were saying. I am a recovering public school student though. I will assume the screw up was on my part and leave it at that.


References such as "silly" and "preposterous," with little or no indication as to why you chose such derisive terms, are pretty insulting.
I explained why it was silly and preposterous.


Why say that my citation of 1 Sam is "silly" and "preposterous?" Answer that question, and you've answered your own.
Because Jesus is going to be sitting on a thrown of an earthly kingdom which He calls "David's Thrown". You cannot take one isolated section of Scripture and pretend like the rest of the Bible doesn't exist.


I return as I have been given. Now, I'm more than ready to dispense with the derision--indeed, I would rather have not had any in the thread to begin with. I would hope that you are as well, because this is a serious issue that requires serious consideration.
This is a lie. I caught you in your hypocrisy and you're simply trying to wiggle out of it. You were intentionally insulting to me (which I was never to you) immediately after having criticized me for being insulting. That's the textbook definition of being a hypocrite. Had you not flagrantly denied it I would have been happy to let it go, now you will apologize or I will not let it go.


No, I didn't fail to notice that. Indeed,...
Of course you did fail to notice it or else your insult would have had no meaning.


...it's quite in sequence, according to the text:
* God sets up the Mosaic Law, that requires no king but Himself.
* The people don't like it, so they whine about having a king. God appoints judges.
* The people don't like the judges, so they whine about having a king. God appoints a king (Saul).

It is only after the advent of the Kingship in Israel--the human monarchy that God never wanted for His people--that God promises the Messiah will sit on the throne.
You simply cannot establish that God never wanted a monarchy for Israel. 1 Sam. not withstanding.


Clete, 1 Sam 8 is a direct indightment of any human monarchy.
No it is not. You are taking this passage beyond its intended context. Notice that when Saul failed miserably that God didn't say, "See, I told you so!" and insist that Israel repent of their desire for a king. On the contrary, He appointed a new king, only this time it was not upon Israel's insistence but by His own will.


If you assert that your Bible is true, then you must acknowledge that having a human king was, at best, a "lesser evil," and at worst a total screw-up on the part of the people that God allowed them to do, for the hardness of their hearts. According to your text, God knew it was a mistake before Saul was anointed.
At that time, yes it was not the best but as you say, God permitted it because of the hardness of their hearts. This however, does not speak to God's intent to grant a king to Israel in His own time. And no I do not believe that God knew that Saul would be a screw up, if that is what you are getting at with your comment here. Saul was promised the he and his lineage would sit on the thrown forever. God does not make such promises lightly and so I suspect that God intended Saul to be a good king and that He (God) would bring the messiah through the line of Saul. But because of Saul rebellion, God changed His mind and removed the thrown from him and gave it instead to David. The same thing could have happened to David as well but fortunately it did not.
All of this has important lessons to teach through the history of it all and these lessons of history are the basic reason why God did not want to give Israel a king at the time they insisted upon one. A discussion of this would take us directly into a discussion about dispensationalism and I'm just frankly not willing to go into all that with someone who is openly hostile to the Scriptures and to the One who wrote them. In short I have no intention of establishing this further. If you want you can attempt to establish that God never wanted for Israel to have a king but I can assure you that you would be wasting your time. If that were the case, everything that comes after Samuel would read quite differently.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Gerald
May 9th, 2005, 12:14 PM
Of course dissenting voices don't matter if you find a way to shut them up...One thing's for sure: Clete ain't got the the chops to shut anybody up... :chuckle:

Caledvwlch
May 9th, 2005, 12:16 PM
...This is a lie. I cought you in your hypocracy and you're simply trying to wiggle out of it. You were intentionally insulting to me (which I was never to you) imediately after having critisized me for being insulting. That's the textbook definition of being a hypocrite. Had you not flagrantly denied it I would have been happy to let it go, now you will apologize or I will not let it go...
caught
hypocrisy

Clete
May 9th, 2005, 12:26 PM
Because we are a large portion of the population that you wish to enslave under a Biblical despotism.
What? I wish to enslave no one! Have you lost your mind? What do you think is going to happen when Christ returns? Do you suppose He's going to take an opinion poll and find out that He's convinced a majority of the atheists that He's the right Man for the job before He sits on the thrown? Is that how you think it should go? If so, you’re really are seriously delusional.

I really don't understand this paranoia. Are you guys thinking that a Biblical government would attempt to force everyone to be a Christian or something? If so, you're wrong. People would be free to believe whatever they want and to do whatever they want. But they would be held responsible for their actions. If they cause the injury of another because of their stupidity or negligence then the offending party would be made to pay restitution. That is the entire justice system in a nutshell. There's no thought police, no inquisition, or anything else like that.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
May 9th, 2005, 12:27 PM
caught
hypocrisy
As I said, I'm a recovering public school student and therefore not the best speller. You should see what I come up with without a spell checker!

Caledvwlch
May 9th, 2005, 12:30 PM
What? I wish to enslave no one! Have you lost your mind? What do you think is going to happen when Christ returns? Do you suppose He's going to take an opinion poll and find out that He's convinced a majority of the atheists that He's the right Man for the job before He sits on the thrown? Is that how you think it should go? If so, you’re really are seriously delusional.

I really don't understand this paranoia. Are you guys thinking that a Biblical government would attempt to force everyone to be a Christian or something? If so, you're wrong. People would be free to believe whatever they want and to do whatever they want. But they would be held responsible for their actions. If they cause the injury of another because of their stupidity or negligence then the offending party would be made to pay restitution. That is the entire justice system in a nutshell. There's no thought police, no inquisition, or anything else like that.

Resting in Him,
Clete
Ok, fine. Would Muslims be allowed to worship? How about Jews? I mean in their temples/mosques, not their homes.

And if people would simply be responsible for their actions, what need is their for a monarchy? Again, why not, say, a libertarian form of government?

Finally. No atheist believes that Christ is coming back to sit on a literal throne. So your first paragraph sounds delusional to us.

Granite
May 9th, 2005, 12:31 PM
What? I wish to enslave no one! Have you lost your mind? What do you think is going to happen when Christ returns? Do you suppose He's going to take an opinion poll and find out that He's convinced a majority of the atheists that He's the right Man for the job before He sits on the thrown? Is that how you think it should go? If so, you’re really are seriously delusional.

I really don't understand this paranoia. Are you guys thinking that a Biblical government would attempt to force everyone to be a Christian or something? If so, you're wrong. People would be free to believe whatever they want and to do whatever they want. But they would be held responsible for their actions. If they cause the injury of another because of their stupidity or negligence then the offending party would be made to pay restitution. That is the entire justice system in a nutshell. There's no thought police, no inquisition, or anything else like that.

Resting in Him,
Clete

So you're willing to wait until Christ returns, yet you want to champion a monarchy in the here and now...

Clete, if you honestly think a modern Christian monarchy wouldn't resort to abuse, murder, and torture, you don't have a clue about the track record of your own religion.

Caledvwlch
May 9th, 2005, 12:32 PM
As I said, I'm a recovering public school student and therefore not the best speller. You should see what I come up with without a spell checker!
Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to pick on you. My whole family are terrible spellers. I don't think it has as much to do with the school as it does with a genetic pre-disposition.

Granite
May 9th, 2005, 12:35 PM
Comes from upbringing. Parents are probably idiots too. Loraine, you ever have a kid who spells that way, I'll disown ya.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 9th, 2005, 12:39 PM
I admit that the sentence structure was confusing. I wasn't sure what you were saying. I am a recovering public school student though. I will assume the screw up was on my part and leave it at that.

On re-reading, I see what you mean, and apologize for the lack of clarity.


I explained why it was silly and preposterous.

Clete, you explained in terms that were obvious to you, but you did so in such an abbreviated manner that the logic of the statement could not be followed.


It was not God's desire AT THAT TIME for Israel to have a king and there was good reason for that which I will not go into here but it is so obvious that God intended to give them a king that it's just prepostrous to think otherwise.

"There was good reason?" What reason?

"It is so obvious?" Clete, it is anything but obvious to me.

"...It's just prepostrous to think otherwise." Preposterous to you, perhaps, but not to me.


Because Jesus is going to be sitting on a thrown of an earthly kingdom which He calls "David's Thrown". You cannot take one isolated section of Scripture and pretend like the rest of the Bible doesn't exist.

Answered in the chronology.


This is a lie. I cought you in your hypocracy and you're simply trying to wiggle out of it. You were intentionally insulting to me (which I was never to you) imediately after having critisized me for being insulting. That's the textbook definition of being a hypocrite.

So is denying that the use of the words "preposterous" and "silly" were insulting.


Had you not flagrantly denied it I would have been happy to let it go, now you will apologize or I will not let it go.

I stand by my statement.


You simply cannot establish that God never wanted a monarchy for Israel. 1 Sam. not withstanding.

"Never?" No ... He had, according to the text, made allowance for an eventual King back in Deuteronomy. Is it something He wanted?


1 Sam 12
16 "Now therefore, stand and see this great thing which the LORD will do before your eyes:

17 Is today not the wheat harvest? I will call to the LORD, and He will send thunder and rain, that you may perceive and see that your wickedness is great, which you have done in the sight of the LORD, in asking a king for yourselves."

18 So Samuel called to the LORD, and the LORD sent thunder and rain that day; and all the people greatly feared the LORD and Samuel.

19 And all the people said to Samuel, "Pray for your servants to the LORD your God, that we may not die; for we have added to all our sins the evil of asking a king for ourselves."

Did Samuel lie?


No it is not. You are taking this passage beyond its intended context. Notice that when Saul failed misurably that God didn't say, "See, I told you so!" and insist that Israel repent of their desire for a king. On the contrary, He appointed a new king, only this time it was not upon Israel's insistence but by His own will.

And note David's actions. And Solomon's. And their descendants.

Justin

Granite
May 9th, 2005, 12:43 PM
Too much can potentially go wrong in a dictatorship (whatever you call it) for any freedom lover to ever be too enamored with it.

Clete
May 9th, 2005, 12:45 PM
Ok, fine. Would Muslims be allowed to worship? How about Jews? I mean in their temples/mosques, not their homes.

Yes of course they would. However, they would not be allowed to teach things like "How to be a suicide bomber." or the like. That would be conspiracy to commit murder and would be punishable by death.


And if people would simply be responsible for their actions, what need is their for a monarchy? Again, why not, say, a libertarian form of government?
This question has already been asked and answered.
Because no other system is any better than a monarchy and there are advantages to a monarchy, which cannot be had in any other system. Thus it is the best possible system, which I strongly suspect is why God chose it over your alternatives.


Finally. No atheist believes that Christ is coming back to sit on a literal throne. So your first paragraph sounds delusional to us.
I am only answering questions in the context of this discussion, which was explicitly about what the Bible has to say about what sort of government we should have. What doesn't make sense to me is why someone in your position would care.

Resting in Him,
Clete

billwald
May 9th, 2005, 12:46 PM
First Timothy 1:8-11 - "But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust."


Thus "real" Theonomists claim that the Mosiac Law only applies to non-believers and that they will not be judged by the laws they impose on the rest of us. "Non-believer" is generally defined as anyone who does not conform to the theology of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

Caledvwlch
May 9th, 2005, 12:49 PM
Yes of course they would. However, they would not be allowed to teach things like "How to be a suicide bomber." or the like. That would be conspiracy to commit murder and would be punishable by death.
Ok, that's cool. As long as you don't start whacking heretics.

This question has already been asked and answered.
Because no other system is any better than a monarchy and there are advantages to a monarchy, which cannot be had in any other system. Thus it is the best possible system, which I strongly suspect is why God chose it over your alternatives.
I still don't see how you can make the case that God wants us to have amonarchy.

I am only answering questions in the context of this discussion, which was explicitly about what the Bible has to say about what sort of government we should have. What doesn't make sense to me is why someone in your position would care.

Resting in Him,
Clete
The reason I care is because if you believe we should have such a government, then you must also believe that I would have to be subject to it. To put it simply, there's no way I would be subject to it. A monarchy is a monarchy, and there's no way I'd ever allow one to come into ppower over myself and mine without a fight.

Granite
May 9th, 2005, 12:56 PM
Clete talks a good game but he's in good company with Puritans, the Genevans, and others who had the best intentions before they started killing their enemies.

It has ALWAYS happened eventually.

Gerald
May 9th, 2005, 01:21 PM
Yes of course they would. However, they would not be allowed to teach things like "How to be a suicide bomber." or the like. That would be conspiracy to commit murder and would be punishable by death.But isn't teaching things like "How to be a Muslim" just as dangerous? I mean, consider the children you'd be consigning to eternal hellfire because you haven't worked to win them away from Islam.

The most consistent theonomist I ever ran into envisioned a society wherein non-Christians would not be allowed to seek converts, nor would they be allowed to interfere with attempts to win converts away from them.

Turbo
May 9th, 2005, 01:45 PM
Justin, if God had not intended to put a king over Israel other than the Lord Jesus Christ, He would not have given them these laws:


"When you come to the land which the LORD your God is giving you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say, 'I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,' you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the LORD has said to you, 'You shall not return that way again.' Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.

"Also it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this law in a book, from the one before the priests, the Levites. And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statutes, that his heart may not be lifted above his brethren, that he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left, and that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children in the midst of Israel." Deuteronomy 17:14-20

Caledvwlch
May 9th, 2005, 01:50 PM
But isn't teaching things like "How to be a Muslim" just as dangerous? I mean, consider the children you'd be consigning to eternal hellfire because you haven't worked to win them away from Islam.

The most consistent theonomist I ever ran into envisioned a society wherein non-Christians would not be allowed to seek converts, nor would they be allowed to interfere with attempts to win converts away from them.
You're right. If you want to consistently apply the idea of Biblical rule, you need to make all other religions illegal.

Granite
May 9th, 2005, 01:52 PM
You're right. If you want to consistently apply the idea of Biblical rule, you need to make all other religions illegal.

...which would happen.

Gerald
May 9th, 2005, 01:52 PM
You're right. If you want to consistently apply the idea of Biblical rule, you need to make all other religions illegal.

I keep reminding them of this ugly little fact, and they keep not listening.

:bang:

Clete
May 9th, 2005, 03:12 PM
You're right. If you want to consistently apply the idea of Biblical rule, you need to make all other religions illegal.
Gerald is an idiot, you would do well to ignore him. What you've said here is not true at all. It is not a crime to go to Hell, nor is it a crime to believe something that will send you there. If there is a religious group that cannot live peacefully within the law then they would have problems under a Biblical form of government but not because they aren't Christian but because they do not follow the law. The Jews didn't execute you for not being a Jew and even if they had, such a law would not apply today because no one is suggesting that we set up one gigantic world-wide nation of Israel. There were laws in the Old Testament that had exclusively to do with Israel that were symbolic (i.e. not moral) and served a very specific purpose which would no longer be valid now that the Messaiah has been born.
The bottom line is that there would be no such prohibition of rival religions. There just simply wouldn't be. Anything said to the contrary is outright ignorance and obfuscation. If you are going to reject God's system you should at least reject it because of what it actually is, not what some nut job says it is.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Jefferson
May 9th, 2005, 03:13 PM
The author of 1 Tim is not commending the Law as a "proper" form of government,...You're right. He's not commending the Law as a proper form of government in verses 3-7 but he IS commending it so in verses 8-11.


... but is giving a distinction that it is not an appropriate guide for the behavior of Christians.Again, you're right. It's not an appropriate guide for Christians. But verses 8-11 says that it is an appropriate guide for the rebellious.

Note all the present tense verbs in the passage. I'll highlight them:

"But we know that the law IS good if one USES it lawfully, knowing this: that the law IS not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that IS contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust."

Does this sound like Paul taught the law was to be used but no longer? If so, then why all the present tense verbs?

Caledvwlch
May 9th, 2005, 03:14 PM
Gerald is an idiot, you would do well to ignore him. What you've said here is not true at all. It is not a crime to go to Hell, nor is it a crime to believe something that will send you there. If there is a religious group that cannot live peacefully within the law then they would have problems under a Biblical form of government but not because they aren't Christian but because they do not follow the law. The Jews didn't execute you for not being a Jew and even if they had, such a law would not apply today because no one is suggesting that we set up one gigantic world-wide nation of Israel. There were laws in the Old Testament that had exclusively to do with Israel that were symbolic (i.e. not moral) and served a very specific purpose which would no longer be valid now that the Messaiah has been born.
The bottom line is that there would be no such prohibition of rival religions. There just simply wouldn't be. Anything said to the contrary is outright ignorance and obviscation. If you are going to reject God's system you should at least reject it because of what it actually is, not what some nut job says it is.

Resting in Him,
Clete
What about the First Commandment?

And Gerald: I know you're not an idiot. This guy just doesn't like you.

Jefferson
May 9th, 2005, 03:23 PM
Because we are a large portion of the population that you wish to enslave under a Biblical despotism.You call a 5 percent income tax "enslavement" and "despotism?" If that's enslavement, where do I sign up?

Jefferson
May 9th, 2005, 03:38 PM
No, I didn't fail to notice that. Indeed, it's quite in sequence, according to the text:
* God sets up the Mosaic Law, that requires no king but Himself.
* The people don't like it, so they whine about having a king. God appoints judges.
* The people don't like the judges, so they whine about having a king. God appoints a king (Saul).

It is only after the advent of the Kingship in Israel--the human monarchy that God never wanted for His people--that God promises the Messiah will sit on the throne.

Clete, 1 Sam 8 is a direct indightment of any human monarchy.If you assert that your Bible is true, then you must acknowledge that having a human king was, at best, a "lesser evil," and at worst a total screw-up on the part of the people that God allowed them to do, for the hardness of their hearts. According to your text, God knew it was a mistake before Saul was anointed.

JustinWrong. In Abraham's time God foreshadowed Israel's Messiah as both king and priest by the man Melchizideck who was the king of Salem and priest of the most high God. And Christ came after the order of Melchizideck.

Centuries before Israel asked for a king, God told Moses to write in Deuteronomy 17:15, "You shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses." Does that sound like God is against kings?

History and prophecy show that God planned to establish Israel's Monarchy 1,000 years before Christ. Israel refused to wait on the Lord for a king in God's own time so God was angry with them for that. But 400 years before Samuel, God commanded that Israel's future kings should obey the Law.

One generation prior to God's own timing, Israel demanded a king and God gave them Saul in about 1,050 BC. So Saul from the tribe of Benjamin was "born out of due time" just like the apostle Saul (Paul) (also from the tribe of Benjamin) was also "born out of due time." God was mad at Israel, not for demanding a king, but rather for demanding a king on their own time table instead of waiting on God's timing.

Freak
May 9th, 2005, 03:50 PM
OK, you and Jay have expressed that, and I respect your opinions. What I'm more interested in is Biblical justification as to why the Mosaic Law applies to Gentile nations today.

Justin

"Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

The use of the law allows the believer to open the hearts of the unbeliever (where they may be found) for their need of Jesus Christ. The law is needed to restrain evil and maintain some societal order. The apostle Paul encouraged the use of the law, in his letter to young Timothy--clear Biblical justification--to restrain evil and to expose evil.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 9th, 2005, 04:41 PM
Justin, if God had not intended to put a king over Israel other than the Lord Jesus Christ, He would not have given them these laws:

Deuteronomy 17:14-20

Thanks. I made a brief mention in passing, but didn't dig up the precise reference. However, even here note that God is not saying "I want you to set up a king": He's saying "When you set up a king, do it My way."

Justin

Delmar
May 9th, 2005, 05:54 PM
Captial crimes considered under the Old Testament should be considered crimes under the New Covenant, ideally. However, with the sinfulness of humanity, I doubt, that any government of the world will adopt the fulness of Biblical Law. So, it is a moot point. However, we should utilize the Law as a tutor to bring humanity to Jesus Christ.

I don't think that the fact that it won't happen makes it a moot point. It is always right to say what's right!

Clete
May 9th, 2005, 08:39 PM
What about the First Commandment?

What about it? Worshiping things other than God is a sin now, and will remain a sin from now on regardless of the sort of government is in place. That doesn't make it a crime. Are you sure you understand the context of this discussion? This question doesn't even make sense to me.


And Gerald: I know you're not an idiot. This guy just doesn't like you.
Gerald would have you discipline your children with stun guns, or at least he says he would (perhaps simply to get a rise out of people). In any case, he is a confirmed idiot, my feeling toward him are irrelevant.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Freak
May 9th, 2005, 08:44 PM
:rolleyes:
I don't think that the fact that it won't happen makes it a moot point. It is always right to say what's right! Which I did. I have stated clearly what God desires but have clearly denoted that the sinfulness of man leads one to think that the fullness of biblical law won't come to pass. But I do believe in miracles. So...

Clete
May 9th, 2005, 08:54 PM
:rolleyes: Which I did. I have stated clearly what God desires but have clearly denoted that the sinfulness of man leads one to think that the fullness of biblical law won't come to pass. But I do believe in miracles. So...
You are, of course, right. Outside of God's intervention, man would never invoke such a righteous law except by force, which those of us who know God's law would never use as it would be in violation of that very law. A situation that I think God has put in place intentionally. No one but God Himself will be able to take the credit when humanity is finally taught the lesson that God's law is righteous, holy and good. And, of course, He does indeed intend to teach that very lesson, in due time.


Resting in Him,
Clete

Gerald
May 10th, 2005, 08:23 AM
What about it? Worshiping things other than God is a sin now, and will remain a sin from now on regardless of the sort of government is in place. That doesn't make it a crime.It also does nothing to prevent your so-called Godly monarchy from making it a crime.

If you think such a thing could not or would not happen, you are hopelessly naive.

Gerald would have you discipline your children with stun guns, or at least he says he would (perhaps simply to get a rise out of people). In any case, he is a confirmed idiot, my feeling toward him are irrelevant.Horse crap. You'd rip my throat out if you had half a chance.

Granite
May 10th, 2005, 08:27 AM
It also does nothing to prevent your so-called Godly monarchy from making it a crime.

If you think such a thing could not or would not happen, you are hopelessly naive.
Horse crap. You'd rip my throat out if you had half a chance.

Nothing they've done before makes me think they would hesitate to do it again...

Gerald
May 10th, 2005, 08:39 AM
It is not a crime to go to Hell, nor is it a crime to believe something that will send you there.Your compassion for those parents who would raise their children in a belief system that will result in their damnation is touching. What prevents you from intervening?

Consider, say, a Muslim parent who prevents his children from hearing an alternative to Islam, and denying them an opportunity to decide for themselves what they shall believe. Based on what you've posted, Clete, you would consider this parent to be doing his children a terrible disservice, yet it appears that you would not intervene in such a situation, and you would not support such intervention by the government you advocate.

Is the idea that someone should join The Body because they genuinely want to, and not because they believe they have no choice so important that coersion is out of the question?

Clete
May 10th, 2005, 10:56 AM
It also does nothing to prevent your so-called Godly monarchy from making it a crime.

If you think such a thing could not or would not happen, you are hopelessly naive.
He may try to do so but again, the law wouldn't be the millions of pages it is today. It would be three pages tops and nearly everyone would have the whole thing memorized or would at least be very familiar with it and even if they weren't it wouldn't take 5 minutes to read it and find out that there is no such valid law and the real law indicates that they are not obligated to follow any "new" laws that such an evil king might try to make.

I am not nieve at all. I've said several times that the Biblical system is not perfect, only that it is as close to perfect as can be hoped for. God is not as stupid as you and has made provision to guard the integrity of His law.


Horse crap. You'd rip my throat out if you had half a chance.
Be that as it may, it has nothing to do with whether or not you're an idiot.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Granite
May 10th, 2005, 11:00 AM
And if the people realized the king was out of line they'd do WHAT, exactly?

An all-powerful ruler tends to be untouchable after a while.

Clete
May 10th, 2005, 11:03 AM
Your compassion for those parents who would raise their children in a belief system that will result in their damnation is touching. What prevents you from intervening?

Consider, say, a Muslim parent who prevents his children from hearing an alternative to Islam, and denying them an opportunity to decide for themselves what they shall believe. Based on what you've posted, Clete, you would consider this parent to be doing his children a terrible disservice, yet it appears that you would not intervene in such a situation, and you would not support such intervention by the government you advocate.

Is the idea that someone should join The Body because they genuinely want to, and not because they believe they have no choice so important that coersion is out of the question?
Coersion is certainly out of the question. You cannot make someone love God (or anyone else for that matter). To even try would be counter productive.

Further your hypothical fails to take into consideration the society that a Biblical system would create. It would be impossible to completely, or even mostly shield one's self or one's children from the Biblical worldview. The very fabric of the society would have Biblical principles woven throughout.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Gerald
May 10th, 2005, 11:06 AM
He may try to do so but again, the law wouldn't be the millions of pages it is today. It would be three pages tops and nearly everyone would have the whole thing memorized or would at least be very familiar with it and even if they weren't it wouldn't take 5 minutes to read it and find out that there is no such valid law and the real law indicates that they are not obligated to follow any "new" laws that such an evil king might try to make.So, would you interfere with the enforcement of an "evil king's" new decree outlawing rival religions? Would you take a bullet so an unbeliever could continue to live in soul-threatening error?

Be that as it may, it has nothing to do with whether or not you're an idiot.Well, to your credit, you didn't deny that you would kill me if you could... :thumb:

Granite
May 10th, 2005, 11:07 AM
Yeah, that's what I'm worried about.:rolleyes:

Having seen theonomists in action and knowing the CR movement fairly well I can honestly say these people are the last ones who belong in power. Theonomists are notorious for infighting and splinter groups. I don't think they'd be able to hold onto power for more than a New York minute before a stupid dispute broke up the show.

Clete
May 10th, 2005, 11:15 AM
And if the people realized the king was out of line they'd do WHAT, exactly?

An all-powerful ruler tends to be untouchable after a while.
A king in a Biblical system would not be all powerful, first of all. And they'd do nothing. I'm not sure the question makes sense really. What do you think they would do? They would just go on living their lives just like they always did before the king had his brain fart. Unless things got elevated beyond the king simply getting out of line, in which case they would rebel just as the law allows and commands.

To illustrate what I mean let me ask you a similar question. What would you do if George Bush tried to order the military to seize control of the capital building and execute all the senators and representatives? Whatever answer you come up with (as long as it is within this universe of reason) would probably be a valid answer to your question as well.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
May 10th, 2005, 11:21 AM
So, would you interfere with the enforcement of an "evil king's" new decree outlawing rival religions?
In whatever why I could yes and I would support such intervention in any case.


Would you take a bullet so an unbeliever could continue to live in soul-threatening error?
No. My first priority is to my family. If I must choose between my family being taken care of and some unbeliever going to Hell, I choose my family.

1 Timothy 5:8
But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.


Well, to your credit, you didn't deny that you would kill me if you could... :thumb:
You're very close to making my ignore list. :rolleyes:

Caledvwlch
May 10th, 2005, 11:23 AM
A king in a Biblical system would not be all powerful, first of all. And they'd do nothing. I'm not sure the question makes sense really. What do you think they would do? They would just go on living their lives just like they always did before the king had his brain fart. Unless things got elevated beyond the king simply getting out of line, in which case they would rebel just as the law allows and commands.

To illustrate what I mean let me ask you a similar question. What would you do if George Bush tried to order the military to seize control of the capital building and execute all the senators and representatives? Whatever answer you come up with (as long as it is within this universe of reason) would probably be a valid answer to your question as well.

Resting in Him,
Clete
Ok, all this stuff sounds fine. But still, why a monarch? And you've still not given us any Biblical proof either. Just because Israel had a monarchy doesn't mean we should.

Gerald
May 10th, 2005, 11:34 AM
Coersion is certainly out of the question. You cannot make someone love God (or anyone else for that matter). To even try would be counter productive.It appears we're shooting at different targets: you're concerned about love, while I'm concerned about obedience, which doesn't require love.

Further your hypothical fails to take into consideration the society that a Biblical system would create. It would be impossible to completely, or even mostly shield one's self or one's children from the Biblical worldview. The very fabric of the society would have Biblical principles woven throughout.Details, please? How do "Biblical principles" get woven into, say, buying groceries at the store?

Granite
May 10th, 2005, 11:35 AM
Ok, all this stuff sounds fine. But still, why a monarch? And you've still not given us any Biblical proof either. Just because Israel had a monarchy doesn't mean we should.

They're interested in power, Cal, not proving anything.

Lighthouse
May 10th, 2005, 11:51 AM
It appears we're shooting at different targets: you're concerned about love, while I'm concerned about obedience, which doesn't require love.
But respect does.

Gerald
May 10th, 2005, 11:54 AM
But respect does.Obedience doesn't require respect, either.

Zakath
May 10th, 2005, 11:56 AM
Obedience doesn't require respect, either.
So far as I recall, "respect" is not something the biblical deity cares about one way or another. Fear, yes. Respect? Not particularly...

... unless all those translators have got it wrong again all these centuries. :rolleyes:

Clete
May 10th, 2005, 12:25 PM
Ok, all this stuff sounds fine. But still, why a monarch? And you've still not given us any Biblical proof either. Just because Israel had a monarchy doesn't mean we should.
I have told you (I think it was you) that I don't intend to establish it any further than I have. You are openly hostile to the Scriptures and to the One who wrote them and so to do so would be a fruitless waste of time. Others on this thread, however, have established it quite well; better actually than I could have had I been enclind to try, I'm sure. Turbo and Jefferson both have offered more Biblical evidence than I think a man in your position would need or want.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Caledvwlch
May 10th, 2005, 12:28 PM
I have told you (I think it was you) that I don't intend to establish it any further than I have. You are oppenly hostile to the Scriptures and to the One who wrote them and so to do so would be a fruitless waste of time. Others on this thread, however, have established it quite well; better actually than I could have had I been enclind to try, I'm sure. Turbo and Jefferson both have offered more Biblical evidence than I think a man in your position would need or want.

Resting in Him,
Clete
Ok, fine. But I'm not openly hostile to the Scriptures, I just don't think they were written by God. But that's beside the point. For the purposes of my conversations with you, I've done my best to argue with the assumption that the Scriptures are the Word of God, as I used to. I know plenty of Christians who would not agree with some of your positions, and I am merely trying to represent their side of the argument.

Zakath
May 10th, 2005, 12:29 PM
I have told you (I think it was you) that I don't intend to establish it any further than I have. You are oppenly hostile to the Scriptures and to the One who wrote them and so to do so would be a fruitless waste of time. Others on this thread, however, have established it quite well; better actually than I could have had I been enclind to try, I'm sure. Turbo and Jefferson both have offered more Biblical evidence than I think a man in your position would need or want.

Now there's an example of effective apologetics... :rolleyes:

Granite
May 10th, 2005, 12:29 PM
I have told you (I think it was you) that I don't intend to establish it any further than I have. You are oppenly hostile to the Scriptures and to the One who wrote them and so to do so would be a fruitless waste of time. Others on this thread, however, have established it quite well; better actually than I could have had I been enclind to try, I'm sure. Turbo and Jefferson both have offered more Biblical evidence than I think a man in your position would need or want.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sounding more and more totalitarian as this thread goes on.:rolleyes:

Lighthouse
May 10th, 2005, 12:33 PM
Obedience doesn't require respect, either.
:rolleyes:

Respect requires love, moron.

Caledvwlch
May 10th, 2005, 12:35 PM
:rolleyes:

Respect requires love, moron.
Wow. :BRAVO: You showed him.

Clete
May 10th, 2005, 12:37 PM
It appears we're shooting at different targets: you're concerned about love, while I'm concerned about obedience, which doesn't require love.
Christianity isn't about the obedience of slaves but the love of a son or brother. If you do not love you are not a Christian, especially if you do not love God. Thus it is quite impossible to force people to be a Christian (a real one anyway).


Details, please? How do "Biblical principles" get woven into, say, buying groceries at the store?
There are thousands of ways but just off the top of my head. You could go to local hardware store and buy a table saw and know that it was of good quality because the store owner would know that he would be held responsible if anyone where to get injured because of any faulty workmanship in the making of the saw. They would be made to pay limb for limb, life for life in restitution for any harm that their neglagence caused. All this would be accomplised without endless reems of legal mumbo jumbo as well. If a store own knowingly sells you a faulty item and you get killed, the store owner is executed. Short sweet and simple enough for a third grader to understand. And no child could ever grow up without knowing that such rules are in place and seeing their effect.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Caledvwlch
May 10th, 2005, 12:40 PM
Christianity isn't about the obedience of slaves but the love of a son or brother. If you do not love you are not a Christian, especially if you do not love God. Thus it is quite impossible to force people to be a Christian (a real one anyway).


There are thousands of ways but just off the top of my head. You could go to local hardware store and buy a table saw and know that it was of good quality because the store owner would know that he would be held responsible if anyone where to get injured because of any faulty workmanship in the making of the saw. They would be made to pay limb for limb, life for life in restitution for any harm that their neglagence caused. All this would be accomplised with endless reems of legal mumbo jumbo as well. If a store own knowingly sells you a faulty item and you get killed, the store owner is executed. Short sweet and simple enough for a third grader to understand. And no child could ever grow up without knowing that such rules are in place and seeing their effect.

Resting in Him,
Clete
Ok, how about this. The store owner unknowingly sells a faulty item and it kills someone? Who do we off in that instance? It seems to me that the law would become a few more than 3 pages with exceptions like this one.

Clete
May 10th, 2005, 12:41 PM
Sounding more and more totalitarian as this thread goes on.:rolleyes:
Liar.

Caledvwlch
May 10th, 2005, 12:45 PM
Liar.
Forget granite for a minute. We are still talking about something.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 10th, 2005, 12:50 PM
:rolleyes:

Respect requires love, moron.

Would that statement, then, be proof that you have no love for Gerald?

Justin

Granite
May 10th, 2005, 12:54 PM
Liar.

For crying out loud, Clete. Huffing and puffing about not needing to explain yourself or your plans isn't terribly libertarian, Clete. It's a trait of tyranny. One-man strongman rule isn't freedom loving, either. And enforcing biblical law, of all things, has NEVER gone over well. Not once. The Puritans crushed, hanged, and exiled their opponents, you could be burned alive in Geneva. Nothing in your history gives any indication tyranny wouldn't result from a Christianized government.

Clete
May 10th, 2005, 12:54 PM
Ok, how about this. The store owner unknowingly sells a faulty item and it kills someone? Who do we off in that instance? It seems to me that the law would become a few more than 3 pages with exceptions like this one.
Whomever was at fault for the malfunctioning item. If it was an accident (i.e. it was not due to anyone's negligence) then there would be no punishment.
And no, the entire legal code would be less than 3 full pages long.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Granite
May 10th, 2005, 12:55 PM
It wouldn't happen to include a provision allowing a woman's hand to be cut off, would it?:rolleyes:

Caledvwlch
May 10th, 2005, 12:57 PM
It wouldn't happen to include a provision allowing a woman's hand to be cut off, would it?:rolleyes:
Yay! Deuteronomy! :banana:

Clete
May 10th, 2005, 12:58 PM
It wouldn't happen to include a provision allowing a woman's hand to be cut off, would it?:rolleyes:

Very good! You just ended this discussion.

:wave2:

Poly
May 10th, 2005, 12:59 PM
It wouldn't happen to include a provision allowing a woman's hand to be cut off, would it?:rolleyes:

You know, the rolleyes smilie tends to lose it's effect when you use it in all your posts.

Caledvwlch
May 10th, 2005, 12:59 PM
Very good! You just ended this discussion.

:wave2:
:cry: Ok that's no fun. It was a fair enough question.

Gerald
May 10th, 2005, 12:59 PM
Ok, how about this. The store owner unknowingly sells a faulty item and it kills someone? Who do we off in that instance? It seems to me that the law would become a few more than 3 pages with exceptions like this one.I think the upshot is that you're held responsible for whatever happens whether you know about it or not.

If you're not willing to take the risk, don't go into business.

Being a physician or surgeon would be extremely risky; one misdiagnosis and you are, quite literally, hanged. :dead:

Granite
May 10th, 2005, 01:00 PM
Very good! You just ended this discussion.

:wave2:

Hard to see if that's a yes or no...

Zakath
May 10th, 2005, 01:00 PM
It wouldn't happen to include a provision allowing a woman's hand to be cut off, would it?:rolleyes:
C'mon, granite. You know they get testy when you cite anything that makes them look like the Taliban. ;)

Gerald
May 10th, 2005, 01:02 PM
Very good! You just ended this discussion.

:wave2:Translation: "I'm taking my ball and going home" :taoist: .

Granite
May 10th, 2005, 01:04 PM
C'mon, granite. You know they get testy when you cite anything that makes them look like the Taliban. ;)

Too true. And they really hate giving you a straight answer on this one. :sinapisN:

Lighthouse
May 10th, 2005, 01:05 PM
granite has already had that question answered, numerous times. The fact that he keeps asking it only shows him to be the jackass that he is.

Caledvwlch
May 10th, 2005, 01:07 PM
granite has already had that question answered, numerous times. The fact that he keeps asking it only shows him to be the jackass that he is.
Then answer it for me, Lighthouse. Pretend granite isn't here, and explain it to me, because I'm still confused.

Clete
May 10th, 2005, 01:08 PM
You know, the rolleyes smilie tends to lose it's effect when you use it in all your posts.

When was the last time Granite didn't intentionally sabatage discussions on this topic? His only reason for being here is to derail what could be serious and fruitful discussions on a very important topic. If it were up to me, he would stop it or be banned. He's a total waste of time.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
May 10th, 2005, 01:10 PM
Then answer it for me, Lighthouse. Pretend granite isn't here, and explain it to me, because I'm still confused.

Lighthouse,

If you answer this question Granite wins.

Caledvwlch
May 10th, 2005, 01:12 PM
Lighthouse,

If you answer this question Granite wins.
Why's that? Because it really is a hole in the theonomy argument? Or because you don't want me to know the truth? I know you have a defense against the Deuteronomy 25:11-12 argument. So what is it?

Justin (Wiccan)
May 10th, 2005, 01:14 PM
If you answer this question Granite wins.

Which is more important ... whether or not Granite wins or loses, or whether or not questions are answered?

Justin

Granite
May 10th, 2005, 01:18 PM
Lighthouse,

If you answer this question Granite wins.

:darwinsm:

Zakath
May 10th, 2005, 01:21 PM
Which is more important ... whether or not Granite wins or loses, or whether or not questions are answered?
If winning and losing wasn't important, then why do we have rep points to keep our popularity score? :chuckle:

Justin (Wiccan)
May 10th, 2005, 01:24 PM
If winning and losing wasn't important, then why do we have rep points to keep our popularity score? :chuckle:

More than that--Clete evidently doesn't realize that with responses like that, Granite's already won. I mean, what else could you call it when Granite has that much control over Clete's behavior?

And Clete's a moderator, no less....

Justin

Lighthouse
May 10th, 2005, 01:35 PM
Clete's not a moderator.:nono: I was wrong.

Granite
May 10th, 2005, 01:38 PM
:yawn:

You'd think if this point was so self-evident that a quick and ready shakenbake answer would be on hand.

I continue to bring this law up because it IS reprehensible and no amount of tap dancing can change that. For as much as there might be to admire in the Mosaic code, this little proviso is not one of them.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 10th, 2005, 01:42 PM
Clete's not a moderator.:nono: I was wrong.

Oops. I thought that's what the italicized user-name meant. :blush:

Justin

Jefferson
May 10th, 2005, 01:50 PM
Justin:

I'm still waiting for a response to my posts # 71 and # 74.

Lighthouse
May 10th, 2005, 01:52 PM
Oops. I thought that's what the italicized user-name meant. :blush:

Justin
I wish.:chuckle:

Justin (Wiccan)
May 10th, 2005, 01:55 PM
Justin:

I'm still waiting for a response to my posts # 71 and # 74.

Hi, Jefferson,

Sorry about that ... I fear they got lost in the shuffle of the thread.

Justin

Justin (Wiccan)
May 10th, 2005, 02:19 PM
Does this sound like Paul taught the law was to be used but no longer? If so, then why all the present tense verbs?

First and foremost, I tend to take the majority scholarship view that the author(s?) of the Pastoral Epistles was not Paul--this would be called a "Pseudo-Pauline Epistle.". That does not cause any substantive change in my arguments against theonomy, but I felt you should be aware of my position, lest it cause confusion.

The entire point of this passage is a warning against false teachers of the Law within the church. Pseudo-Paul is not deriding the Law, merely the false teachers thereof. One of the marks of a false teacher of the Law is that they do not know what the Law was all about. The Law was not a part of the Abrahamic Covenant (which Christians see themselves as a part of), but of the Mosaic Covenant. This covenant was a conditional covenant specifically given to the descendants of Israel as a condition for living in Canaan, and the Law was one of those conditions. "Keep the Law and I will bless you; break it, and I will curse you" is a powerful statement, but it is a statement that only applies to descendants of Jacob. (See Ex 19.)

Now, you may think that it would be a good idea for our current Gentile government to require obedience to the Mosaic Law ... but there's a few problems with that. Acts 15 and Gal 3:10-14 may be the most out-spoken examples, but they are far from the only ones. For you to try to live by the Law means that you must do everything that the Law requires. That means circumcision, ritual cleanliness, eschewing unclean meat, and the temple sacrifices. You cannot separate the Law into "moral law" and "ritual law"--such a separation is unbiblical.


Wrong. In Abraham's time God foreshadowed Israel's Messiah as both king and priest by the man Melchizideck who was the king of Salem and priest of the most high God. And Christ came after the order of Melchizideck.

Arguable. At no time does Hebrews or Psalms say that the same person will fill the office of Messianic King and Priest after the Order of Melchizedek. It is not an unreasonable conjecture, but it is conjecture.


Centuries before Israel asked for a king, God told Moses to write in Deuteronomy 17:15, "You shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses." Does that sound like God is against kings?

As a side note: I also take the majority scholarship view that Deuteronomy was compiled in final form during or shortly after the Babylonian Exile. However, I also addressed this: in Deuteronomy, God does not say "You shall make a King": the text says "When you make a king, do it my way."

Jefferson, I've got to skip the rest for now ... we have a lightning storm in the area.

Justin

Granite
May 11th, 2005, 07:54 AM
:think:

billwald
May 11th, 2005, 10:38 AM
The following exposition from post #135 is correct! St Paul fails to differentiate between the covenants.


"The Law was not a part of the Abrahamic Covenant (which Christians see themselves as a part of), but of the Mosaic Covenant. This covenant was a conditional covenant specifically given to the descendants of Israel as a condition for living in Canaan, and the Law was one of those conditions. "Keep the Law and I will bless you; break it, and I will curse you" is a powerful statement, but it is a statement that only applies to descendants of Jacob. (See Ex 19.)"

Turbo
May 11th, 2005, 12:13 PM
billwald,

Does God want governments to prosecute rapists?

Does God want governments to prosecute thieves?

billwald
May 11th, 2005, 05:17 PM
If Moses was writing these days he would add running stop signs, following to close, and unsafe lane changes.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 11th, 2005, 07:46 PM
History and prophecy show that God planned to establish Israel's Monarchy 1,000 years before Christ. Israel refused to wait on the Lord for a king in God's own time so God was angry with them for that. But 400 years before Samuel, God commanded that Israel's future kings should obey the Law.

One generation prior to God's own timing, Israel demanded a king and God gave them Saul in about 1,050 BC. So Saul from the tribe of Benjamin was "born out of due time" just like the apostle Saul (Paul) (also from the tribe of Benjamin) was also "born out of due time." God was mad at Israel, not for demanding a king, but rather for demanding a king on their own time table instead of waiting on God's timing.

As for the balance of your post ... Jefferson, remember, I take the view that most of the Tanakh dates to the Babylonian Captivity or afterwards. In that light, there is no way that I can answer that and remain inside a context that you can accept, so I fear my comment on these passages would only detract from the topic at hand.

I would be more than glad to discuss the United Monarchy tales in a separate thread, if you wish, but I fear my views would not be very popular here.

Turbo
May 12th, 2005, 06:09 AM
billwald,

Does God want governments to prosecute rapists?

Does God want governments to prosecute thieves?

Jefferson
May 15th, 2005, 12:54 AM
First and foremost, I tend to take the majority scholarship view that the author(s?) of the Pastoral Epistles was not Paul--this would be called a "Pseudo-Pauline Epistle.". That does not cause any substantive change in my arguments against theonomy, but I felt you should be aware of my position, lest it cause confusion.God-hating liberals just love to annoint themselves with awards, pat themselves on the back and call their position "the majority scholarship view." All it is, is just the majority liberal view. Nothing more than that. It holds no water with me. You can see their bias in every field. Just look at Hollywood this year when "The Passion of the Christ" did not even get nominated for anything. Liberals desperately trying to call themselves open-minded and objective is laughable. Therefore, I hold their self-given title of the "majority scholarship view" in contempt.


"Keep the Law and I will bless you; break it, and I will curse you" is a powerful statement, but it is a statement that only applies to descendants of Jacob. (See Ex 19.) When Paul writes that children should obey their parents (Ephesians 6:1; Colossians 3:20) do you actually take that fact to imply that only children of Christian parents are under moral obligation to obey their parents? The fact that only Israel was given a special revelation of certain political laws does not mean that only Israel was bound to keep such laws. The Gentiles who were not given the law still have the work of the law written on their hearts (see Romans 2:12-16). In fact Romans 1:31 says that those who commit abominations such as homosexuality know that "those who practice such things are worthy of death."

Please pay close attention to Deuteronomy 4:5-8: "Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as Jehovah my God commanded me, so that you should do so in the land where you go to possess it. And you shall keep and do them, for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.
For who is a great nation whose God is coming near to them, as Jehovah our God is, in all our calling on Him? And who is a great nation whose statutes and judgments are so righteous as all this Law which I set before you today?"

That passage shows that Israel's law was supposed to be a model for all the gentile nations around her.

The plan was that all nations would flow into Zion saying, "Come and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem." (Isaiah 2:2,3)

God obviously required the gentile nations to obey his law as Lev 18:24-28 shows: "Do not defile yourselves in any of these things. For in all these the nations are defiled, which I cast out before you. And the land is defiled. Therefore I visit its wickedness on it, and the land itself vomits out those who live in it. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, neither the native, nor any stranger that lives among you. For the men of the land who were before you have done all these abominations, and the land is defiled. You shall not do these so that the land may not spew you out also when you defile it, as it spewed out the nations that were before you."

There is only 1 moral law for all dispensations (though different ceremonial laws for different dispensations). Paul tells us the law was in operation before Sinai, when he says "for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses: (Romans 5:13-14). Before the law "came," the law was already in operation. The proof of this is that it was already dealing death to sinners. At Sinai, the law was given a definitive publication, but it was already operating in the world, and was already known to men.

In fact, Paul said, "just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12). In other words, the same law which came at Sinai was operating in the Garden. We can turn to passages in Genesis and in Exodus before Sinai and see that people knew the law before it was written down by Moses.

FIRST The laws of slavery were known and functioned in the life of Jacob and in the interaction between Moses and Pharaoh before the written law was given.

God's children could only be held as slaves for 6 years (Exodus 21:2). Pharaoh had broken this law. Moses' demand for Israelite freedom was grounded in this law, which was familiar to Pharaoh.

Pharaoh showed a knowledge of Exodus 21:4 before it was written when he said the men could leave, but not their families (Exodus 10:7-11). 21:4 says, "If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone." From Pharaoh's viewpoint, it was he who had provided the wives and children of the Hebrew men, so he thought he had a legal claim to them. But Pharaoh was wrong because Jacob had brought his women, children, livestock, and servants with him when he settled in Egypt, and so the Hebrews were under the law of Exodus 21:3: "If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the lord of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him."

God's yet unwritten law which was familiar to Pharaoh (because of Joseph's influence and because it underlay the common law of the Ancient Near East, also orders that when a slave is set free, he is to be given going-away gifts (Deuteronomy 15:12-16) to help him celebrate and to help him set up in business. God told the Hebrews to request (not "borrow") such presents from their neighbors (Exodus 3:22). Moses demanded such presents from Pharaoh (10:25). Those who give such presents are blessed by God (Deuteronomy 15:18), and the Egyptians knew this even before this law was written down by Moses after the Exodus. Another proof of this is that in Exodus 12:32, when Pharaoh gave his presents, he specifically asked for the Deuteronomy 15:18 blessing.

Obviously Pharaoh understood something about God's laws governing slavery before Moses wrote them down after the Exodus.

SECOND The law of evidence concerning torn beasts (Exodus 22:13) is referred to by Jacob way back in Genesis 31:39.

THIRD Exodus 21:1 and 24:3 call these laws "mishpatim," and Abraham is said to know the mishpatim way back in Genesis 18:19. Also, way back in Genesis 26:5, Abraham is said to have "kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." This is surely more than the 10 commandments!

FORTH Deuteronomy 22:28-29 commands a young man who seduces a young girl to marry her. This law was clearly being followed to the letter way back in Genesis 34, which concerns the relations between Shechem and Dinah. Because Simeon and Levi broke the not-yet-written law, Jacob condemned their actions. (Genesis 49:5-7).

Stoning is not a ceremonial law which only applied to Old Testament Israel. It is a moral law which is for all nations in all dispensations just like the moral laws against murder and rape are.

Christians are not under the entire law but nonchristians are still under the moral law as the following verses prove:

I John 3:4: "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness."

Romans 7:7, "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Let it not be said! But I did not know sin except through the law. For also I did not know lust except the law said, You shall not lust."

Galatians 3:24: "So that the Law has become a trainer of us until Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

Finally, nonchristians will be judged by the law:

Rev. 20:12 - "And I saw the dead, the small and the great, stand before God. And books were opened, and another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books"

Rev. 20:13 - "And the sea gave up the dead in it. And death and hell delivered up the dead in them. And each one of them was judged according to their works."


Now, you may think that it would be a good idea for our current Gentile government to require obedience to the Mosaic Law ... but there's a few problems with that. Acts 15 and Gal 3:10-14 may be the most out-spoken examples, but they are far from the only ones. For you to try to live by the Law means that you must do everything that the Law requires. That means circumcision, ritual cleanliness, eschewing unclean meat, and the temple sacrifices. You cannot separate the Law into "moral law" and "ritual law"--such a separation is unbiblical.

Scripture has told us Old Testament ceremonial law is no longer in effect for today.

Regarding the ceremonial law Paul said, "But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?" (Galatians 4:9)

Colossians 2:16-21 says, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not;"

Hebrews 7:17,18 says, "For He testifies, 'You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.' For truly there is a putting away of the commandment which went before, because of the weakness and unprofitableness of it."

Epesians 2:15 says, "having abolished in His flesh the enmity (the Law of commandments contained in ordinances) so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, making peace between them;"


Arguable. At no time does Hebrews or Psalms say that the same person will fill the office of Messianic King and Priest after the Order of Melchizedek. It is not an unreasonable conjecture, but it is conjecture.Where did I claim Christ was Melchizedek? The point I made was that monarchy was declared by God a thousand years before Saul.


As a side note: I also take the majority scholarship view that Deuteronomy was compiled in final form during or shortly after the Babylonian Exile.Who cares when it was compiled? What matters is when the command was given. And it was given well before Israel asked for a king.


However, I also addressed this: in Deuteronomy, God does not say "You shall make a King": the text says "When you make a king, do it my way."It says both. It says, “You shall surely set a king over you…” That is a command for them to have a king. Then secondly, after that has first been understood, scripture then adds, “…whom the Lord your God chooses.” God telling them to “do it my way” does not nullify the fact that God commanded them to have a king thousands of years ahead of time.

billwald
May 15th, 2005, 07:54 AM
NT teaches that "God wants" for the Christians to judge the Christians and let the non believers worry about the non believers.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 15th, 2005, 08:43 AM
God-hating liberals just love to annoint themselves with awards, pat themselves on the back and call their position "the majority scholarship view." All it is, is just the majority liberal view. Nothing more than that. It holds no water with me. You can see their bias in every field. Just look at Hollywood this year when "The Passion of the Christ" did not even get nominated for anything. Liberals desperately trying to call themselves open-minded and objective is laughable. Therefore, I hold their self-given title of the "majority scholarship view" in contempt.

Jefferson ... I don't feel that there's any possible response to this paragraph that would not be outside of the realm of civil discourse. I realize you aren't attacking me, and I do disagree with the statements above, but I don't want my disagreement with the statements to be perceived as an attack against you, personally.


When Paul writes that children should obey their parents (Ephesians 6:1; Colossians 3:20) do you actually take that fact to imply that only children of Christian parents are under moral obligation to obey their parents? The fact that only Israel was given a special revelation of certain political laws does not mean that only Israel was bound to keep such laws.

No, but my rejection of theonomy does not constitute antinomianism. I am not opposed to law: I am opposed to the inaccurate attempt to apply the Mosaic Law to situations where it does not apply.

The Mosaic Laws cannot be divided into "political laws" and "moral laws": one who follows the Mosaic Law is committed to following all of the Law, as Gal 3:10 states:

Gal 3:10, NKJV

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."

You cannot divide the Law into sections and selectively apply the sections. If you do so, those to whom the selective parts of the Law are applied are under the curse.


The Gentiles who were not given the law still have the work of the law written on their hearts (see Romans 2:12-16). In fact Romans 1:31 says that those who commit abominations such as homosexuality know that "those who practice such things are worthy of death."

Jefferson, the Mosaic Law calls homosexuality an abomination, but it also calls eating shellfish an abomination. Indeed, Rom 1 extends the list of acts worthy of death far beyond sexual immorality: "all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; ... whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful...."

According to Rom 1, all of these acts are worthy of death. Who among us has not been malicious, proud, or disobedient to our parents? Even those of you who are Christian have admitted that you still fall into sin!

Yet we are discussing the issue of the Law. in Rom 2:14, Paul himself says that the Gentiles do not have the law! Why would you inflict the Law--and the curses of the Law--on those whom the law were not made for?

So who was the Law made for? Ex 19 tells us plainly:

Ex 19:3-6, NKJV:

3 And Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: 4 "You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to Myself. 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. 6 And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel."

The Law was part of the Old Covenant, between YHVH and the Children of Israel. It was the sign of the Old Covenant ... yet you state that the Old Covenant has been done away with? Then why would you keep the Law, which was its sign? Why would you deny the author of Hebrews, who states ...

Heb 9:19;20, NKJV
"19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you."

The Law was part and parcel of the Old Covenant, sealed with the blood of animals. You state that you now live under the new covenant, yet keep hearkening back to the Law of the old one. In doing so, you are attempting to invalidate the blood of Christ, who you believe makes clean where the Law never could.

Justin

Jefferson
May 16th, 2005, 12:54 PM
Justin - I will gladly respond to your last post if you will have the courtesy to address at least half of my previous post (#142) instead of the mere 20 percent that you did respond to.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 16th, 2005, 06:54 PM
Justin - I will gladly respond to your last post if you will have the courtesy to address at least half of my previous post (#142) instead of the mere 20 percent that you did respond to.

Jefferson, with all due respect, the response I gave applies to the 80 percent that I snipped from your post, not simply the 20 percent or so that I quoted. Now, if you like, I can go through the post point-by-point, but my response will remain unchanged:
1: You cannot divide the law into Ceremonial and Moral components. Additionally, you cannot place anyone under a required obedience to the Mosaic Law without also placing them under the curse of the law. Gal. 3:10.
2: Paul makes a far different description of the "moral law" than you, including such acts as "all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; ... whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful...." Unless you plan on making the punishment for gossip the exact same punishment for homosexuality, you cannot argue for a Christian continuance of the Law based on this passage.
3: The Mosaic Law was part and parcel of the Old Covenant. If (as Christians claim) we are in the New Covenant, the Law no longer applies as a principle of government.
4: Those who advocate the Law as part of "Christian Dominion" are advocating a rejection of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

These four points more than answer every single statement that you made in your post.

Justin

Jefferson
May 19th, 2005, 01:20 AM
1: You cannot divide the law into Ceremonial and Moral components.Wrong. Paul divided it, therefore so can we. Why did Paul not mention any of the ceremonial laws in First Timothy 1:8-10? Because Paul separated them. In that passage Paul was only talking about moral conduct, not ceremonial obedience. Furthermore, Paul commanded us to divide the word in 2 Timothy 2:15 - "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."


Additionally, you cannot place anyone under a required obedience to the Mosaic Law without also placing them under the curse of the law. Gal. 3:10.Please read verses in their context. The context of Galations is salvation. No one who is advocating governments today to enforce Biblical law is doing so because they believe obedience to Biblical Law is the way to salvation from their sins. Do you actually think that when people today obey the commands to not murder or steal that they immediately come under the curse of God? They only come under the curse if they obey for the purpose of attaining salvation. Huge difference.


2: Paul makes a far different description of the "moral law" than you, including such acts as "all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; ... whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful...." Unless you plan on making the punishment for gossip the exact same punishment for homosexuality, you cannot argue for a Christian continuance of the Law based on this passage.Where in the world do you get the idea that the punishment for gossip should be the exact same punishment for homosexuality? Please quote me chapter and verse.


3: The Mosaic Law was part and parcel of the Old Covenant. If (as Christians claim) we are in the New Covenant, the Law no longer applies as a principle of government.Then why does Paul say in Romans 13:4 that the governing authorities are "God's minister" who bears not the sword in vain? Sounds like Theonomy to me.


4: Those who advocate the Law as part of "Christian Dominion" are advocating a rejection of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. :darwinsm:

Granite
May 19th, 2005, 06:14 AM
It seems to me that CR, dominionism, theonomy, whatever you want to call it, has little use for the personal figure of Jesus.

He got lost in the sauce a long time ago. Why wait for Jesus when you can have power in the here and now?

Justin (Wiccan)
May 19th, 2005, 07:46 AM
Wrong. Paul divided it, therefore so can we. Why did Paul not mention any of the ceremonial laws in First Timothy 1:8-10? Because Paul separated them. In that passage Paul was only talking about moral conduct, not ceremonial obedience.

First and foremost, Galatians 3:10 was also the proof text that you cannot parse the Law into ceremonial and moral components.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Secondly, your argument that Paul divided the Law is an argument from silence. Paul did not mention the Law, but to definitively state that this is because he regarded the "Ceremonial Law" as fulfilled while regarding the "Moral Law" as still in force is a logical fallacy.

Paul's actual opinion on the law is given in Galatians 3:1-5.

1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
4Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
5He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Jefferson, the Law will not "redeem" the nation, any more than it will redeem so much as one person in it. Indeed, Paul assumes that Christians will live among "sinners" in 1 Cor 5.

9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

Paul does not command Christians to take controll of the government: he expects the "unsaved" to act in this manner, and makes absolutely no provision for the saved to try to force any code of behavior on them.


Furthermore, Paul commanded us to divide the word in 2 Timothy 2:15 - "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

Oh, please, Jefferson! Orthotomounta does not mean to "divide" as one "divides" the carcass of a steer!


rightly dividing - "rightly handling" [Vulgate]; "rightly administering" [ALFORD]; literally, cutting "straight" or "right": the metaphor being from a father or a steward (1 Corinthians 4:1) cutting and distributing bread among his children [VITRINGA and CALVIN], (Luke 12:42). The Septuagint, Proverbs 3:6 11:5, use it of "making one's way": so BENGEL here takes Paul to mean that Timothy may make ready a straight way for "the word of truth," and may himself walk straight forward according to this line, turning neither to the right nor to the left, "teaching no other doctrine" (1 Timothy 1:3). The same image of a way appears in the Greek for "increase" (see on 2 Timothy 2:16). The opposite to "rightly handling," or "dispensing," is, 2 Corinthians 2:17, "corrupt the word of God."
Cite (http://www.ccel.org/j/jamieson/jfb/htm/xi.xvi.iii.htm)


Please read verses in their context. The context of Galations is salvation. No one who is advocating governments today to enforce Biblical law is doing so because they believe obedience to Biblical Law is the way to salvation from their sins. Do you actually think that when people today obey the commands to not murder or steal that they immediately come under the curse of God? They only come under the curse if they obey for the purpose of attaining salvation. Huge difference.

And a grossly incorrect synopsis of my statement. I never said, nor do I believe, that Theonomists believe that enforcing Biblical Law is salvic. The "curse of the Law" is not for obeying the Law, but for obeying only parts the Law.


Where in the world do you get the idea that the punishment for gossip should be the exact same punishment for homosexuality? Please quote me chapter and verse.

Romans 1:29-32.
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

It's not just murder and fornication--if you break a promise, you deserve death. If you are proud, you deserve death. If you are boastful, you deserve death. And yes, backbiters--or gossips, depending on the translation--deserve death.


Then why does Paul say in Romans 13:4 that the governing authorities are "God's minister" who bears not the sword in vain? Sounds like Theonomy to me.

Paul speaks not only to the Romans, but of the Romans--the Roman Empire, which did not cavail at prostitution, homosexuality, drunkenness, pillage, or at persecuting Christians. Now, unless you think Paul was saying that Roman law is the law we should now follow (which I highly doubt), you'll see how silly your statement is.

Justin

Lighthouse
May 19th, 2005, 11:19 AM
First and foremost, Galatians 3:10 was also the proof text that you cannot parse the Law into ceremonial and moral components.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Paul was referring to salvation.


Secondly, your argument that Paul divided the Law is an argument from silence. Paul did not mention the Law, but to definitively state that this is because he regarded the "Ceremonial Law" as fulfilled while regarding the "Moral Law" as still in force is a logical fallacy.
Did you mean to say, "Paul did mention the law?"


Paul's actual opinion on the law is given in Galatians 3:1-5.

1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
4Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
5He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Jefferson, the Law will not "redeem" the nation, any more than it will redeem so much as one person in it. Indeed, Paul assumes that Christians will live among "sinners" in 1 Cor 5.

9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

Paul does not command Christians to take controll of the government: he expects the "unsaved" to act in this manner, and makes absolutely no provision for the saved to try to force any code of behavior on them.



Oh, please, Jefferson! Orthotomounta does not mean to "divide" as one "divides" the carcass of a steer!


Cite (http://www.ccel.org/j/jamieson/jfb/htm/xi.xvi.iii.htm)



And a grossly incorrect synopsis of my statement. I never said, nor do I believe, that Theonomists believe that enforcing Biblical Law is salvic. The "curse of the Law" is not for obeying the Law, but for obeying only parts the Law.



Romans 1:29-32.
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

It's not just murder and fornication--if you break a promise, you deserve death. If you are proud, you deserve death. If you are boastful, you deserve death. And yes, backbiters--or gossips, depending on the translation--deserve death.



Paul speaks not only to the Romans, but of the Romans--the Roman Empire, which did not cavail at prostitution, homosexuality, drunkenness, pillage, or at persecuting Christians. Now, unless you think Paul was saying that Roman law is the law we should now follow (which I highly doubt), you'll see how silly your statement is.

Justin

:sozo:THEONOMY IS NOT ABOUT REDEMPTION! IT'S ABOUT CRIMINAL JUSTICE!

Granite
May 19th, 2005, 11:21 AM
Maybe that's part of theonomy's problem.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 19th, 2005, 05:29 PM
:sozo:THEONOMY IS NOT ABOUT REDEMPTION! IT'S ABOUT CRIMINAL JUSTICE!

How is it justice for only Christian opinion and Christian law to be admissible in government?

Lighthouse
May 19th, 2005, 05:45 PM
How is it justice for only Christian opinion and Christian law to be admissible in government?
And herein lies the problem with your perception. This isn't "Christian" law. It's all about civil and criminal law. Murderers and rapists being put to death for their crimes is better for society than letting them stay in jail for ten years, then setting them free where they can return to what they were doing. Theonomists don't believe in putting these laws in effect because they're in the Bible, but because they are good for society. That's why the symbolic/ceremonial laws would not be in effect. People working on the Sabbath aren't going to be put to death, but child molesters are. And, the laws pertaining to the priesthood aren't going to be in effect. Especially since there is no priesthood. Do you understand, yet?

Justin (Wiccan)
May 19th, 2005, 06:20 PM
Theonomists don't believe in putting these laws in effect because they're in the Bible, but because they are good for society.

OK, then here's a question for you: are the laws of Deut 22:28-29 "good for society?"

28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Frankly, I'm less than impressed with those who reject the NIV because it translates that section as "rapes her"--the KJV language may allow those who wish to blush away from the fact pretend it isn't there, but though the Bible calls for the death of one who rapes a betrothed girl, it only calls for a fifty shekel debt and eternal marriage for one who rapes an unbetrothed girl.


People working on the Sabbath aren't going to be put to death, but child molesters are.

Seeing as how a marriage age of 12 to 15 is not uncommon ... there goes your claim about killing child molesters.


Do you understand, yet?

Sarcasm ill becomes you, Lighthouse. It requires a subtlety that comes with age and experience.

To put it succinctly, I reject theonomy not only because it is against your Bible, but because it calls for the return of barbarism to a culture that has learned better.

Lighthouse
May 19th, 2005, 08:57 PM
OK, then here's a question for you: are the laws of Deut 22:28-29 "good for society?"

28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
If people are forced to marry if they fornicate that would put an end to fornication, wouldn't it?


Frankly, I'm less than impressed with those who reject the NIV because it translates that section as "rapes her"--the KJV language may allow those who wish to blush away from the fact pretend it isn't there, but though the Bible calls for the death of one who rapes a betrothed girl, it only calls for a fifty shekel debt and eternal marriage for one who rapes an unbetrothed girl.
It clearly says that a rapist should be put to death. It doesn't say anything about betrothal.

In the case of a man fornicating with a betrothed woman, they are both put to death, because it's adultery.



Seeing as how a marriage age of 12 to 15 is not uncommon ... there goes your claim about killing child molesters.
Where is that shown to be common? What makes you think kids got married? Kids that young are nowhere near mature enough to get married.

And killing a 45 year old man who molests six year old boys is a sicko. A pervert. And deserves death.



Sarcasm ill becomes you, Lighthouse. It requires a subtlety that comes with age and experience.
I wasn't being sarcastic.


To put it succinctly, I reject theonomy not only because it is against your Bible, but because it calls for the return of barbarism to a culture that has learned better.
You're wrong on both counts. There's nothing barbaric about putting murderers to death.

And if you're so against theonomy, are you against the current government making murder and rape illegal?:think:

Justin (Wiccan)
May 19th, 2005, 09:14 PM
If people are forced to marry if they fornicate that would put an end to fornication, wouldn't it?

Lighthouse, did you even read the passage? Here, let me give it to you again.

Deut 22:28-29. We'll use the NKJV this time.
28"If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

This is not "fornication"--this is rape. If a betrothed woman is raped (v 25-27), the rapist is stoned ... but if the woman is unbetrothed, then the rapist pays 50 shekels to the woman's father, and he marries her.

No matter what her desires are. No matter how she feels about this rapist.

Barbarism.

Clete
May 19th, 2005, 10:06 PM
Lighthouse, did you even read the passage? Here, let me give it to you again.

Deut 22:28-29. We'll use the NKJV this time.
28"If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

This is not "fornication"--this is rape. If a betrothed woman is raped (v 25-27), the rapist is stoned ... but if the woman is unbetrothed, then the rapist pays 50 shekels to the woman's father, and he marries her.

No matter what her desires are. No matter how she feels about this rapist.

Barbarism.

The word "siezes" here is what has you convinced that this is rape. I wonder what the word is in the original and whether or not this was figure of speech, an idiomatic expression meaning something quite different than rape? :think:

I'll have to look it up.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
May 19th, 2005, 10:12 PM
taphas


1) to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield

a) (Qal)

1) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch

2) to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully

b) (Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured

c) (Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands)

:think:

I think that an interpretation other than rape is still quite possible and given the law in verses 25-27, it is impossible that it is talking about rape. You'd have two sentences right next to one another that directly contradict. That simply doesn't make sense.

Wow! That was pretty easy! It took less than 6 minutes to find the information, think it through and type up a post about it. Amazing what a little effort gets you.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Justin (Wiccan)
May 19th, 2005, 10:24 PM
The word "siezes" here is what has you convinced that this is rape. I wonder what the word is in the original and whether or not this was figure of speech, an idiomatic expression meaning something quite different than rape? :think:

I'll have to look it up.

Taphas, Strong's 08610
1) to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield
** a) (Qal)
**** 1) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch
**** 2) to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully
** b) (Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured
** c) (Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands)

I added the asterisks to help with indentation.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 19th, 2005, 10:31 PM
I think that an interpretation other than rape is still quite possible and given the law in verses 25-27, it is impossible that it is talking about rape. You'd have two sentences right next to one another that directly contradict. That simply doesn't make sense.

What two sentences contradict? If a man rapes a betrothed woman, he was stoned to death. If he rapes an unbetrothed woman, he payed fifty shekels and married her.

Justin

Jefferson
May 20th, 2005, 01:21 AM
This was not rape, but seduction. "Lay hold" is Strongs Hebrew word #8610. A couple other references with 8610 read as follows:

Genesis 4:21 - "And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle (8610) the harp and organ."

Habakuk 2:19 - "Woe unto him that saith to the wood, Awake; to the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach! Behold, it is laid (8610) over with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all in the midst of it."

Additionally, look at the context. A mere 3 verses earlier in verse 25 we see a clear case of rape when it says, "But if a man finds an engaged girl in the field, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man that lay with her shall die."

Now look at verse 28:

"If a man finds a girl, a virgin not engaged, and lays hold on her, and lies with her, and they are found,"

Hmmmm. What happened to the word "forces"? You think just maybe God was trying to point out a distinction between these two cases?

The word that is translated "forces" is the hebrew word "chazaq" and is a much stronger verb than "taphas" in verse 28. "Chazaq" is the same word that is used for the clear rape of Tamar in 2 Samuel 13:11.

Additionally, notice that in verse 28 it says "they" are found, not "he" is found. She was in on the act.

Clete
May 20th, 2005, 08:02 AM
This was not rape, but seduction. "Lay hold" is Strongs Hebrew word #8610. A couple other references with 8610 read as follows:

Genesis 4:21 - "And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle (8610) the harp and organ."

Habakuk 2:19 - "Woe unto him that saith to the wood, Awake; to the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach! Behold, it is laid (8610) over with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all in the midst of it."

Additionally, look at the context. A mere 3 verses earlier in verse 25 we see a clear case of rape when it says, "But if a man finds an engaged girl in the field, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man that lay with her shall die."

Now look at verse 28:

"If a man finds a girl, a virgin not engaged, and lays hold on her, and lies with her, and they are found,"

Hmmmm. What happened to the word "forces"? You think just maybe God was trying to point out a distinction between these two cases?

The word that is translated "forces" is the hebrew word "chazaq" and is a much stronger verb than "taphas" in verse 28. "Chazaq" is the same word that is used for the clear rape of Tamar in 2 Samuel 13:11.

Additionally, notice that in verse 28 it says "they" are found, not "he" is found. She was in on the act.

:blabla: You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Jefferson again. :blabla:

Excellent! :up:

Granite
May 20th, 2005, 08:15 AM
So a girl's seducer gets to marry her. Oh. How charming.

Women as chattel might work for the Taliban but I'll take a pass, thank you kindly.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 20th, 2005, 08:17 AM
This was not rape, but seduction. "Lay hold" is Strongs Hebrew word #8610. A couple other references with 8610 read as follows:

Genesis 4:21 - "And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle (8610) the harp and organ."

Habakuk 2:19 - "Woe unto him that saith to the wood, Awake; to the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach! Behold, it is laid (8610) over with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all in the midst of it."

That's two uses out of sixty-five, most of the others having the connotation of:
* "seize" (Gen 39:12, Deut 9:17, 1 Ki 11:30),
* "arrest" (Num 5:13, Deu 21:19, 1 Ki 13:4, 1 Ki 18:40, 2 Kings 10:14),
* "took [the war to them] or take [in war]" (Num 31:27, Deu 20:19, Josh 8:8, 2 Ki 14:7, 2 Kings 16:92 Ki 18:3) or
* "captured" (Jos 8:23, 1 Sam 15:8, 1 Sam 23:26, 1 Kings 20:18, 2 Kings 7:12, 2 Ki 14:13).


Additionally, look at the context. A mere 3 verses earlier in verse 25 we see a clear case of rape when it says, "But if a man finds an engaged girl in the field, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man that lay with her shall die."

Now look at verse 28:

"If a man finds a girl, a virgin not engaged, and lays hold on her, and lies with her, and they are found,"

Hmmmm. What happened to the word "forces"? You think just maybe God was trying to point out a distinction between these two cases?

The word that is translated "forces" is the hebrew word "chazaq" and is a much stronger verb than "taphas" in verse 28. "Chazaq" is the same word that is used for the clear rape of Tamar in 2 Samuel 13:11.


The distinction here is not between verses 25-27 and 28-29, but between verses 23-24 and 25-27.


Additionally, notice that in verse 28 it says "they" are found, not "he" is found. She was in on the act.

That's just crap, Jefferson. This is the only place such a phrase appears in the entire chapter--there is no comparison.

It should be noted that the only group of people who make this argument (that I am aware of) are the folks who are specifically opposed to the NIV. Jefferson, if you just cut and pasted this from someone else's statement, then you got ahold of some poor research. But if you did the research yourself, you are either guilty of wishful thinking (failure to see the facts, due to an inability to accept them), or intellectual dishonesty (seeing the facts, but quoting them selectively or inaccurately to support your thesis).

Justin

Lighthouse
May 20th, 2005, 05:14 PM
The NIV isn't the only version that reads like that. However, all of the versions translated from the majority text do not read as though it were rape. Any version that does excludes sections of verses, and whole verses in other places. Not to mention, mistranslations appear in any version that isn't either the original text, or translated literally from it.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 20th, 2005, 07:03 PM
The NIV isn't the only version that reads like that. However, all of the versions translated from the majority text do not read as though it were rape.

Excuse me? the term "Majority text" refers solely to the new Testament. The NIV Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Text--the exact same text that the KJV translators used.

Justin

Lighthouse
May 20th, 2005, 11:52 PM
Doesn't make it mean rape.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 21st, 2005, 05:48 AM
Doesn't make it mean rape.

Denial does not make the truth go away, Lighthouse.

Caledvwlch
May 21st, 2005, 12:44 PM
Denial does not make the truth go away, Lighthouse.
Yes it does. Perception = reality.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 21st, 2005, 12:58 PM
Yes it does. Perception = reality.

Not this time, Cal. I think you'll find that in this case, facts will work better than derision.

Well, what of it, people? You wish to institute a law that requires an unbetrothed virgin to wed one who rapes her? You wish to institute a law that requires the amputation of a woman's hand if she hit's a man below the belt? You wish to do these things because they're "good for society?"

Caledvwlch
May 21st, 2005, 01:16 PM
Not this time, Cal. I think you'll find that in this case, facts will work better than derision.
Sorry, I only meant to illustrate how difficult it is to have a discussion with Lighthouse.


Well, what of it, people? You wish to institute a law that requires an unbetrothed virgin to wed one who rapes her? You wish to institute a law that requires the amputation of a woman's hand if she hit's a man below the belt? You wish to do these things because they're "good for society?"
I'm as curious as you are.

Jefferson
May 22nd, 2005, 01:02 AM
Justin:

I don't want to get too far away from my main point which is the present tense verbs in First Timothy:

"8 But we know that the law IS good if one USES it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law IS not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust."

To this you responded:

The entire point of this passage is a warning against false teachers of the Law within the church. Pseudo-Paul is not deriding the Law, merely the false teachers thereof. One of the marks of a false teacher of the Law is that they do not know what the Law was all about. The Law was not a part of the Abrahamic Covenant (which Christians see themselves as a part of), but of the Mosaic Covenant. This covenant was a conditional covenant specifically given to the descendants of Israel as a condition for living in Canaan, and the Law was one of those conditions. "Keep the Law and I will bless you; break it, and I will curse you" is a powerful statement, but it is a statement that only applies to descendants of Jacob. (See Ex 19.)

Notice in the First Timothy passage above that Paul is not speaking about the law in the present tense to the descendants of Israel but rather he is speaking about the law in the present tense to gentiles! Paul wrote to Timothy who was a gentile. Timothy was circumcised because he was embarking on a missionary journey and it was necessary for him to "become a Jew to the Jews" as it were.

So Paul is speaking about using the law (in the present tense, not ancient history) to gentiles, not to the descendants of Jacob.

Regarding my post # 74 you wrote:
As for the balance of your post ... Jefferson, remember, I take the view that most of the Tanakh dates to the Babylonian Captivity or afterwards. In that light, there is no way that I can answer that and remain inside a context that you can accept, so I fear my comment on these passages would only detract from the topic at hand.The date of the compilation of the Tanakh is quite different from the date when centuries before Israel asked for a king, God told Moses "You shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses." (Deut. 17:15) Therefore I would like for you to respond to that.


No, but my rejection of theonomy does not constitute antinomianism. I am not opposed to law: I am opposed to the inaccurate attempt to apply the Mosaic Law to situations where it does not apply.Moral truth does not change from one culture to another or from one century to another. Rape is immoral even in cultures where it is permitted. Murdering innocent people is immoral even in cultures where it is legal. That is why the moral laws of the Old Testament apply to all cultures in any century.


The Mosaic Laws cannot be divided into "political laws" and "moral laws": one who follows the Mosaic Law is committed to following all of the Law, as Gal 3:10 states:

Gal 3:10, NKJV

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."

You cannot divide the Law into sections and selectively apply the sections. If you do so, those to whom the selective parts of the Law are applied are under the curse.Then why did Paul uphold the moral law in First Timothy 1:8-11 but condemned the ceremonial law in Col. 2:16-21 and Ephesians 2:14-16? By the way, notice what Eph 2:14-16 says: "For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity."

Why does the verse include the words "contained in ordinances?" If your view was correct, those words would not have been included in that verse.

When Christians, who are not under the law, agree with the truth of the law that murder is immoral and, when angry, they therefore refrain from committing murder, they are not putting themselves under the law and, by extension, under the law's curse. If you disagree with this then you have to believe that Christians must commit murder otherwise they would be obeying a part of the law and would be putting themselves under it's curse.

Galatians 3:10 is a curse for anyone who obeys the law for the purpose of attaining salvation as the context of the very next verse proves: "But that no one is *justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for 'the just shall live by faith.'" (Gal. 3:11) Using the law to create a peaceful society does not violate Gal. 3:10 because it would have nothing to do with attempting to attain salvation.

Additionally, the law was partially applied every time a new dispensation began. As Hebrews 7:12 says, "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." In every dispensational change only the ceremonial laws changed, never the moral laws.


Jefferson, the Law will not "redeem" the nation, any more than it will redeem so much as one person in it.Never claimed it does. But the application of the Law will produce a peaceful society.


Paul does not command Christians to take controll of the governmentThat's because Rome provided no such opportunity. In democracies, however, the people are the government because the people decide who shall govern. Therefore do you actually believe that no Christian should be allowed to vote? Every time I enter a voting booth I vote for whatever congressman I believe will attempt to legislate Biblical morality more than any other candidate. Do you think I should be prevented from doing that? Who should I vote for, someone else's views other than my own? Since congressmen make laws, do you think all Christian congressmen should be forced to resign? What standard should Christian congressmen use when deciding what laws are moral and what laws are immoral, someone else's standard other than their own Bible-based standard?

Besides, do you have any idea how much fun it is for Christians to observe the absolute stark raving terror in the eyes of heathens upon hearing that a fundamentalist, bible thumping Christian candidate has been elected to congress? They think they are going to have all their precious pornography immediately taken away from them. It's just hilarious! Oh man it's fun to be a Christian!


Oh, please, Jefferson! Orthotomounta does not mean to "divide" as one "divides" the carcass of a steer!Orthotomounta perfectly makes my point.


Romans 1:29-32.
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

It's not just murder and fornication--if you break a promise, you deserve death. If you are proud, you deserve death. If you are boastful, you deserve death. And yes, backbiters--or gossips, depending on the translation--deserve death.This "death" is not the government inflicting the death penalty via public stoning. It's natural death. It's the natural death that is a result of sin as describe in Romans 6:23 - "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Just take, for example, fornication. The Bible says fornicators should get married. It doesn't say they should be executed.


Paul speaks not only to the Romans, but of the Romans--the Roman Empire, which did not cavail at prostitution, homosexuality, drunkenness, pillage, or at persecuting Christians. Now, unless you think Paul was saying that Roman law is the law we should now follow (which I highly doubt), you'll see how silly your statement is.There are good ministers of God's Law and bad ministers of God's Law. The Roman governing officials were bad ministers. But that does not negate the fact that they were indeed God's ministers according to Romans 13:4.

What standard do you think God will use to judge the difference between a good governing official and a bad one? The Bible gives the answer: "And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works." (Revelation 20:12,13)

Justin (Wiccan)
May 22nd, 2005, 10:10 AM
Justin:

I don't want to get too far away from my main point which is the present tense verbs in First Timothy:

"8 But we know that the law IS good if one USES it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law IS not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust."

Let's look at a literal, word-for-word translation of the Greek for v 8-9. You'll have to pardon the transliterated Greek: I can't get it to format correctly, but if you want to look at the original, it's available at http://www.greekbible.com.


8 oidamen de oti kalos o nomos ean tis auto nomimos cretai, 9 eidos touto, oti dikaio nomos ou keitai, anomois de kai anupotaktois, asebesi kai amartolois, anosiois kai bebelois, patroloais kai metroloais, androphonois....

8: But we know that suitable the law if a certain one himself lawfully makes use of it.
9: I know this, that [for the] righteous law stands not, but lawless ("anomois," lit: "no law") and disobedient, [asebesi ... "ungodly"] and sinful, unholy and profane, [patroloais ... "killers of fathers"] and [metroloais ... "killers of mothers"], murderers....

As you can see, there are three words I don't know, but I'm willing to accept the conventional translation. But the important passage is v 8: "Suitable the law if a certain one [i]himself lawfully makes use of it." The author of this epistle says absolutely nothing about imposing this law from without--indeed, this passage indicates quite strongly that it must be the decision of the individual to "lawfully make use of it." According to your doctrine, this is the kind of behavioral change that comes over a person regenerated by the blood of Jesus Christ, not constrained by outside enforcement.

Yes, "using the law" is in the present tense--present tense singular.


Regarding my post # 74 you wrote:The date of the compilation of the Tanakh is quite different from the date when centuries before Israel asked for a king, God told Moses "You shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses." (Deut. 17:15) Therefore I would like for you to respond to that.

As this does not deal directly with theonomy, I will gladly discuss dating theories in a separate thread.


Moral truth does not change from one culture to another or from one century to another. Rape is immoral even in cultures where it is permitted. Murdering innocent people is immoral even in cultures where it is legal.

At no time did I make such a claim. I do claim that your Bible is a man-made understanding of absolute moral truth, but that is irrelevant to this thread.


That is why the moral laws of the Old Testament apply to all cultures in any century.

We'll discuss this so-called division of the law with the next section.


Then why did Paul uphold the moral law in First Timothy 1:8-11 but condemned the ceremonial law in Col. 2:16-21 and Ephesians 2:14-16?

As we saw a few paragraphs ago, the author of 1 Timothy was commending moral ("legal") behavior when engaged by an individual who chooses to behave in that fashion.

As a tangential point, this seeming "contradiction" becomes much clearer when the pseudo-Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles is understood. This is why there is a change in emphasis between Paul's condemnation of the Law--especially in the passage in Ephesians. Paul does not say that Christ abolished the ceremonial law--he abolished the law of commandments.

But I think the Greek will show it more clearly.


By the way, notice what Eph 2:14-16 says: "For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity."

Why does the verse include the words "contained in ordinances?" If your view was correct, those words would not have been included in that verse.


Again, to the Greek: Eph 2:14-16.


14 autos gar estin 'e eirene emon, o poiesas ta amphotera en kai to mesotoicon tou phragmou lusas, ten ecthran, en te sarki autou, 15 ton nomon ton entolon en dogmasin katargesas, ina tous duo ktise en auto eis ena kainon anthropon poion eirenen, 16kai apokatallaxe tous amphoterous en eni somati to qeo dia tou staurou, apokteinas ten ecthran en auto.

14: For Himself our peace, who has made [amphotera ... "both"] one and the partition wall of separation [he] loosened, the enmity, in [his] flesh himself,
15: The law of the commandments in dogma he rendered idle, that these two [they might] make in themselves into one new man he makes peace.
16: And he reconciled both in one body to God through the cross, to destroy the enmity in himself.

It looks like the confusion is in v 15--specifically, the portion I have underlined. If you know any Greek grammar, look back at the original: "in dogma" is in the dative case, and is a subordinate noun to "of the commandments." The word "dogma" means a lot of things, so let's look at the lexicon:


dogma,n {dog'-mah}
1) doctrine, decree, ordinance 1a) of public decrees 1b) of the Roman Senate 1c) of rulers 2) the rules and requirements of the law of Moses; carrying a suggestion of severity and of threatened judgment 3) of certain decrees of the apostles relative to right living

And this word is in the dative case, so let's look at the definition:


The dative is the case of the indirect object, or may also indicate the means by which something is done. The dative case also has a wide variety of uses, with the root idea being that of "personal interest" or "reference". It is used most often in one of three general categories: Indirect object, Instrument (means), or Location. Most commonly it is used as the indirect object of a sentence. It may also indicate the means by which something is done or accomplished. Used as a dative of location, it can show the "place", "time", or "sphere" in which something may happen.

Cite (http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/nouns1.htm#DATIVE)

So the phrase "contained in ordinances" is a descriptive claws that modifies "laws." As we can see, verse 15a clearly means "The law of the commandments contained in ordinances he rendered idle."

If Donald Trump spoke Koine Greek, "rendered idle" is the phrase he would use to fire someone. According to your Bible, when Jesus died, he turned to the Mosaic Law--[i]all of it--and said "You're fired."


When Christians, who are not under the law, agree with the truth of the law that murder is immoral and, when angry, they therefore refrain from committing murder, they are not putting themselves under the law and, by extension, under the law's curse. If you disagree with this then you have to believe that Christians must commit murder otherwise they would be obeying a part of the law and would be putting themselves under it's curse.

That's complete and total nonsense, not to mention a grotesque charicature of my position. One does not need to follow the Mosaic Law to agree that murder is wrong.


Galatians 3:10 is a curse for anyone who obeys the law for the purpose of attaining salvation as the context of the very next verse proves: "But that no one is *justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for 'the just shall live by faith.'" (Gal. 3:11) Using the law to create a peaceful society does not violate Gal. 3:10 because it would have nothing to do with attempting to attain salvation.

OK, I can agree with that, and I concede the point about placing people under a curse.


Additionally, the law was partially applied every time a new dispensation began. As Hebrews 7:12 says, "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." In every dispensational change only the ceremonial laws changed, never the moral laws.

The doctrine of "dispensation" as you are using it is highly questionable, but a full analysis would completely overwhelm this thread.


But the application of the Law will produce a peaceful society.

Tell me how "peaceful" society was, according to your scriptures, between the time of Moses and the Babylonian Captivity. :rolleyes: Yes, I know--you assert that if the laws are actually followed this time, as they were not then, then there will be peace.


That's because Rome provided no such opportunity. In democracies, however, the people are the government because the people decide who shall govern.

Ah, but there's a problem here, Jeffereson: if you agree with Bob Enyart's views, you don't want a democracy: you want a monarchy. With the way our government is set up now, you would have to do one of three things:
1: Get enough popular support to get a majority of voters in the US to agree to void the Constitution;
2: Rebel and overthrow the government by force; or
3: Secede.

Options 2 and 3 are not available options to Christians, unless they wish to violate Rom 13:2. Option 1 is available, but I somehow doubt you'll ever have that kind of support.


Orthotomounta perfectly makes my point.

Jefferson, do you know anything about Greek?


This "death" is not the government inflicting the death penalty via public stoning. It's natural death.

Yet this is one of the most popular support texts for the continuance of Mosaic Law against homosexuals. You can't have it both ways, Jefferson.


Just take, for example, fornication. The Bible says fornicators should get married. It doesn't say they should be executed.

Yes, I notice that you evidently have not yet read Post 164 (http://theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=765497&postcount=164).


There are good ministers of God's Law and bad ministers of God's Law. The Roman governing officials were bad ministers. But that does not negate the fact that they were indeed God's ministers according to Romans 13:4.

Nor does it negate the fact that our current government is, according to your scriptures, God's ministers today.


What standard do you think God will use to judge the difference between a good governing official and a bad one?

Jefferson, I don't think any of your Bible is an accurate depiction of God. If I were arguing based on my opinions or knowledge, I would be arguing from the point of view of the Bible's inauthenticity. What I'm doing in this thread is arguing that your Bible does not say the things you're trying to make it say.

Justin

Lighthouse
May 22nd, 2005, 09:14 PM
Not this time, Cal. I think you'll find that in this case, facts will work better than derision.

Well, what of it, people? You wish to institute a law that requires an unbetrothed virgin to wed one who rapes her? You wish to institute a law that requires the amputation of a woman's hand if she hit's a man below the belt? You wish to do these things because they're "good for society?"
No. The first law doesn't exist, and the second law was about lineage, and a symbolic law.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 22nd, 2005, 09:20 PM
No. The first law doesn't exist,

Lighthouse, it is said that an honest man who is in error, once his error has been demonstrated, can either remain honest or in error, but not both. Make a choice.


and the second law was about lineage, and a symbolic law.

Excuse me?

Lighthouse
May 22nd, 2005, 09:33 PM
You are the one in error, by misinterpreting the verse. And the second law was a symbolic law. Of course, women shouldn't be grabbing the crotches of men who are not their husband, and definitely shouldn't be doing it in order to bring harm. Of course, the law you are referencing is very specific, stating that a woman should not do that to a man who is in a fight with her husband. So what you specifically said isn't actually an OT law, anyway.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 22nd, 2005, 09:38 PM
You are the one in error, by misinterpreting the verse.

Oh, I am? Do you read Hebrew?


And the second law was a symbolic law.

Oh, so we have moral law and ceremonial law ... and now symbolic law?


Of course, women shouldn't be grabbing the crotches of men who are not their husband, and definitely shouldn't be doing it in order to bring harm. Of course, the law you are referencing is very specific, stating that a woman should not do that to a man who is in a fight with her husband. So what you specifically said isn't actually an OT law, anyway.

I did not specify to the extent you did, but the point comes across.

Lighthouse, an accusation that another person is misinterpreting is a fairly serious accusation. I will ask that you back up your accusation, or withdraw it.

Justin

Lighthouse
May 22nd, 2005, 10:10 PM
Symbolic=ceremonial. I just use the word symbolic.

And I still believe you are reading something that is not there.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 22nd, 2005, 10:28 PM
Symbolic=ceremonial. I just use the word symbolic.

OK, that makes sense. I still disagree with the division between "moral" and "ceremonial" law, but I at least understand where you're coming from.


And I still believe you are reading something that is not there.

Lighthouse, I honestly understand ... but the facts are the facts, and this particular fact is right there in black and white. Now, I know Turbo told y'all that it means something different (back in the NIV thread), but I also know what the Hebrew says.

Justin

Granite
May 23rd, 2005, 07:58 AM
You are the one in error, by misinterpreting the verse. And the second law was a symbolic law. Of course, women shouldn't be grabbing the crotches of men who are not their husband, and definitely shouldn't be doing it in order to bring harm. Of course, the law you are referencing is very specific, stating that a woman should not do that to a man who is in a fight with her husband. So what you specifically said isn't actually an OT law, anyway.

How is a law that appears in the Old Testament not an Old Testament law? :readthis:

Justin (Wiccan)
May 23rd, 2005, 08:02 AM
How is a law that appears in the Old Testament not an Old Testament law? :readthis:

Lighthouse was commenting that my paraphrase was not precise enough, not that the passage I was paraphrasing was not extant.

Granite
May 23rd, 2005, 08:11 AM
Lighthouse was commenting that my paraphrase was not precise enough, not that the passage I was paraphrasing was not extant.

Ah. Thanks for clarifying!

Lighthouse
May 23rd, 2005, 09:29 PM
OK, that makes sense. I still disagree with the division between "moral" and "ceremonial" law, but I at least understand where you're coming from.



Lighthouse, I honestly understand ... but the facts are the facts, and this particular fact is right there in black and white. Now, I know Turbo told y'all that it means something different (back in the NIV thread), but I also know what the Hebrew says.

Justin
Why is it that in this particular law there is no mention of whether she called out, or not? Why is it that in the one that makes it blatantly clear it's about rape, it discusses whether or not she called out for help?

Lighthouse
May 23rd, 2005, 09:32 PM
How is a law that appears in the Old Testament not an Old Testament law? :readthis:
He misquoted it. That's how. If you could read, maybe you would have caught that bit of information.:rolleyes:

Justin (Wiccan)
May 23rd, 2005, 09:54 PM
Why is it that in this particular law there is no mention of whether she called out, or not? Why is it that in the one that makes it blatantly clear it's about rape, it discusses whether or not she called out for help?

Because with an unbetrothed girl, it didn't matter--the passage in Deuteronomy does not differentiate between seduction and rape. Whether she was a willing parter in fornication or the victim of rape, there was no difference for her. Even R. J. Rushdooney recognizes this:


In the case of a single girl, unbetrothed, the decision rested in the hands of the girl’s father, and, in part, the girl. If the offender, cited simply as a seducer in Exodus 22:16, 17, and as a rapist in Deuteronomy 22:28, 29, is an acceptable husband, then he shall pay 50 shekels of silver as a dowry and marry her, without right of divorce “because he hath humbled her” (Deut. 22:29); but “If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins” (Ex. 22:17).

R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), pp. 396-397, emphasis added.

Justin

Lighthouse
May 24th, 2005, 01:57 AM
Rushdoony's a loony.

There is a major differentiation between the two laws. But you didn't listen to Turbo, so why should I expect you to listen to me?

Granite
May 24th, 2005, 06:37 AM
He misquoted it. That's how. If you could read, maybe you would have caught that bit of information.:rolleyes:

The law is very straightforward, Brandon, which is why guys like you have to spin your wheels justifying it.

Zakath
May 24th, 2005, 06:53 AM
Awww, c'mon Justin. You know how they hate it when you throw their own leaders' words back in their faces... :chuckle:

Granite
May 24th, 2005, 06:57 AM
Rushdoony's a loony.

There is a major differentiation between the two laws. But you didn't listen to Turbo, so why should I expect you to listen to me?

As if you know who Rushdoony was and have read a lick of the man's lifework.:rolleyes:

Justin (Wiccan)
May 24th, 2005, 08:08 AM
Rushdoony's a loony.

:shrug: Lighthouse, I happen to agree completely--but Rushdoony is also one of the "founding fathers" of the modern Theonomy movement.


There is a major differentiation between the two laws. But you didn't listen to Turbo, so why should I expect you to listen to me?

You're quite incorrect, Lighthouse--I did listen to Turbo, and I listened to you. But your opinions to not change the text, and the text is quite clear.

Jefferson
May 24th, 2005, 04:53 PM
That's two uses out of sixty-fiveThe context is the ultimate, deciding factor in how a questionable word should be translated. And the words, "they are found" decides this context.


The distinction here is not between verses 25-27 and 28-29, but between verses 23-24 and 25-27.Every section in this chapter is distinct from the others. Verse 22 deals with a married woman and fornication. Verses 23 and 24 deal with a betrothed woman and fornication. Verses 25-27 deal with a betrothed woman and rape. And verses 28-29 deal with a single woman and fornication.


That's just crap, Jefferson. This is the only place such a phrase appears in the entire chapter--there is no comparison.I must be missing your point. Are you actually saying just because "they are found" only appears once, those words should be ignored? You're kidding, right?

Justin (Wiccan)
May 24th, 2005, 05:50 PM
Hi, Jefferson,

I was beginning to get worried--then I checked your "Last Online" on your profile, and deduced that you must have been busy lately. I hope all is going well with you.


The context is the ultimate, deciding factor in how a questionable word should be translated. And the words, "they are found" decides this context.

Context is never "the ultimate, deciding factor." It is one factor in many.

However, in this case, interpreting "they were found" as "seduction is the only possible translation" is not context--it is eisegesis, pure and simple. It is your interpretation that "it couldn't possibly mean rape," because you disagree with the analysis. :shrug: So be it--you disagree. But you are wrong:

* Maimonides 1195: 4:1:2
Who is a violator? A violator has intercourse with the victim against her will . . . he must be compelled to consent to marriage; he must consummate the marriage and pay the fine as well.

And I've already cited Rushdoony.


I must be missing your point. Are you actually saying just because "they are found" only appears once, those words should be ignored? You're kidding, right?

I am saying "they are found" bears no particular weight in this passage. "They are found" does not make a distinction between rape or seduction.

Justin

Turbo
May 24th, 2005, 06:17 PM
"If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. Exodus 22:16 (NIV)

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?


It should be noted that the only group of people who make this argument (that I am aware of) are the folks who are specifically opposed to the NIV. It should be noted that many people (including myself) are specifically opposed to the NIV because of its mistranslation of this Deuteronomy 22 passage.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 24th, 2005, 06:58 PM
"If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. Exodus 22:16 (NIV)

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Sounds close, but there are notable differences. Let's look at the two passages together.

Ex 22:16-17, KJV
16And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
17If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

Deut 22:28-29, KJV
28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

I can't set up a table here to do a side-by-side, but let's compare.
* "Entice" (pathah)
This means simply to "persuade, seduce, or deceive." (Cite (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/6/1116982212-3340.html))

* "lay hold on" (taphas)
Out of the 65 times that taphal is used, 63 of these times bear a meaning of "seize or capture by force." Unless one has some very unusual ideas on foreplay, one does not "seize or capture by force" a lover. (Cite (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/8/1116981586-8583.html))

* "humbled ('anah)
This is exactly the same word used of Shechem's treatement of Dinah--there it is translated "defiled." (Cite (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/6/1116981779-6816.html))

But the language is not the only notable thing--there was also a difference in the consequences to the man.
* Of the Seducer, the father had the authority to permit or deny the marriage. Additionally, at no point does the Exodus passage forbid a later divorce.
* Of the Defiler, the marriage is unavoidable--even the father may not deny the marriage. Additionally, divorce is not permitted.

Turbo, if you understand enough Hebrew to use a Strong's concordance without grave difficulty, then the evidence is right there for you. If you do not understand the Hebrew, but are simply objecting to the English translation, then you are guilty of what is called "Eisegeisis"--in other words, you're reading into the Law what you want to be there, rather than what is actually there.

Justin

Edited to add:


It should be noted that many people (including myself) are specifically opposed to the NIV because of its mistranslation of this Deuteronomy 22 passage.

Does walking through the Hebrew and discovering that this was not a mistranslation change your opinion of the NIV any?

Jefferson
May 24th, 2005, 09:23 PM
Hi, Jefferson,

I was beginning to get worried--then I checked your "Last Online" on your profile, and deduced that you must have been busy lately. I hope all is going well with you.My engaging in debates only about once every 2 to 3 days is par for me. Notice my post per day count (2.7) compared to your 30+. I don't know how you find the time, but I envy you.


* Maimonides 1195: 4:1:2
Who is a violator? A violator has intercourse with the victim against her will . . . he must be compelled to consent to marriage; he must consummate the marriage and pay the fine as well.

And I've already cited Rushdoony.Maimonides and Rushdoony have the right to disagree with me.


I am saying "they are found" bears no particular weight in this passage. "They are found" does not make a distinction between rape or seduction.God could have chosen to inspire the words, "he was found" but He deliberately chose not to because it would not have communicated the meaning He wanted.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 24th, 2005, 09:31 PM
My engaging in debates only about once every 2 to 3 days is par for me. Notice my post per day count (2.7) compared to your 30+.

I should have thought about that.


I don't know how you find the time, but I envy you.

Ah, if you knew I don't think you'd be so envious, my friend. I'm disabled. No biggie ... just something I deal with.

Justin

Justin (Wiccan)
May 24th, 2005, 09:40 PM
Maimonides and Rushdoony have the right to disagree with me.

Ah, but what happens if they're right and you're wrong?

Jefferson, I walked through the Hebrew with Turbo (in Post 194 (http://theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=769324&postcount=194))--and as I told him, if you have enough Hebrew to use a Strong's Concordance and Lexicon, you can read it as clearly as I can. (The "Cite" links in my post go to Strong's on blueletterbible.com)


God could have chosen to inspire the words, "he was found" but He deliberately chose not to because it would not have communicated the meaning He wanted.

And do you know so well the mind of God as to know why he chose one set of words over another? Or is it simply that you cannot accept the possibility of error on your part?

Go read the Hebrew, Jefferson. When you come back from that, we'll discuss it further, if you wish.

Turbo
May 25th, 2005, 03:50 PM
Sounds close, but there are notable differences. Let's look at the two passages together.

Ex 22:16-17, KJV
16And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
17If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

Deut 22:28-29, KJV
28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

I can't set up a table here to do a side-by-side, but let's compare.
* "Entice" (pathah)
This means simply to "persuade, seduce, or deceive." (Cite)

* "lay hold on" (taphas)
Out of the 65 times that taphal is used, 63 of these times bear a meaning of "seize or capture by force." Unless one has some very unusual ideas on foreplay, one does not "seize or capture by force" a lover. (Cite)Many Bibles translate the word "seize" in Deut. 22, and I have no problem with that.

Jim swept Betty off her feet.

Did Jim attack Betty? Did he knock her to the ground? Feel free to look up the definition of each word while considering your answer.


Why is it that in the case where the betrothed virgin is raped, God used words like "forced" and "cried out", but those terms are absent in the case of the unbetrothed virgin?

What does a rape victim have to hide, anyway? they are found out? In the earlier example, it is made clear that the woman was the victim of a crime, and not guilty:

"But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her. Deuteronomy 22:25-27





* "humbled ('anah)
This is exactly the same word used of Shechem's treatement of Dinah--there it is translated "defiled." (Cite)

But the language is not the only notable thing--there was also a difference in the consequences to the man.
* Of the Seducer, the father had the authority to permit or deny the marriage. Additionally, at no point does the Exodus passage forbid a later divorce.
* Of the Defiler, the marriage is unavoidable--even the father may not deny the marriage. Additionally, divorce is not permitted.So dad is allowed to veto the marriage if he's her boyfriend, but if he's a violent criminal, dad gets no say. Yeah, that makes so much sense. :freak:

Who needs courtship? Just find some virgin you like and rape her. Then you'll get to marry her, no questions asked. Give me a break!


Turbo, if you understand enough Hebrew to use a Strong's concordance without grave difficulty, then the evidence is right there for you.Same to you, but I would suggest considering the context of the words within the chapter the rest of the Bible as well.


If you do not understand the Hebrew, but are simply objecting to the English translation, then you are guilty of what is called "Eisegeisis"--in other words, you're reading into the Law what you want to be there, rather than what is actually there.
Well, you are the one who says a word that typically means "seizes" should be translated as "rapes."



Does walking through the Hebrew and discovering that this was not a mistranslation change your opinion of the NIV any?Nice leading question. :rolleyes: You haven't shown me anything that I haven't seen before. I still recognize this is a mistranslation, and I will oppose the NIV so long as that mistranslation is present.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 25th, 2005, 04:48 PM
Many Bibles translate the word "seize" in Deut. 22, and I have no problem with that.

Jim swept Betty off her feet.

Did Jim attack Betty? Did he knock her to the ground? Feel free to look up the definition of each word while considering your answer.

Turbo, if you honestly believe that you can correct the Hebrew with the English, then you're falling into precisely the same error that you condemn the JWs for when they translate John 1:1 as "And the Word was a God." The meaning of taphas is not "swept off her feet," but to seize by force--indeed, the same word is used when describing seizing an enemy or an enemy city.


Why is it that in the case where the betrothed virgin is raped, God used words like "forced" and "cried out", but those terms are absent in the case of the unbetrothed virgin?

Why is it that God didn't write the passage in English? I neither know, nor care, Turbo. I do know what the passage says.


What does a rape victim have to hide, anyway? they are found out? In the earlier example, it is made clear that the woman was the victim of a crime, and not guilty:

"But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her. Deuteronomy 22:25-27

Turbo, that's immaterial to the translation of this verse.


So dad is allowed to veto the marriage if he's her boyfriend, but if he's a violent criminal, dad gets no say. Yeah, that makes so much sense. :freak:

I'm not at all concerned with whether or not you agree with it, Turbo. The Mosaic Law was not made for our twenty-first century sensibilities.


Who needs courtship? Just find some virgin you like and rape her. Then you'll get to marry her, no questions asked. Give me a break!

That was the Law. If you disagree with that conclusion, then you are left with no Law whatsoever against the rape of an unbetrothed virgin. No where else in the Bible is there a law discussing the rape of an unbetrothed virgin--the closest thing you have is the subterfuge of Simeon and Levi. While I consider that the sons of Jacob acted to be quite appropriate, this is a return to unregulated vigilantism.


Same to you, but I would suggest considering the context of the words within the chapter the rest of the Bible as well.

Oh, but I am--as well as the context of the history.


Well, you are the one who says a word that typically means "seizes" should be translated as "rapes."

I tell you what--if you don't believe me, take that passage to any Rabbi. Ask them to translate it for you. Ask them if "rape" is a suitable translation.


Nice leading question. :rolleyes: You haven't shown me anything that I haven't seen before. I still recognize this is a mistranslation, and I will oppose the NIV so long as that mistranslation is present.

It is said that an honest man who is in error, when introduced to his error, may remain only one of the two. Which shall you choose--your preferred "gentle and kind" translation, or what the Hebrew actually says.

Skeptic
May 26th, 2005, 11:55 AM
Coersion is certainly out of the question. Oh yeah?


Further your hypothical fails to take into consideration the society that a Biblical system would create. It would be impossible to completely, or even mostly shield one's self or one's children from the Biblical worldview. The very fabric of the society would have Biblical principles woven throughout. Sounds like institutionalized government coercion to me.

Skeptic
May 26th, 2005, 12:21 PM
If the Christian Right were to ever successfully institute a theonomy in America, I would strongly support doing whatever it takes to overthrow such a government. Perhaps, the only thing that could prevent centuries of Christian rule would be a violent overthrow. This is because Christianity, as is evidenced by history, is such an insidiously coercive cult. Once such a cult becomes intimately entangled with government, its power to coerce becomes amplified and efforts to challenge the resulting institutionalized religious dogma becomes extremely difficult.

Are we seeing the beginnings of such a theonomy today? Read this (http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/washpost/20050526/pl_washpost/gop_tilting_balance_of_power_to_the_right).

justchristian
May 26th, 2005, 12:32 PM
I agree the idea of modern theonomy is dangerous. I think the proof history (*cough*catholics*cough*), the vast differences Christians hold as truth, and the lack of a direct interaction with God (like the isrealites had) all kinda make a theonomy a really really bad idea.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 26th, 2005, 12:34 PM
If the Christian Right were to ever successfully institute a theonomy in America, I would strongly support doing whatever it takes to overthrow such a government. Perhaps, the only thing that could prevent centuries of Christian rule would be a violent overthrow. This is because Christianity, as is evidenced by history, is such an insidiously coercive cult. Once such a cult becomes intimately entangled with government, its power to coerce becomes amplified and efforts to challenge the resulting institutionalized religious dogma becomes extremely difficult.

Are we seeing the beginnings of such a theonomy today? Read this (http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/washpost/20050526/pl_washpost/gop_tilting_balance_of_power_to_the_right).

First and foremost, I'm more than a little leery of accepting the Post's ability to be objective when discussing either conservative politics in general, or the GOP in particular.

Secondly, I do not believe that a theonomy is actually going to occur. One thing that I am concerned about is that some Christians will partially withdraw from society--citing the "evils" of the majority--then complain about being "disenfranchised." I want these people to see that their "exile" is of their own choice.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 26th, 2005, 12:35 PM
Excuse me--"of their own choice" should actually read "self-imposed."

Granite
May 26th, 2005, 12:37 PM
I can see some kind of abuse happening--worked by Christians but not in the name of Christianity.

justchristian
May 26th, 2005, 12:41 PM
Oh you can bet it'll be in the name of Christianity, I weep when I think of all the horrors done in the name of Christianity. I just doubt it'll be done by Christians (those who actually follow Christ).

Justin (Wiccan)
May 26th, 2005, 12:46 PM
Oh you can bet it'll be in the name of Christianity, I weep when I think of all the horrors done in the name of Christianity. I just doubt it'll be done by Christians (those who actually follow Christ).

Justchristian, think for a moment--if you can--just how flimsy and paltry such a distinction will be to those on our side of the fence. Imagine for while just how meaningless such words would have been to the millions of people who have died under one variant or another of "Deus Volent!" Contemplate, if you will, the complete and utter uselessness of your statement to the people whose blood was shed in the name of Jesus Christ.

If you can capture that concept in your mind, then you may possibly see why even the thought of a Christian theonomy is not only distasteful, it is repugnant. Indeed, the only people who should disagree with it more vehemently than non-Christians would be those who follow Christ.

Clete
May 26th, 2005, 12:57 PM
Justchristian, think for a moment--if you can--just how flimsy and paltry such a distinction will be to those on our side of the fence. Imagine for while just how meaningless such words would have been to the millions of people who have died under one variant or another of "Deus Volent!" Contemplate, if you will, the complete and utter uselessness of your statement to the people whose blood was shed in the name of Jesus Christ.

If you can capture that concept in your mind, then you may possibly see why even the thought of a Christian theonomy is not only distasteful, it is repugnant. Indeed, the only people who should disagree with it more vehemently than non-Christians would be those who follow Christ.

Historical revisionism at its finest. Your public school teachers would be proud.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 26th, 2005, 01:05 PM
Historical revisionism at its finest. Your public school teachers would be proud.

Substantiate your lie or withdraw it.

justchristian
May 26th, 2005, 01:10 PM
Justchristian, think for a moment--if you can--just how flimsy and paltry such a distinction will be to those on our side of the fence. Imagine for while just how meaningless such words would have been to the millions of people who have died under one variant or another of "Deus Volent!" Contemplate, if you will, the complete and utter uselessness of your statement to the people whose blood was shed in the name of Jesus Christ.

If you can capture that concept in your mind, then you may possibly see why even the thought of a Christian theonomy is not only distasteful, it is repugnant. Indeed, the only people who should disagree with it more vehemently than non-Christians would be those who follow Christ.

I am outraged. And what distinction? You make the same one at the end. Its a frightening image that chills my soul of a "Christian America" led by right wing fanatics like some of those I read on TOL. Killing homosexuals, adulterers, theives, idolaters(any other religion). Mabye my liberal temperance came across to strong prior but make no mistake - "Christians" who do such horrors in the name of Christ aren't Christians. They hide behind a law they know back and forth but still somehow miss the point. But I want to encourage you not to judge all Christians by their measure. Frankly they abuse the Word of God, and are more Facist than Christian.

Granite
May 26th, 2005, 01:11 PM
Historical revisionism at its finest. Your public school teachers would be proud.

Nothing he said was untrue: abuse has been committed in the name of Christ. The motivation behind those responsible for the atrocities means nothing or little to the victims.

Clete
May 26th, 2005, 01:14 PM
Practically every advance society has ever made was made at the hands of Christians, particularly scientific advancement, especially in the fields of medicine and chemestry. In short, millions more are alive today and have a significantly better standard of life than they would have had without the influence of Christian civilization.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Your calling me a liar is laughable. :chuckle:

Clete
May 26th, 2005, 01:16 PM
I am outraged. And what distinction? You make the same one at the end. Its a frightening image that chills my soul of a "Christian America" led by right wing fanatics like some of those I read on TOL. Killing homosexuals, adulterers, theives, idolaters(any other religion). Mabye my liberal temperance came across to strong prior but make no mistake - "Christians" who do such horrors in the name of Christ aren't Christians. They hide behind a law they know back and forth but still somehow miss the point. But I want to encourage you not to judge all Christians by their measure. Frankly they abuse the Word of God, and are more Facist than Christian.

It is you who has the unchristian and unjust position on this. God is way more "right-wing" than you are. I recommend getting on His side of things and stop worrying about whether everyone thinks its a good idea.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Justin (Wiccan)
May 26th, 2005, 01:17 PM
I am outraged. And what distinction?

The distinction between those who claim to be Christians and propose theonomy, and the ones who follow Christ, and --to the best of my logic and understanding--should resist such an abomination.


"Christians" who do such horrors in the name of Christ aren't Christians.


But I want to encourage you not to judge all Christians by their measure. Frankly they abuse the Word of God, and are more Facist than Christian.

justchristian, we agree on these points. I was not attempting to put those who actually follow Christ in the same corral with the theonomists--indeed, on some of the other forums I participate in, I spend a great deal of time defending Christians from the accusations of non-Christians (especially Pagans, but I feel I have some degree of responsibility there) who try to associate the two.

If I said anything to make you think that I was accusing the followers of Christ of this kind of atrocity, then please accept my profoundest apologies for not speaking clearly. Nothing could be further from my intent.

Justin

Justin (Wiccan)
May 26th, 2005, 01:21 PM
Practically every advance society has ever made was made at the hands of Christians, particularly scientific advancement, especially in the fields of medicine and chemestry. In short, millions more are alive today and have a significantly better standard of life than they would have had without the influence of Christian civilization.

Clete, saving a thousand lives does not pay for one single life taken. And if you even try to tell me that no one has ever been unjustly killed "in Jesus' name," I'll call you a liar again.


P.S. Your calling me a liar is laughable. :chuckle:

If the shoe fits, wear it. By the way--I didn't go to public schools. :D

Granite
May 26th, 2005, 01:25 PM
Practically every advance society has ever made was made at the hands of Christians, particularly scientific advancement, especially in the fields of medicine and chemestry. In short, millions more are alive today and have a significantly better standard of life than they would have had without the influence of Christian civilization.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Your calling me a liar is laughable. :chuckle:

So what? The Soviets got Sputnik into space and Hitler built the autobahn.

Clete
May 26th, 2005, 01:49 PM
Clete, saving a thousand lives does not pay for one single life taken.
I never suggested otherwise. It is you who are making Christians out to be villians when you know that they are not, and yes, I do mean "know".


And if you even try to tell me that no one has ever been unjustly killed "in Jesus' name," I'll call you a liar again.
And I'll call you hypocrite for having done so.


If the shoe fits, wear it. By the way--I didn't go to public schools. :D
Couldn't tell by reading this thread, that's for sure.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Justin (Wiccan)
May 26th, 2005, 01:52 PM
I never suggested otherwise. It is you who are making Christians out to be villians when you know that they are not, and yes, I do mean "know".

Do you always have problems with reading comprehension, or do you save it for special occasions. I am not making "Christians" out to be villains, for Christians follow Christ, and obey Him. I am, however, asserting that a lot of folks who claimed to be Christian have done a lot of things that if Jesus was around, he'd have been absolutely horrified with.


And I'll call you hypocrite for having done so.

You'd better be able to back it up, or I'll call you on that lie, as well.


Couldn't tell by reading this thread, that's for sure.

Hey, I'm not the one with the reading problem. But I'm sure there are remedial programs in your area--maybe you should look one up?

Clete
May 26th, 2005, 01:52 PM
So what? The Soviets got Sputnik into space and Hitler built the autobahn.
The Soviets stole their space technology from the west (namely the United States) and Hitler built a road! I'm so impressed! (I'd be even more impressed if this post was even on point.)

Resting in Him,
Clete

justchristian
May 26th, 2005, 01:58 PM
The Soviets stole their space technology from the west (namely the United States) and Hitler built a road! I'm so impressed! (I'd be even more impressed if this post was even on point.)

Resting in Him,
Clete

Your kidding right. The point granite made was civilized advancement is hardly isolated to Christianity - and is and quite often associated with extreme facist or communist ideals. Completely vaild point historically. Kudos Granite.

Clete
May 26th, 2005, 02:10 PM
Your kidding right. The point granite made was civilized advancement is hardly isolated to Christianity - and is and quite often associated with extreme facist or communist ideals. Completely vaild point historically. Kudos Granite.
This is an outright lie! The Soviets are hardly associated with anything except starving their people to death or otherwise killing millions of them and figuring out clever ways to spy on the west and take credit for our advancements. You're delusional if you think anything else happened of any significance.
And Hitler was in power for less than 20 years, he can hardly be credited for anything other than advancements in genocide.
And Granite is a troll and he knows it. He wouldn't know a substantive argument if it bit him is the butt.

Resting in Him,
:Clete:

justchristian
May 26th, 2005, 02:25 PM
Egypt, Rome, Greece, China, Germany - all made significant advancements in civilization outside Christianity. Just becasue the Church had a habit of crushing or distancing themselves from any other civilization and takes up a majority of recetn recorded history doesnt mean they're the only ones to make a dent in the advancement of civilization.

Gerald
May 26th, 2005, 02:28 PM
The Soviets stole their space technology from the west (namely the United States)...I trust you have a source you can cite to back that up?

Granite
May 26th, 2005, 02:30 PM
The Soviets stole their space technology from the west (namely the United States) and Hitler built a road! I'm so impressed! (I'd be even more impressed if this post was even on point.)

Resting in Him,
Clete

Others have said it for me but the point remains: civilization can advance and accomplish plenty with or without religion.

Gerald
May 26th, 2005, 02:42 PM
Others have said it for me but the point remains: civilization can advance and accomplish plenty with or without religion.I think the point that Clete misses is that, even though Christians have contributed to technological advancement, the fact that they were Christians is irrelevant; it isn't like this or that technological advance couldn't be initiated by a non-Christian.

Cases in point: the heathen Arabs invented algebra; the pagan Greeks developed trigonometry; the heathen Chinese were printing with movable type long before the printing press appeared in Europe.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 27th, 2005, 11:22 AM
So we're still waiting on a few loose ends.

TurboPost 198 (http://theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=770351&postcount=198)) disagrees with my translation of the Hebrew, and asserts that Deut 22:28-29 does not speak of the rape of an unbetrothed virgin. Turbo, have you had a chance to follow up on this?

Jefferson asserts (Post 172 (http://theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=766942&postcount=172)) that the use of the present tense in I Tim 1:8-9 means that the law is for today. Jefferson, have you had a chance to review my Greek, and do you have any response to the fact that while it is present tense, it is singular in person?


Justin

Granite
May 27th, 2005, 11:40 AM
I think the point that Clete misses is that, even though Christians have contributed to technological advancement, the fact that they were Christians is irrelevant; it isn't like this or that technological advance couldn't be initiated by a non-Christian.

Cases in point: the heathen Arabs invented algebra; the pagan Greeks developed trigonometry; the heathen Chinese were printing with movable type long before the printing press appeared in Europe.

We don't talk about that.:noid:

beefalobilly
May 27th, 2005, 01:50 PM
hitler helped set in motion the invention of one of my favorite cars, the classic VW bug ;)

Jefferson
May 27th, 2005, 03:39 PM
Justin:

Regarding First Timothy 1:8-11…”But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.” – you wrote:


The author of this epistle says absolutely nothing about imposing this law from without--indeed, this passage indicates quite strongly that it must be the decision of the individual to "lawfully make use of it.You got it exactly backwards. The “one” who uses the law in verse 8 is a believer. But verse 9 says he is not supposed to use the law for himself (“the law is not made for a righteous person”). So who is the Christian commanded to use the law for? The rest of the verse answers the question.


According to your doctrine, this is the kind of behavioral change that comes over a person regenerated by the blood of Jesus Christ, not constrained by outside enforcement.Christians follow the morality of the Bible out of love for their neighbors and their love for God. This does not negate the fact that the behavior of unbelievers is indeed constrained by law. If there were no laws (or punishments) against robbing banks, bank robbers would be having a field day. But the incidence of bank robbing is lower because of laws against that behavior. So behavior change is constrained by outside enforcement.


At no time did I make such a claim [that moral truth changes from one culture to another]. I do claim that your Bible is a man-made understanding of absolute moral truth, but that is irrelevant to this thread.But you take a blind leap of faith that the Bible is man-made. Why should I be forced to live under laws created from a foundation of your blind leap of faith?


Paul does not say that Christ abolished the ceremonial law--he abolished the law of commandments.He abolished the law of commandments for Christians. Nonchristians, however, will be judged by the law. According to the Bible, what other standard of judging them could there possibly be?


So the phrase "contained in ordinances" is a descriptive claws that modifies "laws." As we can see, verse 15a clearly means "The law of the commandments contained in ordinances he rendered idle."If Paul meant what you claim, he would have simply written that Christ “abolished…the law of commandments” and Paul would have simply left out the words “contained in ordinances.”


That's complete and total nonsense, not to mention a grotesque charicature of my position. One does not need to follow the Mosaic Law to agree that murder is wrong.Oh? Ever hear of Terri Schaivo?


Tell me how "peaceful" society was, according to your scriptures, between the time of Moses and the Babylonian Captivity.Explain how it wasn’t peaceful.


Ah, but there's a problem here, Jeffereson: if you agree with Bob Enyart's views, you don't want a democracy: you want a monarchy. With the way our government is set up now, you would have to do one of three things:
1: Get enough popular support to get a majority of voters in the US to agree to void the Constitution;
2: Rebel and overthrow the government by force; or
3: Secede.

Options 2 and 3 are not available options to Christians, unless they wish to violate Rom 13:2. Option 1 is available, but I somehow doubt you'll ever have that kind of support.You didn’t list the most likely scenario. Option # 4: The nation collapses under its own massive, socialistic, bureaucratic dead weight like the former Soviet Union. We are fast approaching that day.


Jefferson, do you know anything about Greek?I don’t see how the definition of Orthotomounta, which you provided, contradicts my point.


Yet this is one of the most popular support texts for the continuance of Mosaic Law against homosexuals. You can't have it both ways, Jefferson.The fact that this verse points out that all sins result in physical death does not negate the fact that some of those sins are so vile that they require a public execution. By analogy, if you made the statement that all alcoholics die younger than they otherwise would if they lived a healthy lifestyle, does that give me the right to accuse you of believing that no alcoholics are ever jailed for public drunkenness or arrested for drunk driving? Of course not. You simply were not discussing public policy. You were discussing health. Same thing with this passage. Paul was simply not discussing man’s theonomic application of the law in Romans 1. In fact, verse 32 says exactly what he was talking about: “Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death.” You see? It’s God’s judgment of natural death which is being discussed here. Paul doesn’t get to man’s judgment of extreme sin until chapter 13 with God’s ministers bearing not the sword in vain.


Nor does it negate the fact that our current government is, according to your scriptures, God's ministers today.True, but that fact does not mean God approves of every godless law they make and enforce. They will all have to stand before Him to give an account of their lives. I can’t wait for that event. I’m going to be one of the Event Staff (http://www.cafepress.com/tolstore.13513609).


Jefferson, I don't think any of your Bible is an accurate depiction of God. If I were arguing based on my opinions or knowledge, I would be arguing from the point of view of the Bible's inauthenticity. What I'm doing in this thread is arguing that your Bible does not say the things you're trying to make it say.Then let me rephrase the question: What standard does the Bible say God will use to judge the difference between a good governing official and a bad one according to Revelation 20:12,13? – “And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.”

Lighthouse
May 28th, 2005, 01:43 AM
hitler helped set in motion the invention of one of my favorite cars, the classic VW bug ;)
Neo-Nazi!:sozo2:










j/k:eek:

Justin (Wiccan)
May 28th, 2005, 07:50 AM
Hi, Jefferson,

I'm going to be running some errands today, but I'll get back to this later this evening.

Be well.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 29th, 2005, 11:45 AM
Justin:

Regarding First Timothy 1:8-11…”But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.” – you wrote:

You got it exactly backwards. The “one” who uses the law in verse 8 is a believer. But verse 9 says he is not supposed to use the law for himself (“the law is not made for a righteous person”). So who is the Christian commanded to use the law for? The rest of the verse answers the question.


So, in other words, you're saying that as a believer, you are no longer a sinner?


Christians follow the morality of the Bible out of love for their neighbors and their love for God. This does not negate the fact that the behavior of unbelievers is indeed constrained by law. If there were no laws (or punishments) against robbing banks, bank robbers would be having a field day. But the incidence of bank robbing is lower because of laws against that behavior. So behavior change is constrained by outside enforcement.

I never claimed that behavior change cannot be constrained--my claim is that this passage does not justify the claim that it is "Christian duty" to impose such law.


But you take a blind leap of faith that the Bible is man-made. Why should I be forced to live under laws created from a foundation of your blind leap of faith?

Incorrect on two counts.
1: My assertion that the Bible is man-made is not a blind leap of faith, but the results of yeas of study--study that I began as a Christian. One of my last acts as a Christian was the realization that I could no longer claim that the Bible was God's handiwork.
2: I am not stating that you should be forced to live under laws that are based in the claim that the Bible is man-made--I am asserting that all of us live under laws that do not take one religion as more valuable or "correct" than another. If this board were dedicated to the promulgation of Wiccan Craft Law as the "law of the land," I would protest every bit as vigorously as I do now. Theonomy--whether Wiccan or Christian--is not an acceptable or workable basis for US laws.


He abolished the law of commandments for Christians. Nonchristians, however, will be judged by the law. According to the Bible, what other standard of judging them could there possibly be?

According to your scriptures, such "judging" will occur after death.


If Paul meant what you claim, he would have simply written that Christ “abolished…the law of commandments” and Paul would have simply left out the words “contained in ordinances.”

Incorrect. Paul could have done so, but did not.


Oh? Ever hear of Terri Schaivo?

Do you suppose it is only certain Christians who feel that the Schiavo case was wrong?


Explain how it wasn’t peaceful.

Based on the archaeology, the late Bronze Age was one of frequent war.


You didn’t list the most likely scenario. Option # 4: The nation collapses under its own massive, socialistic, bureaucratic dead weight like the former Soviet Union. We are fast approaching that day.

:shrug: That is certainly your opinion ... if that occurs, you still will not be able to impose your will without military force.


I don’t see how the definition of Orthotomounta, which you provided, contradicts my point.

Because you're using the ambiguity of the English to obscure the Greek. Orthotomounta means to "cut straight"--as in a road through the mountains. Orthotomounta does not mean "cut straight" as in dividing a parcel of land. The reference is to proper handling and understanding of the law, not in "dividing" it into ceremonial and moral codes.


Paul was simply not discussing man’s theonomic application of the law in Romans 1.

Oddly enough, (despite the distorted interpretation of some theonomists) Paul never speaks of theonomy at all. :think:


True, but that fact does not mean God approves of every godless law they make and enforce. They will all have to stand before Him to give an account of their lives.

I never asserted that your scripture says He does. However, your scripture does say
"The current governments set the law for you. Obey them." Now, if we were already in a Theonomic government that had been established peacefully (i.e. not in a rebellion), your case would certainly be made. As it currently stands--we do not.


I can’t wait for that event. I’m going to be one of the Event Staff (http://www.cafepress.com/tolstore.13513609).

Quite an ego boost for you, no doubt. :rolleyes:


Then let me rephrase the question: What standard does the Bible say God will use to judge the difference between a good governing official and a bad one according to Revelation 20:12,13? – “And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.”

As it answers your own question, I will let your statement stand. However, again you will notice--this judgement occurrs on judgement day, not while we live on earth.

Justin

Clete
May 29th, 2005, 12:32 PM
Oddly enough, (despite the distorted interpretation of some theonomists) Paul never speaks of theonomy at all. :think:
Well this isn't entirely true. He does speak of those in authority not bearing the sword in vain and he endorses the death penalty while he himself is on trial and so on. But be that as it may, this statement of yours misses the point, and it is just this sort of argument that causes me to avoid arguing for something so vaguely defined as "theonomy".
He's the point. There are laws which are just and there are laws that are not. You agree, I assume, that a country should be governed by the rule of law, do you not? And so the question simply becomes, "What laws should be enforced and why?"; or "Which laws are just and why"?
The best you can do to answer this question is one derivation or another of "Whatever the majority of the people say." The problem with that is that the majority of people are evil and so no matter how good things start off, they will always denigrate the law until it is completely corrupt and unjust.
I, on the other hand say that God is smarter than we are and that His law works and should be followed. Every time His law has been tried, to whatever extent it was applied, the nation was blessed and flourished. When they turned from His law, they suffered and eventually perished. This country is no exception, nor will it be.

Resting in Him,
Clete

elected4ever
May 29th, 2005, 02:44 PM
I think this whole discussion is unproductive. Every child of God is a member of a theonomy and it seems not to make much difference. As lone as we are here on this planet and in the country we are in, we are in all essence foreigners and have no right to dictate the law of any country. When we do, as has been pointed out before, that government turns tyrannical. Why? Because earthly governments of what ever description are run by mortal men. The best we can hope for is to have influence on the governments that do exist. While we may not like the laws that do exist we are not obligated to honor such laws in violation of the conduct expected of us in out native country. Even in this foreign land we are to honor our King. Influence in governance and actual governance are two separate issues We are to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves that the name of the Lord shell be well spoken of in the land.

Justin (Wiccan)
May 29th, 2005, 03:49 PM
Well this isn't entirely true. He does speak of those in authority not bearing the sword in vain and he endorses the death penalty while he himself is on trial and so on.

Eh ... not Theonomy by the modern definition per se, but the point is well taken.


But be that as it may, this statement of yours misses the point, and it is just this sort of argument that causes me to avoid arguing for something so vaguely defined as "theonomy".
He's the point. There are laws which are just and there are laws that are not. You agree, I assume, that a country should be governed by the rule of law, do you not? And so the question simply becomes, "What laws should be enforced and why?"; or "Which laws are just and why"?
The best you can do to answer this question is one derivation or another of "Whatever the majority of the people say." The problem with that is that the majority of people are evil and so no matter how good things start off, they will always denigrate the law until it is completely corrupt and unjust.
I, on the other hand say that God is smarter than we are and that His law works and should be followed. Every time His law has been tried, to whatever extent it was applied, the nation was blessed and flourished. When they turned from His law, they suffered and eventually perished. This country is no exception, nor will it be.

Clete, this is probably the first time you've made a response to me that was not a sarcastic put-down. First and foremost, I wanted to thank you for that.

Secondly I wish to list my disagreements with the above post.

.....

Thus concludes my list. ;)

You have the belief that laws based on the Mosaic criminal code are the best for the country--actually, I do disagree somewhat, but I have complete and total respect for your beliefs in that regard. I will not attempt to disuade you of that belief at this time.

On the other hand, there are those theonomists (however one defines the term) who state that it is "Christian duty" to institute "God's Laws" as part of a program to hasten the Second Coming--this belief is frequently called Dominion Theology.

I've learned much--though I will admit that I've not always acknowledged what I've learned at the time of the post. However, I could not let this post go without acknowledging the new understanding.

Thank you, Clete.

billwald
May 29th, 2005, 04:11 PM
Regarding First Timothy 1:8-11…”But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.”

The theonomists I have read such as Gary North teach that they will impose the Mosiac Covenant upon non-believers but that it doesn't apply to themselves because they - and no one else "has" the Holy Spirit.

The Gnostics would say that the Mosiac Covenant only applies to physical people, not spitirual people. Theonomists = Gnostics. <G>

Jefferson
May 30th, 2005, 10:37 PM
So, in other words, you're saying that as a believer, you are no longer a sinner?Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Notice I am not saying I never commit immoral acts as defined by the Bible.

Did I just contradict myself? Nope. Here's why: Paul said in Romans 7:15-20 - "For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me."

Notice Paul purposely avoids labeling his immoral acts as "sin." He said he committed "what I hate" and "the evil." Sin is the transgressing of the law according to First John 3:4, but Paul taught that Christians are no longer under the law. It's like driving 100 miles per hour through a residential neighborhood where there are no speed limit signs. It's immoral but it's not illegal.


I never claimed that behavior change cannot be constrained--my claim is that this passage does not justify the claim that it is "Christian duty" to impose such law.Do you actually believe that no Christian should be allowed to vote? Every time I enter a voting booth I vote for whatever congressman I believe will attempt to legislate Biblical morality more than any other candidate. Do you think I should be prevented from doing that? Who should I vote for, someone else's views other than my own? Since congressmen make laws, do you think all Christian congressmen should be forced to resign? What standard should Christian congressmen use when deciding what laws are moral and what laws are immoral, someone else's standard other than their own Bible-based standard?


My assertion that the Bible is man-made is not a blind leap of faith, but the results of years of study--study that I began as a Christian. One of my last acts as a Christian was the realization that I could no longer claim that the Bible was God's handiwork.First, in post # 173 you said, " I do claim that your Bible is a man-made understanding of absolute moral truth," The word "claim" is a faith-based word. People don't "claim" that 2+2=4.

Secondly, I could also just as easily say my assertion that the Bible is inspired is not a blind leap of faith, but the results of years of study--study that I began as a nonchristian. One of my last acts as a nonchristian was the realization that I could no longer claim that the Bible was not God's handiwork.


I am not stating that you should be forced to live under laws that are based in the claim that the Bible is man-made--I am asserting that all of us live under laws that do not take one religion as more valuable or "correct" than another.We do but we shouldn't. The puritans used to have Bible verses listed after the laws in the books. We theonomists are advocating nothing new.


If this board were dedicated to the promulgation of Wiccan Craft Law as the "law of the land," I would protest every bit as vigorously as I do now.I would join you.


According to your scriptures, such "judging" will occur after death.Jesus repeatedly taught men to judge rightly, insisting they “judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24) and He praised a man who “rightly judged” (Luke 7:43). Paul shamed the Corinthian Christians because no one among them was willing to “judge the smallest matters” (1 Cor. 6:2). As the Apostle wrote, “He who is spiritual judges all things” for “we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:15‑16).


Incorrect. Paul could have done so, but did not.Incorrect. Paul could not have done so because it would have altered his intended meaning.


Do you suppose it is only certain Christians who feel that the Schiavo case was wrong?What about perjury? What do you believe the proper punishment for that should be? Does "everyone" inherently know what the punishment should be?


Based on the archaeology, the late Bronze Age was one of frequent war.Israel's death penalty laws for homosexuality (for example) did not cause war. Israel had a very peaceful, crime free society because of her enforcement of Biblical Law. The wars she got into had absolutely nothing to do with her enforcement of Biblical Law on her own citizens.


:shrug: That is certainly your opinion ... if that occurs, you still will not be able to impose your will without military force.Not true. We have Biblical law inforced today. Death penalty laws against murder, for example, agree with the Bible. So where's the revolution? Adultery and homosexuality used to be criminal in the United States. I don't remember reading about any violent overthrow of the government because of those laws in my history books. Laws change back and forth all the time. Cocaine used to be legal, now it's not. Some day in the future it may become legal again, all without a revolution from the masses each time there is a change in the law.


Because you're using the ambiguity of the English to obscure the Greek. Orthotomounta means to "cut straight"--as in a road through the mountains. Orthotomounta does not mean "cut straight" as in dividing a parcel of land. The reference is to proper handling and understanding of the law, not in "dividing" it into ceremonial and moral codes.I agree. And a "proper handling and understanding of the law" results in refusing to apply ceremonial law during this present age of grace while recognizing that moral law applies to all cultures in every century.


Oddly enough, (despite the distorted interpretation of some theonomists) Paul never speaks of theonomy at all. :think:Second Corinthians 19:4-5 - "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled." If the Christians Paul is speaking to have "fulfilled their obedience," Paul then is "ready to punish all disobedience" upon whom? It can't be upon the believers to whom Paul is speaking because by this time they have "fulfilled their obedience."

Yorzhik
May 30th, 2005, 11:03 PM
Eh ... not Theonomy by the modern definition per se, but the point is well taken.
...
On the other hand, there are those theonomists (however one defines the term) who state that it is "Christian duty" to institute "God's Laws" as part of a program to hasten the Second Coming--this belief is frequently called Dominion Theology.
...
Methinks I may have learned a thing from Clete and should avoid the label "Theonomy", too.

BTW, what is the "modern definition" of 'theonomy'?

Justin (Wiccan)
May 31st, 2005, 12:50 PM
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Notice I am not saying I never commit immoral acts as defined by the Bible.

Hmmm. It's a bit of an iffy argument, but as this is a specific argument of Christian doctrine (one that not all Christians agree on), I'm going to take a pass on this.


Do you actually believe that no Christian should be allowed to vote?

Not at all, nor is that my claim. If you choose to vote for candidates who agree with your views on morality, that's your preference. My only claim is that the 1 Tim passage is not a Biblical injunction to impose Law on the culture.


First, in post # 173 you said, " I do claim that your Bible is a man-made understanding of absolute moral truth," The word "claim" is a faith-based word. People don't "claim" that 2+2=4.

Fallacy of ambiguity--if I were in an argument on the topic, I would indeed say "I claim that 2+2=4."


Secondly, I could also just as easily say my assertion that the Bible is inspired is not a blind leap of faith, but the results of years of study--study that I began as a nonchristian. One of my last acts as a nonchristian was the realization that I could no longer claim that the Bible was not God's handiwork.

Splendid, but completely off-topic. I never argued that your claim was a priori--I was refuting your claim that my rejection of the Bible was "a blind leap of faith."


We do but we shouldn't. The puritans used to have Bible verses listed after the laws in the books. We theonomists are advocating nothing new.

Remember, Jefferson--the Puritans, and other similar "Theonomic" attempts (Cromwell's Commonweath, Calvin's Geneva, and the Massachusets Colonial law) all ended badly for a lot of innocent people. Look back at the history.


Jesus repeatedly taught men to judge rightly, insisting they “judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24)

Grossly out of context--Jesus was condemning those who perverted judgement to try to do away with Him.


He praised a man who “rightly judged” (Luke 7:43).

Grossly out of context--Jesus praised Simon for making a correct decision, not for the judgeship of the Final Judgement.


Paul shamed the Corinthian Christians because no one among them was willing to “judge the smallest matters” (1 Cor. 6:2). As the Apostle wrote, “He who is spiritual judges all things” for “we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:15‑16).

Grossly out of context--Paul is speaking about judging things within the church.

Jefferson, if all of your Biblical "proof texts" for enforcing the Law on the world are this far out of context, I must wonder if any of it is accurate.


Incorrect. Paul could not have done so because it would have altered his intended meaning.

So you assert--yet offer no proof. I have offered proof that the phrase is not central to the meaning of the passage.


What about perjury? What do you believe the proper punishment for that should be? Does "everyone" inherently know what the punishment should be?

What, since you can't prove your point with Schiavo, you switch the basis of your argument? Jefferson, this is getting quite lame.

But in answer to your question, I am aware both of the Biblical law regarding perjury, and the Secular law. Despite the protestations of so many, the Schiavo case was handled legally. Greer's decision was within the laws of Florida. Yes, I happen to feel that the decison was immoral, but it was not illegal.


Israel's death penalty laws for homosexuality (for example) did not cause war. Israel had a very peaceful, crime free society because of her enforcement of Biblical Law. The wars she got into had absolutely nothing to do with her enforcement of Biblical Law on her own citizens.

Jefferson, look at some real history. The final form of the Mosaic Law was codified during the Babylonian Exile. There was never a historical period where the Mosaic Law was enforced--well, possibly during the reign of Josiah: it's my theory that while the final forms were reached during the Exile, some of the earlier basis was written during this time.


Not true. We have Biblical law inforced today. Death penalty laws against murder, for example, agree with the Bible.

They may agree with the Bible--so did the laws of Hammurabi and pagan Rome. Now, unless you'd like to argue that these laws were "Biblical," you can see that your argument falls on it's face.

Laws can agree with the Bible and not be "Biblical." Heck, Wiccan Craft Law stands four-square against lying, murder, and adultery, yet I doubt you would consider them "Biblical."


I agree. And a "proper handling and understanding of the law" results in refusing to apply ceremonial law during this present age of grace while recognizing that moral law applies to all cultures in every century.

Jefferson, one who "rightly divides the word of God" will clearly see that the Law is one piece, and annot be separated into ceremonial and legal compartments. If this were not so, then homosexuality would not be classified with the same word--"abomination"--as eating shellfish.


Second Corinthians 19:4-5 - "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled." If the Christians Paul is speaking to have "fulfilled their obedience," Paul then is "ready to punish all disobedience" upon whom? It can't be upon the believers to whom Paul is speaking because by this time they have "fulfilled their obedience."

Hogwash! Paul is speaking of how he will treat those who are disobedient in the Church of Corinth.

Jefferson, throughout your argument you have twisted scripture until it is almost unrecognizable. You have used fallacious and downright false arguments to support your claim.

Your claim that God commands Christians to impose the Law on their non-Christian neighbors is a false claim.

Turbo
June 2nd, 2005, 03:40 PM
Turbo, if you honestly believe that you can correct the Hebrew with the English...I suggested nothing of the sort.



The meaning of taphas is not "swept off her feet," but to seize by force
I was giving an example of how sometimes the definitions of each individual word in a sentence are insufficient to understand the meaning of the idea being expressed. It's called a figure of speech.



Why is it that God didn't write the passage in English?Is that what you think I was asking? :confused:


I'm not at all concerned with whether or not you agree with it, Turbo. The Mosaic Law was not made for our twenty-first century sensibilities. Nor was it made to punish the innocent and reward the guilty.



That was the Law. If you disagree with that conclusion, then you are left with no Law whatsoever against the rape of an unbetrothed virgin.Not so. Deuteronomy 22:25-27 can be applied to unbetrothed virgins as well.

If one were to reason as you have here, then one might say that there is no law against raping a betrothed virgin in the city.

And what about a married woman who is raped? Should she should killed along with her attacker according to Deuteronomy 22:22? How about if a man is raped by a homosexual? Should the victim be put to death according to Leviticus 20:13?

Of course not! God is not laying out every scenerio for every crime. He is (rather efficiently) laying out principles.

In Deuteronomy 22:22 we read that if a man sleeps with another man's wife, both are guilty and should be put to death.

In verses 23-24 God establishes that the same punishment applies even if the woman isn't married yet but is betrothed to another man.

But in verses 25-27 God makes it very clear that a person is not to be blamed for being raped, but that rapists should be executed. The specific example is given as a contrast to the previous example (the betrothed virgin who willingly slept with another man), but the principle can be applied to married women, unbetrothed women, men, and children, and anyone else I might have missed.

And in verses 28-29 God reiterates that unmarried (and unbetrothed) couples who sleep together should generally get married, and that the man has to pay the restitution for the bride price to her father.


It is said that an honest man who is in error, when introduced to his error, may remain only one of the two.That applies to you as well.


Turbo... asserts that Deut 22:28-29 does not speak of the rape of an unbetrothed virgin. I've done more that assert. I've provided several lines of evidence that support my conclusion.

Justin (Wiccan)
June 2nd, 2005, 05:15 PM
I suggested nothing of the sort.

Turbo, when I give you the Hebrew meaning and you reject that meaning based on one possible English translation, that is precisely what you are suggesting.


I was giving an example of how sometimes the definitions of each individual word in a sentence are insufficient to understand the meaning of the idea being expressed. It's called a figure of speech.

Turbo, Hebrew idiom and English idiom do not translate directly.

First and foremost, do you have any training or study in Hebrew? If not, then we need to set this part of the conversation to the side--to be blunt, I'm not going to argue Hebrew with someone who does not know enough to know when they're making an error. If you do have some training in Hebrew, then we can continue.




Why is it that in the case where the betrothed virgin is raped, God used words like "forced" and "cried out", but those terms are absent in the case of the unbetrothed virgin?
Why is it that God didn't write the passage in English?
Is that what you think I was asking? :confused:

The question is satirical, but meant to illustrate a point: questions such as "why didn't X do Y" are useless in historical debate. Turbo, the authors of Deuteronomy wrote the text as they did--it is not your job, or my job, to twist the text to our preferred meaning, but to understand what the text actually means.



I'm not at all concerned with whether or not you agree with it, Turbo. The Mosaic Law was not made for our twenty-first century sensibilities.
Nor was it made to punish the innocent and reward the guilty.

There's a problem with that, Turbo--your understanding of "innocent" and "guilty" are not the same as the authors of the text.
* If you have any Hebrew, look at the Talmud (start with the Tractate Kethuboth), then at Maimonides.
* If you don't have any Hebrew, start with a reputable Bible commentary: Matthew Henry (http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/mhc/deuteronomy/22.html), or Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/bibleBook/5/sChap/22/sVerse/28/sVerseID/5499/eVerseID/5499/version/kjv/opt/COMM/RTD/JFB) are good places to start.

Do your own research, Turbo, but don't pull an idle explanation out of your ear.


Not so. Deuteronomy 22:25-27 can be applied to unbetrothed virgins as well.

Turbo, if you honestly believe that, then I am forced to one of two conclusions:
1: that you do not know Hebrew, and do not know anything Jewish culture of the time, OR;
2: that you are aware that the passage applies to rape of an unbethrothed woman, but are playing devil's advocate and making sure I can argue my point.

Have you checked any of the sources I mentioned in previous posts? Have you checked with a Rabbi? For crying out loud, have you gone to your local Bible college to talk to one of the professors there? Moody and Hiles-Anderson aren't that far away (depending on where in Michigan you are), and both are available by e-mail if telephone calls are a problem.

Turbo, I'm not asking you to take my word for the assertion: all I'm asking is that you do the research yourself into what the Bible really says, rather than vain imaginations about what you want it to say.

Jefferson
June 3rd, 2005, 02:42 PM
Justin, you wrote:


Hmmm. It's a bit of an iffy argument, but as this is a specific argument of Christian doctrine (one that not all Christians agree on), I'm going to take a pass on this.Are you sure you want to do this? You would be conceding to one of my main points.

I stated that the “one” who uses the law in First Timothy 1:8 is a believer. But verse 9 says he is not supposed to use the law for himself (“the law is not made for a righteous person”). So who is the Christian commanded to use the law for? It’s obvious by the context that the Christian is commanded to use the law for the unbeliever.

After clarifying the side issue of my doctrine of Christians and “sin” in their lives you are responding to this central issue of mine with “I’m going to take a pass on this.” Are you sure you want to pass on one of my central arguments?


Not at all, nor is that my claim. If you choose to vote for candidates who agree with your views on morality, that’s your preference.But what about Christian congressmen? What standard should they use when deciding what laws are moral and what laws are immoral, someone else’s standard other than their own Bible-based standard?


Splendid, but completely off-topic. I never argued that your claim was a priori--I was refuting your claim that my rejection of the Bible was "a blind leap of faith."You may be able to provide evidence that you believe is compelling to you but that is a far thing from proof. Without proof you ultimately have to take a blind leap of faith. It may be faith based on evidence but it is still faith nevertheless. It’s the same with my faith. It’s faith based on evidence.

So you assert--yet offer no proof. I have offered proof that the phrase is not central to the meaning of the passage.How do you reconcile the contradictory statements that the law was rendered idle but yet God will use this supposedly idle law to judge people? If it’s rendered idle then how can God use it on Judgement Day?


What, since you can't prove your point with Schiavo, you switch the basis of your argument?My point is there is a huge percentage of the American public who think the murder of Terri Schaivo was a moral act. So much for the “We don’t need the Bible because everyone knows murder is wrong” argument.


There was never a historical period where the Mosaic Law was enforced The Queen of Sheba was impressed by Solomon’s application of God’s law in First Kings 10:9 – “Blessed be the Lord your God, who delighted in you, setting you on the throne of Israel! Because the Lord has loved Israel forever, therefore He made you king, to do justice and righteousness."


They may agree with the Bible--so did the laws of Hammurabi and pagan Rome. Now, unless you'd like to argue that these laws were "Biblical," you can see that your argument falls on it's face.

Laws can agree with the Bible and not be "Biblical." Heck, Wiccan Craft Law stands four-square against lying, murder, and adultery, yet I doubt you would consider them "Biblical." They are biblical. God has given everyone a conscience. The agreement nonchristians have on moral issues with Christians is due to the conscience the Christian God has given them.


Jefferson, one who "rightly divides the word of God" will clearly see that the Law is one piece, and annot be separated into ceremonial and legal compartments. If this were not so, then homosexuality would not be classified with the same word--"abomination"--as eating shellfish.That’s a logical fallacy. It’s like saying that because envy and murder are both sins and since murder is a crime, that therefore envy should be a crime also. Those 2 things can be separated.


Hogwash! Paul is speaking of how he will treat those who are disobedient in the Church of Corinth.What disobedience in the church? 2 Cor. 19:4-5 speaks of a time after the church’s “obedience is fulfilled” So who’s DISobedience is Paul referring to?

Finally, consider First Cor. 6:2,3: “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?” Verse 2 shows that one day in the future we will judge nonchristians. Verse 3 implies therefore start practicing today.

Justin (Wiccan)
June 3rd, 2005, 03:28 PM
Are you sure you want to do this? You would be conceding to one of my main points.

Jefferson, this point is that Christians are legally without sin in the eyes of God--that's a clearly stated doctrine. The part that is disputable is whether or not future acts that would have been sin were you not saved are counted as sin, legally speaking, in God's eyes. On the other hand, if you were arguing that Christians are not capable of wrongful acts, I would dispute you. (I know--you're not arguing that).

Under those definitions, whether or not you are considerd a "sinner" ... yes, I'm sure that I do not want to tangle with this issue: and if that requires conceding the point, then I certainly have no problems doing so.


I stated that the “one” who uses the law in First Timothy 1:8 is a believer. But verse 9 says he is not supposed to use the law for himself (“the law is not made for a righteous person”). So who is the Christian commanded to use the law for? It’s obvious by the context that the Christian is commanded to use the law for the unbeliever.

Only in the English. Let us look at 1 Tim 1:8 in the Greek again:

Oidamen de oti kalos 'o nomos ean tis auto nomimos cretai,

"We know that the law is beneficial if a certain one himself lawfully uses it.

It's a technically correct translation ... but it's not really precise enough in one word. The word "auto" means "himself", true enough ... but the case is dative (http://www.answers.com/dative&r=67), which means that this word is the recipient of the action of the sentence.

A more accurate translation would be:
"We know that the law is beneficial if a certain one lawfully uses it to or for himself,


After clarifying the side issue of my doctrine of Christians and “sin” in their lives you are responding to this central issue of mine with “I’m going to take a pass on this.” Are you sure you want to pass on one of my central arguments?

Yes, I am, because this issue is based on the 1 Tim translation--which as you see, is reflexive. "The law is beneficial if a man uses it for himself." This is not a command to impose or judge others by the law: this is a command to restrain oneself.


But what about Christian congressmen? What standard should they use when deciding what laws are moral and what laws are immoral, someone else’s standard other than their own Bible-based standard?

In America, a Congressman swears or affirms the following:


I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Part of "faithfully discharge the duties of the office" is to make and maintain laws within the bounds of the Constitution, and of US law. If a Christian feels that they cannot serve in that capacity and make laws based on the Constitution, then that Christian has taken the Oath of Office under false pretenses.



Splendid, but completely off-topic. I never argued that your claim was a priori--I was refuting your claim that my rejection of the Bible was "a blind leap of faith."
You may be able to provide evidence that you believe is compelling to you but that is a far thing from proof. Without proof you ultimately have to take a blind leap of faith. It may be faith based on evidence but it is still faith nevertheless. It’s the same with my faith. It’s faith based on evidence.

Jefferson, your own scriptures deny this definition of faith (Heb 11:1). Please do not take me for a fool--I've tried that in the past, and found it to be a rather uncomfortable circumstance.


How do you reconcile the contradictory statements that the law was rendered idle but yet God will use this supposedly idle law to judge people? If it’s rendered idle then how can God use it on Judgement Day?

How do I reconcile it? Jefferson, I don't. Remember, I hold that your Bible is the work of men, not of God.


My point is there is a huge percentage of the American public who think the murder of Terri Schaivo was a moral act. So much for the “We don’t need the Bible because everyone knows murder is wrong” argument.

That's because that portion of the population does not believe that Terri Schiavo's death was murder. So much for "We need the Bible because everyone knows that abortion and end of life are murder." You Christians can't even get that straight amongst yourselves, and you want to impose your views on Christian and non-Christian alike?


The Queen of Sheba was impressed by Solomon’s application of God’s law in First Kings 10:9 – “Blessed be the Lord your God, who delighted in you, setting you on the throne of Israel! Because the Lord has loved Israel forever, therefore He made you king, to do justice and righteousness."

Jefferson, I've already stated that the Bible is not historically accurate. It's ... difficult in the extreme to expect a debate opponent to accept an inaccurate source as "historical proof."


They are biblical. God has given everyone a conscience. The agreement nonchristians have on moral issues with Christians is due to the conscience the Christian God has given them.

OK, so in that instance, every law that agrees with the Bible--no matter if it came first,m or came from a culture that has never read a Bible--is a Biblical law? But what of those cultures whose laws do not agree? Oh, I forgot--those are cultures where "God has given them over to their sinful desires."

Jefferson, that's not evidence of anything but a false dilemma in your doctrine. "Mans laws agree with Gods laws because God wrote those laws on their conscience. And when those laws don't agree, man's laws are because of their sinful desires."



Jefferson, one who "rightly divides the word of God" will clearly see that the Law is one piece, and annot be separated into ceremonial and legal compartments. If this were not so, then homosexuality would not be classified with the same word--"abomination"--as eating shellfish.
That’s a logical fallacy. It’s like saying that because envy and murder are both sins and since murder is a crime, that therefore envy should be a crime also. Those 2 things can be separated.

Oh, they certainly can be separated--indeed, one could choose to separate the "not" from the phrase "thou shalt not." But such separations are modern doctrines--they are not provenanced in scripture.


What disobedience in the church? 2 Cor. 19:4-5 speaks of a time after the church’s “obedience is fulfilled” So who’s DISobedience is Paul referring to?

First and foremost, be careful of the typos--that's the second time you've cited that passage as "2 Cor 19." (Yeah, I know, the keys are too close together ... I do it to. ;) )

Secondly, Paul is speaking of coming into the church at Corinth like a man attacking the city. He will come into the church and demolish the strongholds of their false doctrine and the arguments and pretentions of their false prde, and establish their obedience as a conqueror puts down rebellion. Having done so, he will then punish those who set up the false doctrines, as the conqueror--now in control of the rebelling city--punished those who rebelled against him.

READ THE PASSAGE, Jefferson--it's all right there in black and white. This is Paul's warning to the church at Corinth: "Please straighten up your behavior before I get there, because I would rather be meek with you when I come. But if I have to be bold when I arrive, I will wipe away every defense that you have."


Finally, consider First Cor. 6:2,3: “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?” Verse 2 shows that one day in the future we will judge nonchristians. Verse 3 implies therefore start practicing today.

Jefferson, that has got to be the single most dishonest attempt at "exegesis" I've seen on this forum. Read the context: Paul is trying to get the Corinthians to stop dragging matters between brethren to the city courts. Verse 4 clearly states that the matters Christians are judging are matters between Christians.

Jefferson, in that last quoted passage, you've shifted from questionable logic to outright dishonesty. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: kindly do not make the mistake of taking me for a fool.

Irenaeus
June 6th, 2005, 01:12 PM
OK, let's open this up to everyone.

What is the Biblical justification for theonomic government in Gentile nations?

Justin

My take on this question is that the law is force, and thus justice is law applied to arrest unlawful force.

If my freedom to swing my fist ends just before it contacts your nose, then when my fist exceeds my freedom and contacts your nose, you're entitled to justice. In other words, I've unleashed unlawful force which must be arrested by lawful force, i.e. the law prohibiting assault and battery. Otherwise the force I've set in motion remains in motion, unarrested, and justice is not served.

Without citing the verses, I can assure you that the Bible spells this formula out time and again. And not surprisingly, this formula remains the foundation of modern law in most nations. The Bible provides the design specifications for much of what transpires in this life. You'd be surprised.

Granite
June 6th, 2005, 01:52 PM
My take on this question is that the law is force, and thus justice is law applied to arrest unlawful force.

If my freedom to swing my fist ends just before it contacts your nose, then when my fist exceeds my freedom and contacts your nose, you're entitled to justice. In other words, I've unleashed unlawful force which must be arrested by lawful force, i.e. the law prohibiting assault and battery. Otherwise the force I've set in motion remains in motion, unarrested, and justice is not served.

Without citing the verses, I can assure you that the Bible spells this formula out time and again. And not surprisingly, this formula remains the foundation of modern law in most nations. The Bible provides the design specifications for much of what transpires in this life. You'd be surprised.

Theocratic government isn't necessary to provide justice and prevent misuse of force.

Jefferson
June 7th, 2005, 02:20 AM
Justin:

Regarding First Tim. 1:8 you wrote:


A more accurate translation would be:
"We know that the law is beneficial if a certain one lawfully uses it to or for himself
There is a reason why no translation agrees with you on this verse. The verse would be self-contradictory if it read according to your wording. It would read, “But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully to himself; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly”

The verse would be saying that a Christian is only supposed to use the law upon himself because the law is not made for Christians but for nonchristians. Huh? Is it possible for a single sentence to be more self-contradictory?


In America, a Congressman swears or affirms the following:

Quote:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Part of "faithfully discharge the duties of the office" is to make and maintain laws within the bounds of the Constitution, and of US law. If a Christian feels that they cannot serve in that capacity and make laws based on the Constitution, then that Christian has taken the Oath of Office under false pretenses. “Within the bounds of the Constitution” the U.S. used to punish adultery and homosexuality as crimes. So how would it suddenly be outside the bounds of the Constitution for a Christian congressman to propose the recriminalization of those sins today?




Quote:
How do you reconcile the contradictory statements that the law was rendered idle but yet God will use this supposedly idle law to judge people? If it’s rendered idle then how can God use it on Judgement Day?


How do I reconcile it? Jefferson, I don't. Remember, I hold that your Bible is the work of men, not of God.The fact that you hold the Bible to be the work of men is irrelevent to the subject of this thread. In your very first post you asked, “What is the Biblical justification for theonomic government in Gentile nations?” So when someone directly answers your question by showing you the Biblical justification your response is, “So what? I hold the Bible to be the work of men.” Why ask the question, Justin, if you’re going to ignore the answer?



Quote:
The Queen of Sheba was impressed by Solomon’s application of God’s law in First Kings 10:9 – “Blessed be the Lord your God, who delighted in you, setting you on the throne of Israel! Because the Lord has loved Israel forever, therefore He made you king, to do justice and righteousness."


Jefferson, I've already stated that the Bible is not historically accurate. It's ... difficult in the extreme to expect a debate opponent to accept an inaccurate source as "historical proof."Here we go again: The fact that you believe the Bible to be historically inaccurate is irrelevant to the subject of this thread. In your very first post you asked, “What is the Biblical justification for theonomic government in Gentile nations?” So when someone directly answers your question by showing you the Biblical justification your response is, “So what? I hold the Bible to be historically innacurate.” Why ask the question, Justin, if you’re going to ignore the answer?


OK, so in that instance, every law that agrees with the Bible--no matter if it came first,m or came from a culture that has never read a Bible--is a Biblical law? But what of those cultures whose laws do not agree? Oh, I forgot--those are cultures where "God has given them over to their sinful desires."

Jefferson, that's not evidence of anything but a false dilemma in your doctrine. "Mans laws agree with Gods laws because God wrote those laws on their conscience. And when those laws don't agree, man's laws are because of their sinful desires."Yes. That is exactly what Romans 2:14-15 says - “for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them”




Quote:
What disobedience in the church? 2 Cor. 10:4-5 [thanks for the typo correction] speaks of a time after the church’s “obedience is fulfilled” So who’s DISobedience is Paul referring to?


Paul is speaking of coming into the church at Corinth like a man attacking the city. He will come into the church and demolish the strongholds of their false doctrine and the arguments and pretentions of their false prde, and establish their obedience as a conqueror puts down rebellion. Having done so, he will then punish those who set up the false doctrines, as the conqueror--now in control of the rebelling city--punished those who rebelled against him.

READ THE PASSAGE, Jefferson--it's all right there in black and white. This is Paul's warning to the church at Corinth: "Please straighten up your behavior before I get there, because I would rather be meek with you when I come. But if I have to be bold when I arrive, I will wipe away every defense that you have."Read BOTH Corinthian letters, Justin – it’s all right there in black and white. Paul’s attitude that you summarized was from FIRST Corinthians. But the passage we are discussing is in SECOND Corinthians. And Paul summarized his new attitude towards the Corinthians in 2 Cor. 7:9-11 - “Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance. For you were made sorry in a godly manner, that you might suffer loss from us in nothing. For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death. For observe this very thing, that you sorrowed in a godly manner: What diligence it produced in you, what clearing of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what vehement desire, what zeal, what vindication! In all things you proved yourselves to be clear in this matter.”

Therefore, my question still stands: “WHAT disobedience in the Church? 2 Cor. 10:4-5 speaks of a time after the church’s “obedience is fulfilled” So who’s DISobedience is Paul referring to?



Quote:
Finally, consider First Cor. 6:2,3: “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?” Verse 2 shows that one day in the future we will judge nonchristians. Verse 3 implies therefore start practicing today.


Jefferson, that has got to be the single most dishonest attempt at "exegesis" I've seen on this forum. Read the context: Paul is trying to get the Corinthians to stop dragging matters between brethren to the city courts. Verse 4 clearly states that the matters Christians are judging are matters between Christians.Read the context Justin. Verse 2 and 3 go together. And in verse 2 Paul discusses Christians judging “the world” in the future. “The world” is code for “nonchristians.” Then in the very next verse he asks how much more should we be judging in this present life? Judging what in this present life? Judging “the world.” How else could the flow of the paragraph be interpreted?

Justin (Wiccan)
June 7th, 2005, 08:12 AM
Justin:

[quote]There is a reason why no translation agrees with you on this verse. The verse would be self-contradictory if it read according to your wording. It would read, “But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully to himself; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly”

Jefferson, are you a "righteous person" in and of yourself? No--according to your scriptures, you are not. Any righteousness you have is a gift of God ... and by your scriptures, the law was made for you.


“Within the bounds of the Constitution” the U.S. used to punish adultery and homosexuality as crimes. So how would it suddenly be outside the bounds of the Constitution for a Christian congressman to propose the recriminalization of those sins today?

Because it was within the bounds of the US Constitution that sodomy laws were declared illegal. As far as adultery ... heck, Jefferson, if you've got a problem with adultery, clean up the Church before you start wanting to clean up the nation!


The fact that you hold the Bible to be the work of men is irrelevent to the subject of this thread. In your very first post you asked, “What is the Biblical justification for theonomic government in Gentile nations?” So when someone directly answers your question by showing you the Biblical justification your response is, “So what? I hold the Bible to be the work of men.” Why ask the question, Justin, if you’re going to ignore the answer?

Because you asked me "how do you reconcile the statement." I'm not "ignoring" your answer--but at the same time, I'm not justifying your extra-biblical doctrines, nor am I going to do the legwork to justify the gyrations you're putting the Bible through.


Therefore, my question still stands: “WHAT disobedience in the Church? 2 Cor. 10:4-5 speaks of a time after the church’s “obedience is fulfilled” So who’s DISobedience is Paul referring to?

Look at verses 1-2


1 Now I, Paul, myself am pleading with you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ--who in presence am lowly among you, but being absent am bold toward you. 2 But I beg you that when I am present I may not be bold with that confidence by which I intend to be bold against some, who think of us as if we walked according to the flesh.

This passage is directed to those who do not accept Paul's authority. Read the rest of 2 Cor 10--there are still people within the Corinthian church who are attempting to reject Paul's teachincs, "For his letters," they say, "are weighty and powerful, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible." (v 10)


Read the context Justin. Verse 2 and 3 go together. And in verse 2 Paul discusses Christians judging “the world” in the future. “The world” is code for “nonchristians.” Then in the very next verse he asks how much more should we be judging in this present life? Judging what in this present life? Judging “the world.” How else could the flow of the paragraph be interpreted?

By looking back at verse 1.


1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?

The entire passage here is about judging issues between the brethren.

You speak of Christians "judging the world," and boast of your own involvement as the "Event Staff" on that day, yet you also try to speak of a modern, temporal judgement, using the same passage to justify both teachings?

Enough! Jefferson, your reading are dishonest, yet you are so persuaded in your mind that they are "correct" that even the evidence of Scripture itself does not persuade you. I can--and have--explained these and other passages to you, yet you continue in your intransigence.

I'm really not interested in hearing any more of your excuses and logical gyrations, Jefferson.

Edited to add: If you have anything substantive to add to the conversation, then I await your contributions. But kindly do not trouble this thread with any more half-wit eisegesis. Indeed, I would take it as a great favor of you would not bother with a response intil you do the following:
1: Verify my OT translation with a reputable Hebrew professor,
2: Verify my NT translations with a reputable Greek professor.

And lest you ask, I have already done so.

Jefferson
June 8th, 2005, 01:15 AM
Justin, you wrote:


Jefferson, are you a "righteous person" in and of yourself? No--according to your scriptures, you are not. Any righteousness you have is a gift of God ... and by your scriptures, the law was made for you.So you're saying that when the verse says, "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly...” - you're saying that "the righteous man" and the lawless, disobedient and ungodly are one and the same person? That is absolutely absurd. The passage is clearly contrasting 2 distinct classes of people in the eyes of God.


...it was within the bounds of the US Constitution that sodomy laws were declared illegal.And it would also be within the bounds of the US Constitution if sodomy laws become enforced once again like they used to be.


As far as adultery ... heck, Jefferson, if you've got a problem with adultery, clean up the Church before you start wanting to clean up the nation!I'm in favor of doing both simultaneously.


I'm not "ignoring" your answer--but at the same time, I'm not justifying your extra-biblical doctrines, nor am I going to do the legwork to justify the gyrations you're putting the Bible through.Then how 'bout just simply answering a simple question? If God's Law is rendered idle then how can God use it on Judgement Day? Justin, you can either answer a simple question or you can be an intellectual coward. The choice is yours.


This passage [2 Cor. 10] is directed to those who do not accept Paul's authority.Debatable, especially in light of the fact that since the readers of Paul's epistle had already repented (2 Cor. 7:11) then who's obedience is Paul waiting for to become complete? Those who were rejecting Paul's authority? Fine. Then the verse says that once the people who were rejecting Paul's authority had their obedience "become complete" Paul would then be ready to "judge all unrighteousness" ... upon whom? The only group left is unbelievers.


You speak of Christians "judging the world," and boast of your own involvement as the "Event Staff" on that day, yet you also try to speak of a modern, temporal judgement, using the same passage to justify both teachings?Yes, because the passage itself talks about both judgements. Verse 2 mentions the future when Christians will "judge the world" and verse 3 says, "How much MORE [not "less" Justin], things that pertain to this life."


I would take it as a great favor of you would not bother with a response intil you do the following:
1: Verify my OT translation with a reputable Hebrew professor,
2: Verify my NT translations with a reputable Greek professor.You mean a liberal, God-hating professor? No thanks. I checked your translations with translator Jay P. Green. See http://www.chrlitworld.com/bookSGP/literal.htm Your translations didn't hold water.