[+Donny]

What in the world are you talking about, and what does this have to do with the Bible? Can you support this idea at all with Scripture?

I. God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates, to be, under him, over the people, for his own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evildoers.[1]

1. Rom. 13:1-4; I Peter 2:13-14

II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto:[2] in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth;[3] so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the new testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion.[4]

2. Gen. 41:39-43; Neh. 12:26; 13:15-31; Dan. 2:48-49; Prov. 8:15-16; Rom. 13:1-4
3. Psa. 2:10-12; 82:3-4; I Tim. 2:2; II Sam. 23:3; I Peter 2:13

4. Luke 3:14; Rom. 13:4; Matt. 8:9-10; Acts 10:1-2

{III. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;[5] or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith.[6] Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger.[7] And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief.[8] It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.[9]}

5. II Chr. 26:18; Matt. 16:19; 18:17; I Cor. 4:1, 12; 12:28-29; Eph. 4:11-12; Rom. 10:15; Heb. 5:4
6. John 18:36; Acts 5:29; Eph. 4:11-12
7. Isa. 49:23; Rom. 13:1-6
8. Psa. 105:15
9. Rom. 13:4; I Tim. 2:2

I was referring to your generalization that all laws are automatically referred to "civil authorities." In fact, no laws are delegated to "civil authorities" -- many laws are enacted via "the people" or "men of the town" coming together and stoning someone; disputes are brought before judges with simplistic legal rules. Some laws, like the one I cited, are to be enacted by the individual.

Deuteronomy 13 is very clear-cut: you must stone me. You are making it much more complicated than it is. Why?

You just ignored my argument:

Originally Posted by +Donny

If you want further evidence, "and afterwards the hand of all the people" suggests a civil act. The reason the person is the first is because accusers/witnesses were to cast the first stone.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by +Donny

I. God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates, to be, under him, over the people, for his own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evildoers.

Your interpretation of Paul contradicts Jesus. Explain this contradiction, because your interpretation of what Paul says is impossible if "not one stroke of a letter of the old laws will pass before the end of heaven and earth."

Furthermore, Paul says: "Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; 4for it is God’s servant for your good."

Are you suggesting that disobeying divine commandments is good?

II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto:[2] in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth;[3] so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the new testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion.[4]

Okay, Dt. 13 does not require a magistrate. This is irrellevent. (so is the rest of this post)

You just ignored my argument:

You ignore the Bible ... in favor of some medieval theologian? Where are you getting these quotes from?

[JerryLove]

And what is the problem of appealing to opinion, if the opinions appeal legitimately to the inerrant word of God?

Your position is wrong. I can prove it by pointing you at Qingu's post where he says you are wrong.

That's the problem of appealing to opinion. Either prove if from the Bible or admit that you have no basis for it.

[+Donny]

Your position is wrong. I can prove it by pointing you at Qingu's post where he says you are wrong.

That's the problem of appealing to opinion. Either prove if from the Bible or admit that you have no basis for it.

I didnt appeal to it as if it proved anything.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Can you show that this differentiation between "civil" and "non-civil" OT laws is not an invention devised by yourself, Travis, Aaron Adams and other hard-line Calvinists on this board too squeamish to actually embrace what the OT explicitly commands you to do?

(A) If one merely reads through the laws of the Old Testament, one will see that some laws are given with punishments and procedures for how the civil government ought to deal with them, and others are not. This is sufficient for determining which laws ought to be handled by the government and which oughtn't be. If the civil government is not told to do something about it, it oughtn't.

(B) Too squeamish? We advocate the execution of blasphemers, homosexuals, and incorrigible children; how can we legitimately be accused of not having the guts to go through with what God's law says, even when it conflicts with our own personal preconceived notions? Before you've called Donny and I barbaric, cold and callous for our beliefs; now you call us squeamish.

And no I haven't returned; I'm just off of work.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Travis

(A) If one merely reads through the laws of the Old Testament, one will see that some laws are given with punishments and procedures for how the civil government ought to deal with them, and others are not. This is sufficient for determining which laws ought to be handled by the government and which oughtn't be. If the civil government is not told to do something about it, it oughtn't.

Stoning me -- civil, individual, or both? It starts off with "you must be the first one to strike," then "all the men of the city."

Also, on what authority do you interpret "all the men of the city must stone (insert various sinner here)" to mean "enforced by civil authority"? Aside from your subjective interpretation of course (I thought you lacked autonomy?)

(B) Too squeamish? We advocate the execution of blasphemers, homosexuals, and incorrigible children; how can we legitimately be accused of not having the guts to go through with what God's law says, even when it conflicts with our own personal preconceived notions? Before you've called Donny and I barbaric, cold and callous for our beliefs; now you call us squeamish.

Ah, this was my mistake. Donny and others on here have always seemed a little squeamish about advocating these laws to be re-enforced by an ideal government (in fact I remember Aaron Adams saying Christians should abstain from government altogether); you, on the other hand, had always plainly advocated that our government re-enforce these barbaric laws -- or at least the ones you subjectively believe aren't ceremonial. I apologize for calling you squeamish.