[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by Benny Hicks

Well, not to eat a dead possum or anything, but what did you mean when you said, "Your belief in regards to theonomy is in the minority, so just as Arminianism is mocked, so be it with theonomy"?

Ben

On CGR it is.

[+Donny]

I will just say with Bahnsen that "I do not agree with everything [Rushdoony] has written." (No Other Standard, p. 3)

Yeah, to put it modestly, the guy was a wack-job later in his life. I have heard that he was against interracial marriage, he believed certain laws about enuchs were still applicable, and something about law being love (or obedience being love) that was also very interesting (in a bad way). He is an example of ignoring much of what Christ did to perfect/complete the Law.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Ah, k. I read it again and saw what I missed. It wasn't refuted. Ok. But what impact does that have on the issue theologically?

Note what forum the thread is in. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other theologically, it merely goes to the historical point of disagreement.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by +Donny

I have heard that he was against interracial marriage

While definitely unbiblical, it's not difficult to see how such prejudices could creep in, especially considering the times in which the man was raised. There's no excuse for this, though, I agree.

Originally Posted by +Donny

he believed certain laws about enuchs were still applicable

Admittedly, though, it is difficult to see how they are typological (although I believe that they are since they dealt with the temple specifically).

Originally Posted by +Donny

and something about law being love (or obedience being love)

1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.

Matthew 22:34-40
But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

As a side note, many non-theonomists—usually dispensationalists—try to argue from this passage that Jesus is changing the law to be one of love for one’s neighbor rather than one of strict justice (ius talionis). However, Jesus is quoting Leviticus 19:18.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by Travis

Note what forum the thread is in. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other theologically, it merely goes to the historical point of disagreement.

I know the forum Travis. But what does historical acceptance or "nondisagreement" have to do with whether something is right or wrong?

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

I know the forum Travis. But what does historical acceptance or "nondisagreement" have to do with whether something is right or wrong?

As I said:

"It doesn't prove anything one way or the other theologically, it merely goes to the historical point of disagreement."

It does not prove theonomy to be correct, it just addresses the disagreement between the sides as to whether (A) theonomy is compatible with the Westminster Confession and (B) whether it is a view held historically in the Church.

[Lightknight]

ah, ok. That's great Travis.

[+Donny]

1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.

Matthew 22:34-40
But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

Here is the quote from Jordan (http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/bh/bh046.htm):

And by the way, against the nonsense Rushdoony has written on this matter, it is absurd to say that love is nothing more than law-keeping.

Here are some more:

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/ch/ch5_05.htm

The Rushdoony-wing of Christian Reconstructionism has a number of quackodox ideas running around in it. One is their belief that the Sinaitic dietary laws are binding as laws of health for Christians. If you choose not to eat shrimp, that's fine; but don't try to say the Bible teaches it, because the Bible clearly teaches that Christians are not under these laws. Another quackodox idea that runs through California Reconstructionism is "Biblical geocentricity." If you believe in a geocentric model of the cosmos, that's fine; but don't try to tell me that the Bible teaches it, because it clearly does not.

California Reconstructionists also virtually despise the institutional Church, and in this regard they are close to moving out of quackodoxy into full-blown heterodoxy.

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/rr/rr021.htm

After a while, however, some parents came to think that it was their "priestly privilege" to serve their own children. Some men decided it was their "priestly privilege" to serve their own wives. Such a belief is a distortion of the nature of worship and communion. This belief arose in the Tyler church because of the influence of the ideas of R. J. Rushdoony and of "California Reconstructionism." Rushdoony's thought is highly familistic, and at some points quite anti-ecclesiastical. In the early years of the Tyler church, we had people who were influenced by these ideas, and who viewed the family as virtually autonomous.

Reconstructionism aside, however, I believe that familism is a pervasive error in American Christianity. By and large, people who are anti-statist tend to be familists. It is understandable that this ethos should infect the churches. Many people who want their children at the Lord's Table have arrived at this conclusion out of notions of family solidarity and not out of theological and ecclesiological considerations. The influence of Mary Pride and of the home school movement also tends in this direction.

As a side note, many non-theonomists—usually dispensationalists—try to argue from this passage that Jesus is changing the law to be one of love for one’s neighbor rather than one of strict justice (ius talionis). However, Jesus is quoting Leviticus 19:18.

Yes. I believe one of the best arguments for theonomy, if not the best, is appealing to the fact that loving God and our neighbors is ultimately what the Law explains, in detail. If that is the summary of the Law, its essence, then obviously, at least in principle, it is still applicable.

[ICTHUS]

Originally Posted by Travis

(B) whether it (theonomy) is a view held historically in the Church.

To do this, of course, you would need to prove that the doctrine was taught by the early Fathers of the Church, as well, and not just the Protestant Reformers.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

To do this, of course, you would need to prove that the doctrine was taught by the early Fathers of the Church, as well, and not just the Protestant Reformers.

ah, this is true. And I do not remember any such thing. Heck, what was the robber council for?

[ICTHUS]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

ah, this is true. And I do not remember any such thing. Heck, what was the robber council for?

Yeah, precisely. None of the Fathers, apparently, saw this in the Scriptures. Probably because they thought they weren't going to have a Theocratic state any time soon (although, I suppose the rule of Christianity in Midaevel times would qualifiy as a Theocracy, as would Calvin's reign of terror in Geneva)