Saturday, April 25, 2009

Theonomy and Homosexuality

I like this vid, so heck, maybe I really AM a redneck.

Find more videos like this on Patriotic Resistance

Yes, God's law has something to say about marriage. And, God's law does not encourage homosexuality. Gay marriage? Says who? Not God. Not God's people. So who wants to play God and pretend that homosexual marriage is legit? Watch this video and chose a side. You have to. You can't be on the fence about this and claim you are "Christian". What the 'kicker' is, is that you, (as a Christian), have no leg to stand on except for theonomy. You can't JUDGE the following without a predisposition to God's law...I dare you to try.
Watch Video

90 comments:

Bryan said...

Since you dared the public.. this is how I would pose my argument without being a "theonomist" in your sense of the word.

Romans 1
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.


Well I would have to resort to the law in order to call homosexuality a sin. Does that make me a theonomist ? No.

What is the purpose of God's law if a Christian is not under law but under grace ?

Romans 6
14For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.


Is Paul slipping into antinomianism here ? I don't think so.


I think that homosexuality is unnatural. So I appeal to that law that is today called common sense.

Animals do not go shoving their penises into other animals butts.

I am sure someone could point to some rare animal that exhibits such a behavior but it is definitely not the norm with my cats.



What is Paul saying about the Jew here in regards to law? Can this be applied to some so called Calvinists who tend to get a little comfy in their own life ?

Romans 2
17Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; 18if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."[b]

25Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[c] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

---

Bryan said...

Well Susan thought that since I brought up animal behavior this might leave the door open for some debate as to whether this was really "unnatural" behavior. She said dogs often will hump someone's leg.

Yeah.... that is why I dislike appealing to biology to defend myself.

I really see no reason for such pointless arguments.

What does unnatural mean in Romans 1:26 then ?

What is natural ?

What reference point do we use when talking about what is natural ?

Must I look in a book to find what is natural ? No.

Whatever is natural is pretty obvious. That is where I stop on the homosexuality thing.

My last debate with an agnostic ended this way. I just said it was plain and obvious that homosexuality is wrong.

That was enough to make her very mad. It's the truth though.

Sermonwriter said...

There is one point you 'might' be overlooking on this. Your points are good but when we say homosexuality is "wrong", what is it that we are saying? It's a "sin" right?

We don't sin against nature, we sin against God. We sin against the Creator and not against the creation. We violate the laws of the Creator and that is why it is sin...no?

Bryan said...

Yeah it is sin.

The order of nature reflects the majesty of God and His law reflects his character.

Not only is it a sin, it contradicts what is naturally revealed. Even very bright scientists cannot and will not change their minds and turn to the Lord when something appears to be naturally obvious. Some of those arrogant scientists or homosexuals may be part of God's elect no matter how stubborn they appear to be.

So what shall we do with them ? Should the church try to sway the government into punishing these people by death ? I don't think so.

Should the church tolerate their sin ? No. (1 Cor. 5)

I don't think the civil government and the church operate in the same way. I don't think the two should be one. If so, I guess 1 Cor 5 would tell me to exile sinners, or to deport them, out of the land.

Can these vile sinners be brought into the kingdom of God ? Yes, if God has predestined them to eternal life.

Even prostitutes and tax collectors can be a part of the elect. Even a Chippendale dancer who is a flaming liberal can be part of God's elect. We do not know who they are. Saul wouldn't have been my first pick for a person who might repent.

Matthew 21:32
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.
----

We were once dead, unable to follow God's law, we gratified that disgusting and abhorrent sinful nature and were objects of God's wrath...... as the letter to the Ephesians tells us.

Ephesians 2
1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.
---


So have I crossed that line into theonomy yet ? I don't think so.

Sermonwriter said...

I really do think I understand your points, but I think you might be missing mine. I am not trying to close the doors of grace to any sinner, homosexual or otherwise. I am simply trying to accentuate the necessity of God's law to make ethical judgments. Just because a sinner may be a child of God does not negate our need to judge sin.

So once we judge sin (outside of the Church) what is to be done about it?...is kind of what you ask.

I'll sidestep that question because the Church these days is actually trying to avoid judging sin outside of the Church.

Susan just posted an excellent review on the fallacies of Darwinism on Facebook. In effect, she was judging sin outside of the Church. She was doing what Paul says the Church does in 2 Cor 10:5... "We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God"Anything that is raised against the knowledge of God is "sin". How do we know if it is raised against God? By His own standards. You said yourself that God's law reveals His character. This is true. We need to think of and judge the world by His standard. Otherwise, we would end up ignoring Darwinism, and by so doing, condone it for the heathen. We would be letting them think that it's "okay". Well it's not okay because it flys in the face of the character of God and the Church needs to tell the heathen the truth. If we don't, nobody will.

Sermonwriter said...

So let me get back to your concern that I sidestepped. "So once we judge sin (outside of the Church) what is to be done about it?...is kind of what you ask."

I really believe that the old and new testament both teach that the civil government is a "minister of God" and bears the sword to punish evil and to encourage righteousness.

Now how is the civil government going to do that if they don't know God and his character? (His law)

They can't. That makes them NOT ministers of God. They need to be replaced so that they can do God's will. This is a job ONLY the Church can do...ie; maintain the integrity of the civil government. But today, the Church has given this responsibility to the heathen. WRONG! (I don't mean to shout)

Though the Church and the gov't are both ministers of God, they function in completely different capacities, as you say, but they are still, both, accountable to the law of God. When either one stops becoming accountable to God, then they cease to exist as the real deal. The Church becomes apostate, and therefore is not a church at all, and the gov't becomes criminal and is not the gov't at all.

So we really can't do ANYTHING (on this earth) with sinners outside of the church (legally), until we get a real civil government. We can show them God's law and the grace He offers law breakers, but we we can't punish their sin. I believe often times we can stop their sin, even if we have to act in civil disobedience.

Castleman said...

What does Calvin say that the government should protect? He says that "Blasphemy of God, Blasphemy of the Church, and destruction of man's property, or well being shall be punished by the civil magistrate"

So how can the state punish homosexuality? How can the state punish even abortion? Well it is allot easier than we think. Common law forbids homosexual practices, and abortion, because through natural law, and into common law, the only thing that is truth, is the scripture.

How can we argue the "Right to travel"? You do not need a drivers license because traveling is a right granted by God, not the state. Common law clearly says this, so does the scriptures.

Natural law is not disputed by theonomist,it is actually there argument for a theonomic world view. Natural law produces common law, and common law reflects God's law. Our Constitution was based on common law, and the Reformed church should fully endorse it. Anything outside of common law is mans law. Mans law only creates profit off of other mans God given rights.

The Constitution claims power through common law that has been passed down since Mosses. Anytime its violated, it is a contradiction of God's law.

Castleman said...

Deuteronomy 17:6
"At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is to die be put to death; at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death."

When Paul was taken to Cesar, he argued:

Acts 25:11
"If then I am in the wrong, and have done anything that deserves death, I am not trying to escape dying, but if not one of their charges against me is true, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!"

Here Paul clearly says that certain acts are worthy of death. Not one act (murder), but he clearly says "ANY". So what other acts are punishable by death other than murder?

Also, here Paul clearly argues common law (God's law) with the Jews. He says that he would submit to the OT law if he has broken it, but if he hasn't, he doesn't submit.

He didn't use natural law, he used common law (God's law).

Bryan said...

Eric, I find no need to go into American or Genevan politics in order to call homosexuality a sin.

The dare that Steve posted did not even dare me to defend it from a Reformed position.

So I will look at your point on Acts 25:11 more deeply, but for now would like to maintain my own argument that homosexuality is a sin, without being a theonomist.

All I do is have to prove I have a leg to stand on and I win.

Castleman said...

"Castleman,
Everyone who is Reformed must be, to some extent, theonomic. I have benefited from knowing Greg Bahnsen, but have not taken over all of the tenets and principles of Theonomy, including being Post-Mil.
Being A-Mil (I like A.A. Hoekema's term: Realized Eschatology) does not have to mean that you are an inveterate pessimist when it comes to culture. Therefore, I would consider myself theonomic with a lower case "t."
Natural law is a very interesting concept, but there comes a time when it has to be connected to biblical truth and this is precisely where the progressive secularists balk. The Christian voice does, however, need to be heard clearly and often. The Church of Jesus Christ must never jettison her need to be the moral conscience of society. Unfortunately, those who are more concerned about entertaining the troops and numbers have forgotten this inconvenient truth. Therefore, when modern churches attempt to speak on "social issues" or are concerned with "social justice" as often as not they end up sounding like George Soros." -Ron Gleason

Castleman said...

Also,

Why did God establish tithing? God established tithing because he placed Israel in a free market. The doctrine of tithing is an economic law of the OT. Let me ask you this. If we don't live in a free market, which was the reason why a tithe was needed, why should we be obligated to a tithe at all?

Paul demands to be paid in the bible. He says "Don't muzzle the ox", He points back to the OT economic law of old. Why would he do that? Because God's economic commands will always be over the church, even if society doesn't operate as a Godly society. We are to pursue a Godly society.

Bryan said...

I just wrote a lot about this topic, but I just became annoyed when I found out that nobody is going to church.

So I deleted it.

Sermonwriter said...

Well, I was looking forward to going to church today, but my plan to "catch up" on my work this week didn't come to fruition, and Sunday is the last day of the pay period. I'm stuck. What am I supposed to do? I can tell people I owe money to "just wait". Haha! I need my knee caps.

Sermonwriter said...

Bryan said..."All I do is have to prove I have a leg to stand on and I win."Hahah! Are we there yet? So far I can't really tell. I think the quote from Gleason that Eric posted here about theonomy might be a fair description of my own understanding of 'theonomy', and could be a common ground that we all may be able to start from. The TERM "theonomy", does not have to be devisive simply because there are extreme elements within the Church that also use the term. If we could think of a better term for honoring, respecting, and applying the character of God, (His law), then maybe we should do that, but I don't know what that would be.

Sermonwriter said...

Here is another quote from Ron Gleason, who is also quoting Herman Bavinck:

We ended last time with a statement by Bavinck that is worthy of our time and attention. He wrote, “The heteronomy of law and the autonomy of man are reconciled only by…theonomy.” Bavinck made that statement as an ethical truth firmly ensconced in theological reflection. In other words, he spoke unashamedly as a Christian, who was willing to bring the truth of Scripture into the public arena. Why did he do that? Well, he understood then what far too many of Christians are willing to concede today as they engage culture, namely that “All culture, whatever significance it may have, just as all education, civilization, development, is absolutely powerless to renew the inner man.” To put it bluntly: Bavinck was not a theological moderate.Gleason has been doing a very long blog posting for months on "engaging the culture" as the Church. He is using his studies of Herman Bavinck to help him do this. The result always reveals the necessity of applying the standards of God and His word/law as we engage, otherwise, we end up thinking and acting like the world to our own detriment, and to no affect in our culture.

Bryan, what is your take on that? You don't have to concede to the term 'theonomy', but do you agree with the premise that the Church has "no leg to stand on" when engaging the culture unless it engages it with the standard of God and His law/word?To relax the phrase, "applying the law of God to our culture", I want to mention that this means more than applying the "letter of the law". It implies the "principles" of God's law. There are Godly principles all through scripture that could be losely termed as "God's law". So to engage the culture with the law of God does not always mean establishing the Torah word for word as the "law of the land". And it for sure does not mean the Church enforces this law. For an individual Christian it simply means we judge and engage our culture with the "mind of Christ". His mind conforms to every principle established by the law of God.

Do we agree there, or not?

Bryan said...

I don't care to talk about this anymore.If you want to show me a successful theology which is evident in your lives, I may humor you.


I would love to know the decision making process that goes into missing worship every Sunday. Does the law of God cross your mind, or have you forgotten to apply it to yourselves.

Until you are able to make some type of reconciliation with your home church or a different church, I won't listen to you guys about your view of the law.

Why should I ? Your position on the law of God in terms of worship and the gathering together of the saints, is obvious in this time frame.

However,I want to encourage you to delight in the gospel. Enjoy the gospel and remember the Lord.

You wanted to participate in a celebration of a child today. For that event, everyone was able to make time.

What about praising God ? Have we forgotten to show Him that kind of appreciation as well ?


I am hopeful that your pessimism about today's trials, and this world of sin can momentarily find rest for one day out of the week while you listen to the promises of God and hear about the work of the Lord.

Don't you remember how enjoyable it is to delight in the good things the Lord has done ?

Where is the joy ?

Don't you see what the problem is ?

Here is part of the inscription that Rand wrote in the devotional he handed to me when I became a member at Ontario.


1 Peter 1:8
8Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy,Can you quote this scripture with full assurance that it is true ?


Why are we spending our time this way ?


It is very problematic to me when I can ask the question to a Christian whether they love God, and they stumble to find the answer.

If you are a child of God you should be overjoyed at the opportunity to praise Him each week.

Be glad ! Rejoice !


Remember the Lord and how good He Is. Tell this to your family, and tell this to the world.

Castleman said...

I think that you take this whole conversation over the top when you start talking about our lives.

My question to you is, Why is it so important for you to get so bent out of shape about our church attendance. I for one, have stayed at Ontario URC while you and dad continue to speak ill of an ordained elder. While you jetted off to Oceanside URC, I continued to stand by Ontario, and I attended frequently. Only until a few months ago when I had real questions that needed to be answered, did I stop attending.

My absence has been cleared with the church, and they are fully aware of my issues. I am in the process of switching to another church.

While your opinion of me is that I do not attend church, and the reason I don't attend Chino is because of pride. I believe that the very reason you do not come back to Ontario is because of pride.

If anyone is to blame for my issues with church, it has to be you and dad. You have made it hell for me to attend Ontario. You talk behind my back. You all claim I am wickedly influenced by Adam, and that I am not a "team player". When in fact I stayed at Ontario because of what Rand told me before he left, "never leave a church unless it has left the word.". So, how is it you can point the finger at me?

I have no interest in attending Chino. I find their leadership to be borderline heretical. I have witnessed countless things that make me lose hope for the Christian church. If I were going to leave Ontario, Chino would be the very last church I would look to attend.

I find it also extremely backwards that you are arguing the importance of being in attendance for church, when that is only grounded in a theonomic stance. Keeping the sabbath Holy is a theonomic position, when all the instruction on how to keep the sabbath Holy is in the OT law.

If you can remember, Ontario URC was once Sabbatarian. Now the URC's scoff at that idea. What changed? We once had head coverings. What changed? There was never an announcement of change, it just changed with the influence of Kline. Whom I've read fully, and have seen his flaw.

Your theology is the new theology.

Sermonwriter said...

Bryan..., as a "timely coincidence", (God's providence of course), I just came across this post that was penned by the The Reformed Renegade today. What he says about the Sabbath and how he "feels" about it, I'm sure is similar to your own sentiment. I just want to again assure you, using this brother's post, that despite my struggles, I too feel the same way and am doing all I can to practice these things, and will continue to encourage others to do the same, just as you and Susan have been trying to encourage us and others to do:


I Hate the Benediction

Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen. Jude 1:24-25
Well, no, I don't hate the benediction. But there is a piece of me that's sad when I see my pastor's arms go up to give the benediction. When I know the Sabbath is over. When I know I have to wait another week to see all these people that I care about. When I know there are six days I have to endure away from the comfort the Lord gives us on each Sabbath. The Sabbath is, indeed our little piece of heaven here on earth. Let us thank the Lord for own church congregation, our pastor, elder and deacons. Thank Him for a place to meet no matter how humble or grand that place may be. Let us thank Him that He is in our midst when we come to worship Him and though our worship be imperfect, it is acceptable to our merciful and loving God.


From the Westminster Larger Catechism:
Q. 115. Which is the fourth commandment?
A. The fourth commandment is, Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.
Q. 121. Why is the word Remember set in the beginning of the fourth
commandment?
A. The word Remember is set in the beginning of the fourth commandment,a partly, because of the great benefit of remembering it, we being thereby helped in our preparation to keep it, and, in keeping it, better to keep all the rest of the commandments, and to continue a thankful remembrance of the two great benefits of creation and redemption, which contain a short abridgment of religion; and partly, because we are very ready to forget it, for that there is less light of nature for it,f and yet it restraineth our natural liberty in things at other times lawful; that it cometh but once in seven days, and many worldly businesses come between, and too often take off our minds from thinking of it, either to prepare for it, or to sanctify it; and that Satan with his instruments much labor to blot out the glory, and even the memory of it, to bring in all irreligion and impiety.


Posted by Reformed Renegade at 5/18/2009 06:42:00 AM

Labels: Lard's Day, Sabbath

Bryan said...

Eric,

I have to get personal.

I take your real life theology and put it here. Or else this internet dialogue is just a facade much like a Hollywood movie set.

Your true view of God's law is evident by your obedience to it.


You are lucky I don't publicly blast you on Facebook for all of your friends and family to see. I should though, because you make such an effort to counsel everyone on the internet about your high view of God's law.


You sound Roman Catholic when you talk about the church.

Did Adam forgive your disobedience and offer it up to God for you ?

How does the church have the ability to forgive your church attendance ?


I have seen PBS infomercials which show African people that must walk 10 miles to get water for their home. They walk very long distances to get what they need.

If you want to attend somewhere else get off your butt and go do it.

Or else you are just like a prideful Jew (Romans 2) who keeps talking about the law and sees no reason to obey it.


It is sad that both of your choose to call the church heretical and apostate at times.


Let me be clear about what I think about the Ontario URC in my own words.

I am very troubled to see many people fall victim to consequences of serious sins.

Does this mean they are heretical ? No. I have never said such a thing.

What I have said is I see a failure of many to live a life of gratitude.

You should not despise Dad and I for caring about you Eric.

I asked you if you could say you loved God to get to the root of your theology.

I am not sure if that attitude about having no capacity to do good works comes from the pulpit or not.

All I have unfortunately seen is rampant disobedience and people paying the price for their sins, through God's judgement.


You have an attitude problem and you should stop talking trash on Chino just because Adam says Chino URC sucks out of the side of his mouth.

Now is this me talking poorly of an elder ? No. This is the truth.


I don't really feel like I should be silent about something which I see causing many many people hardship.




I really miss the lives of gratitude I saw from you two when Rand was around.

What can I do ?


I sit quietly by and let you coerce the entire family with your views on law through facebook.

I feel like publicly blasting you, but there is no other way than to get personal, and true about it.

Your view of God's law in regards to the gathering together with the saints is obviously flawed.


Why should I beat around the bush and debate law & gospel with you when your true life theology is not up for debate ?


Stop trying to be an internet superstar and just go to church.

By the way Chino is great. People actually smile when they are there, because they are filled with joy by God's Spirit.

They can praise God without feeling like they are offering up unworthy sacrifices.


So if you want to keep a rift in the family go right ahead.

I let you come over to my house and celebrate a birthday.

The truth is I cannot hardly take the pride anymore.

You would have started talking about God's law, but you would get all offended if I brought up one you had possibly violated.

So you are like blind guides to me.


So why did you lie to me when you said you might transfer to Chino ?

Bryan said...

You see what happens when you talk about the law. It offends people, because it is like a mirror which casts a reflection. It shows us our ugliness.

I do not want to go around pointing out everyone's violations to the law or their cavities.

Steve it is my prayer that you are healed of your temporary trials.

Eric, I just want you to find joy in your worship.

I hope you start attending Gleason's church if that is where you desire to go.


I want you guys to find a church so that you can meet Jesus Christ regularly each week and hear the gospel.

I think this is the true resolution to many of the problems that are going on.


I want you to know how much this pains me every day.

I pray all the time for everyone at Ontario.

It saddens me to see so many various people that have left for various reasons.

I pray for resolve all of the time.

Castleman said...

All of my facebook blogs are legal information. The fact that you think that my personal life has anything to do with civil law is crazy.

Why don't you blast me on facebook? I think its because you have nothing to say.

You do not have a job. I do. I have been keeping it on the DL for almost 4 months now. Me and Dad are starting a golf club repair business, and that is why I haven't looked for work.

So to the next point. What is it in my life that is so radical that you need to publicly talk about it?

You get to personal on these blogs. It just shows you are getting frustrated because you have no answer.

I have proven to the church that they have no clue about law. So how can they even talk about how to deal with legal issues?

Theonomy is not what you think it is. It is clear that you have no clue what we are even talking about.

R.C Sproul is theonomic...what do you have to say about his Jewish ass?

Please do not worry about my attendance at church. Worry about your own crap.

You are here on Steve's blog demanding that he shuts up.

You talk behind everyone's back about how stupid their blogs are, but you have no reason to speak. We have the right to talk about whatever we want to.

Tell Scott Clark, Danny Hyde, or whoever, to come challenge me on civil law. I would chew them up and spit them out. They have no clue about what they are talking about. Sorry to tell you that.

Look on Sinners and saints, and see my conversations with the pastors. I changed their perspective on marriage. I have confronted Lee Irons about his view on gay marriage, and he had no answer...Oh wow, these guys are so dang smart. It is actually really sad that these guys cannot answer very basic legal issues. And they are the ones complaining about blogs.

Sermonwriter said...

Both you guys...

I think I've made it clear, that I have no guilt whatsoever in speaking my mind here on my blog, or, on Facebook, just because I'm a sinner.

We all have immediate demons to fight, does that mean we ignore all the other ones? Not me. That is a cop out to blame your failures in one area of your life and use that as an excuse to ignore the other areas of your life. I REFUSE to get into that trap. I have seen people very close to me do exactly that and become completely paralyzed!

Bryan, do you want your brother and myself to become completely paralyzed? I really don't think you do even if you think our views are ridiculous and that we need to be "humored" as you say. (How condesending is that by the way?).

Just because YOU might not be able to see progress, does not mean there is no progress. This is why I spent a lot of time today on this blog to try to assure you of the progress that you fail to see. I'm not blaming you for not seeing progress, I am simply trying to ease your fears and worries that you have transparently shared by assuring you that there is progress. If you must wait for results, then wait, but don't get in the way by discouraging discourse, AND FREINDSHIP, with both your brother and myself, while you're waiting...please.

All of us can, and we should, and we MUST, get along as brothers during times of healing and learning, just as in the more pleasant times of health and understanding. Let's try to do that. I know it can be difficult, but that's another aspect of our Christian life that is just as important as honoring the Sabbath.

Sermonwriter said...

Bryan said..."Steve it is my prayer that you are healed of your temporary trials."

Thanks Bryan! I know it's been a long time coming, and I am already experiencing this healing as you say, and I am looking forward to a more permanent and confident "walk" from this healing. I have tried very hard not to give up on myself, and I want to thank you and Susan for offering me the same courtesy, even though I have caused you some anguish over many months. Please forgive me, and thank you for your continued prayers and concerns...really.

To update you, there will be a few of us starting to attend Gleason's church starting this week providing everyone holds to their commitments; including my brother Mike and your brother Eric.

I have hesitated in telling you this as recent commitments to attend with you guys at Chino have completely changed and I did not want to set you up for another dissapointment. However, this week looks pretty sure.

I hope you understand why I am not going to Chino with you and Susan. Last week I really wanted to because I was sure our whole family would start attending. I was willing to put aside my theological differences to worship with everyone. Now, I don't have that "excuse". I would like to worship with you guys too, but since a large part of our family will also be attending a Church that I agree with theologically, it makes more sense for me to attend there. Susan has offered to take me to Chino should this plan for Yorba Linda not work out for whatever reason, and I thanked her very much and told her that I would love to worship in Chino with you guys should that ever happen. I hope you feel the same way.

Bryan said...

Ok guys ! I hope everything works out.

I will just pray for you guys.

Bryan said...

Hey well I picked up a book that has a lot of information on theonomy. I don't think my line of logic here is faulty. What I presumed about theonomy so far has turned out to be true. Some theonomist want to deport people who practice other religions. I see a lot of similarities to Islamic religious rule.

For the record Bahnsen believes that Sabbath breaking is a sin punishable by the death penalty.Others sins that deserve death according to Bahnsen are murder, adultery and unchastity, sodomy, bestiality, homosexuality, rape, incest, incorrigibility in children, kidnapping, apostasy, witchcraft, sorcery, and false pretension to prophecy, and blasphemy.

If you don't believe me look it up.

Bahnsen, Theonomy, pg 445


Rushdoony adds offering human sacrifice, propagating false doctrines, sacrificing to false gods, rejecting a decision of the court, and failing to restore bail.

Look that up>

Rushdoony, Institutes pg 235




What is being confirmed by this book so far is that the Christian Reconstruction Movement sometimes called "theonomy" has various beliefs and no real standard.


I may look dumb, but I am not stupid.


Eric, your commentary on Steve's post about Bahnsen shows up on everyone's facebook page.

I cannot understand such a view of God's law in the New Covenant era.

I think it is strange teaching and I think if anyone holds fellow Christians to these standards they better be very obedient and serious in keeping these laws themselves.


This is why I posted Ephesians 2.

Ephesians 2
Made Alive in Christ
1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

----

Think about your former self and your capacity to obey. Ephesians said you gratified that sinful nature.



Well anyways, I am going to give this book a thorough read.

Just be cautious about what you are willing to believe and if you are really convicted that this is true, than be consistent in your living example.


What is a Sabbath breaker in Bahnsen's view ? I haven't figured that out yet, but I will.

Bryan said...

Oh, and by the way I debate with you guys because I care about your spiritual well being.

For your sake and mine I am going to educate myself as to what these guys Bahnsen, Rushdooney, Van Til, Gary North believe.

So I am not going to post anymore for awhile until I have a really solid background.

However, from reading what I am reading it seems that you also may not fully know what these guys believe.


Sometimes I have thoughts and presumptions about theonomy and they turn out to be true as in the case of Bahnsen's view of the Sabbath.

One thing that I am thinking about right now, is that Jesus said he gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter not to Caesar, or to anyone else.

Matthew 16
18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
----

That is a very important point to me.


But anyways, I am going to beef up my knowledge.

So far I have been relying on only my study of Scripture.

I guess that will not suffice. I guess I have to go read a bunch of stuff I don't want to read.

Even though I do not see evidence for such a worldview.... I am going to do it for you guys.

Castleman said...

Revelations 13-18 talks about Christians rejecting a number that will be placed on their wrist and forehead. It even says that only true Christian will reject it.

So how can the bible clearly teach that in the future, Christians will stand up against government, but you believe that is not Christian.

It clearly says "use wisdom". We are to use wisdom in society as Christians. We are not to follow the world, but Christ. The church follows the world. The 5013c status is so intense. Its not only rejecting our call to defend what is right, but it also is a pledge of silence, and that silence only helps our government rob and murder our neighbor. There is no way the church can be the church with that kind of thinking.

Who cares if we are seen as cooks. Calvin was kicked out of Geneva because of his legal Constitution that he wrote as a legislator in Geneva..He was not popular. He didn't care. He only cared about submitting to God. He left Geneva, only to have the people of Geneva beg him to come back after they realized he was correct. He was vindicated. We are silent today..

That isn't the Christian faith.

Christians are not door to door salesman of the faith. We are to show our salvation in our lives.

If my neighbor was being robbed, I would get my gun, and put his life before mine. That is how you preach the Gospel to your neighbor, through our lives. By loving them..

The puritans gave wine back to the Indians after the government banned the Indians from having wine..What kind of effect do you think that had on the Indians? Men they didn't even know , defending their rights against the machine. That too me is good.

Christians throughout history have defended non-believers rights. Because non-believers are our neighbors.

The income tax is not good. It is robbery. Its not even a tax. They just love calling it that.

The drivers license is robbery of our neighbor.

Gun control is taking away what God gave our neighbor. Defense of their property and family.

illegal contracts are evil.

fake courts are evil.

Jail systems are cruel, and our neighbor is forced to pay for them.

millions of people are being slaughtered around the world by our government..We are silent.

It become not a question of theonomy, but reality.

Theonomy is not my call to everyone. I just do not agree the Christian has no obligation. We do, be it natural law, or theonomic law. Robbery is robbery, murder is murder, and we stand by and do nothing.

Sermonwriter said...

Bryan, those are some of the most refreshing words I've ever heard you write! Really. And I know you are not researching these things to see if they are "true", but nevertheless, you care enough about us and the subject matter to get a better understanding of what is going on. THAT, is AWESOME!

You do more than any other critic I personally know of, and for that, my hat goes off to you.

Furthermore, a lot of your concerns about theonomy are similar to mine, and I have not had the time or resources to answer some of the more questionable consequences of theonomy in practice, so what you learn would be of great interest to me. I hope you can find the time to follow through with what you say you are going to do here.

By the way, no one said you were stupid. Just wondering why you said that.

Please tell me where you find "Bahnsen, Theonomy, pg 445" as I can find no source for this. I want to read whatever it is you are reading as you go if you don't mind.

If you recall, Eric and I have both been saying all along, that if we are wrong, we want to know. We have been asking questions to anyone and everyone and nobody has been willing or able to give an "honest" answer. You, here, are stepping up to the plate, and that is exciting. Of course I would be following your pursuit with a predjudice of your sources. I have found that "enemies" of the theonomic position will give arguments that are disingenuous at best, and this seems to be a consistent theme in every argument I've seen so far against theonomy. You can see what I mean from this excerpt I posted right here.

I just mention that to let you know, that if you are really trying to sway us from the theonomic position, there is a credibility issue that we are going to have to overcome if you use the usual suspects for your research. I can't tell you who the "honest" critics are, because I haven't come across any yet. Believe it or not, Ron Gleason may be such an honest critical source, as he does not hold to Bahnsen's, North's, or Rushdoony's, complete views, and yet concedes to certain principles held by them. When the dust settles, I believe I will hold a similar position to Gleason on this. The strict theonomic position and consequences that you have an aversion to, I believe may be tempered in the New Testament era by the grace of God through Jesus Christ. However, this does not eliminate the standard God reveals in both the Old Testament and the New. This perhaps is where application of theonomic principles becomes a point of argument.

I think Eric, on his last post here, makes a good argument for the application of theonomic "principles", if not in the civil government itself, at least in the concience of the believer. Jesus did say that all of the law amounts to "love". Love for God, and love for our neighbor...all summed up in the law. Love, in reality, is a theonomic position. This has to be worked out in our thinking, and I agree with Eric, that this thinking has all but been ignored by the Church today, and is probably the biggest reason why theonomy is so attractive to me. It challenges the "do-nothing" mentality that most of the Church holds when it comes to culture and our neighbor.

Anyway, I would ask you please to include me in your studies on this so that I can follow you to any conclusions you draw. I kind of want to "read over your shoulder" if you will, so that as you study, we won't have any misunderstandings, if that's possible.

Sermonwriter said...

PART ONE

After reading Eric's latest comment here again, I am reminded of a an old post of my own right here dealing with the 5013c status. I think I make some da**-good arguments against this abomination. I'll just post some excerpts here, but if you want to read the whole thing, again it is here.

I mention this here because I think it says a LOT about the veracity of "theonomy" in the mind of the Church. Like Eric is saying, the Church is currently thinking just like the world. This is not acceptable, and the 5013c status is a glaring example and proof that the Church has fallen to this ungodly position...

About the tax exempt status of our church? Is this a biblical thing?

The IRS tax exempt 501c3 status.

The 501c3 status is immoral in and of itself, because it reduces the church to a corporation:

"A business firm whose articles of incorporation have been approved by the government.

A legal entity chartered by a US state or the federal government, and separate and distinct from the persons who own it. It is regarded by the courts as an artificial person; it may own property, incur debts, sue or be sued.

Furthermore, section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted by the government:


"It may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."

"It may not be an ACTION organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation."

Haha! The Church has agreed not to take action. Hahaha! What kind of Church doesn't take action? Doesn't work? Doesn't build? Doesn't walk? Doesn't fight? Doesn't DO anything? Isn't faith without works, dead?

If these definitions of a 501(c)(3) church don't bother you as a Christian, then it can only be because you're not seeing the implications.

Everything we do, either as a church, a family, or an individual, is "legislated" to one degree or another. If the church enters into "covenant" with the state, agreeing with the state that it will have nothing to do with legislation, it is literally bound to the state not to be of any influence on the culture, or to the people in that culture. Hey, I think our church families are part of this culture that we are not supposed to influence!

Sermonwriter said...

PART TWO

You might say, well, we can influence the culture "as citizens", instead.

But WHY? Where is the line drawn between citizen and church member? Who draws that line? This line is arbitrary, unclear, and can be manipulated anytime the "State" wants to move it around to benefit their own agenda. We already see limitations of actions placed on citizens more and more, let alone the Church. Why take action on the foundation of a "citizen" as defined by the "State", when we can take action from a much more SURE FOUNDATION as the Church? The foundation of the Church is SOLID and cannot be mannipulated by man.

I understand that this is the extreme example, but it really is the literal and logical conclusion of entering into such a covenant with the state. My understanding is that the Church can only enter into covenant with her Lord, Jesus Christ. It's one thing to 'respect the laws and customs of the land', but it's quite another to sign away the Lordship of Jesus Christ over to the state.

Another conclusion that can be drawn or inferred, is that we have asked the "State" for permission to exist as a fictional entity, called a corporation, instead of as the Church. And not only that, we have willfully agreed with the "State" that we will NOT FUNCTION as the Church, but only function as a "nonprofit organization" as created, defined, regulated, and enforced by the "State".

When you look at it like that, we are pretty pathetic...not to mention idolatrous, immoral, compromised, humanistic, and lovers of the world instead of the Lord Jesus Christ, and of course...cowards.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not preaching from some high horse here. I can frequently be a coward myself. This is just one thing that I can objectively look at in the above way, and see clearly that the 501(c)(3) status is a cowardly position for the Church to take. Shame on us.

And why is this important? Because until the Church can admit this, we will have no reason to repent and change it. Yes, it's the old denial thing. We have to first admit we are sinners and that we have sinned by agreeing with the government that we will not function as the Church, (as defined by God), and determine to shed the bonds of this grevious sin one way or another without looking back.

So do you want more Scripture applied to this scenario? Me to. I find some interesting Biblical principles that we can apply from 1 Corinthians 6:1-8:

1 If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?
2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?
3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!
4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church!
5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers?
6 But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!
7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?
8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.

Sermonwriter said...

PART THREE

I am looking at this from the perspective of judging. When we try to choose, as Christians, whether we should influence the culture as a citizen (as defined by the State), or as a Christian, (a member of God's Church), we are talking about a position of judgment. If I wish to influence something, I must do it with judgment, or discernment. Do I do this as a citizen, or as a member of the Church? It does make a difference. Can I do both? Should I do both? Can we be both a 501(c)(3) organization AND the Church at the same time?

I'm sure there may be some superficial aspects to this where we could say 'yes', if it furthers the purposes of God, but on the principles of integrity and character, it is more consistent and honest to say 'no'. This leaves no room for compromise. We should not, as a foundation of who we are, try to be two different people. This is better known as being two-faced.

I believe the above passage makes my point very well. Paul makes a clear case that judgments made by Saints and as Saints, are far superior to judgments coming from the world. Of course he is speaking of an "inside" issue amongst believers, but he makes it clear here that the "competence" of the Saints to judge, is superior enough to judge "the world", as well as angels.

NOT competent as a citizen, but competent as, a Saint!

You cannot argue, in my opinion, that Paul is speaking about some future time when we will be competent enough as Saints to judge the world, because he specifically says that if we can do that, then we should be compenent enough to "judge trivial cases", (verse 2). He clearly implies that this competence (as saints), is already available to us. Otherwise, why would he make this comparison? If we were not already competent enough to judge the world, then this would be an unfair comparison and burden Paul was placing on the Saints here if they really were NOT that competent yet, and at the same time, expecting them to be exactly this competent in a trivial case within the Church.

So, my point is, the Bible says our foundation to judge and to therefore influence the world, and to be salt and light, and to be wise, is all based on our position of being Saints and members of God's Church. Why would we want to be anything less or to be identified as anything less? Do we give up our rightful inheritance by taking inferior positions as defined by men, such as citizen, ficticious corporation, non-profit organization, or as anything else at all as defined by the State?

We are NOT any of these things, but we are the Saints of God, as defined by God.



Sermonwriter said...

So Bryan, in light of my analysis of the 5013c status of the Church, (if you had time to read it), let's look at the passage you posted...

Ephesians 2:
Made Alive in Christ


1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.


The cravings of our sinful nature go beyond gratifying appetites of our bodies, but they extend to issues of "Lordship" in all aspects of our thinking, including the way we relate to the "State", or to the government.

To "be alive with Christ" is to be obedient to Him and His standards, and not to the State...and, not to our flesh. The Church today seems to stop at "the flesh" and ignores its own compromise with the rest of the worldly systems in place. If we are to put down the flesh in order to obey Christ, then we also must put down the State to obey Christ. To me, this seems very consistent with this passage, as well as the entire New Testament.

To "Be Alive With Christ" is to be AGAINST "the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient."

How are we to tell what the ways of this world are as opposed to the ways of God?

And then I focus on your comment here..."One thing that I am thinking about right now, is that Jesus said he gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter not to Caesar, or to anyone else."

I think your comment here confirms my observation about the 5013c status. The Church is all about kingdom business and should not let itself be regulated by the State. So I guess I am just unclear about where you are going with this in regards to theonomy.

Bryan said...

STEVE SAID: I can't tell you who the "honest" critics are, because I haven't come across any yet. Believe it or not, Ron Gleason may be such an honest critical source, as he does not hold to Bahnsen's, North's, or Rushdoony's, complete views, and yet concedes to certain principles held by them. When the dust settles, I believe I will hold a similar position to Gleason on this.Steve, you have actually openly criticized the church for not holding to "theonomic" viewpoints. You have actually spoken ill of Westminister too. I don't want to go digging through your blog, but I think it was on your other blog, when I became annoyed by that.

So that is where you have found opposition to the Christian Reconstruction Movement also nicknamed "theonomy".

I don't want to reveal the source of my book, so that I can fully read it first before I get a rebuttal, coming from one of the theonomists books.

However, I am willing to give you the notes so that you can validate the claims I am making until then.

Bahnsen's book is entitled Theonomy.

Rushdooney's book is entitled Institutes.


Besides, our debate should be more about the scripture anyway. What I find is a willingness to follow a teacher who calls himself Reformed, before following the scripture first.

So if you already presume to be a follower of Gleason after the dust settles, I think that is flawed logic.

That sounds like this:

1 Corinthians 1
11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas[a]"; still another, "I follow Christ."

13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into[b] the name of Paul?
Why become passionate about "theonomy" and teachers before you really know a lot about them.

On Facebook you are willing to validate Bahnsen's viewpoints before you probably really even know everything about him, by virtually giving each other high fives and calling him "smart".

Maybe this guy is smart but very flawed. I think you should be more cautious before you even validate anyone.

From what I am reading, there is a lot of opposition to Bahnsen, and he is not above debate. Many have come out and wrote in opposition to his ideas, and they are making perfect sense.

Sermonwriter said...

Well, I promote Bahnsen without knowing "everything" about him the same way I used to promote pastor Adam and pastor Rand without knowing "everything" about them. Currently, I am promoting Gleason without knowing "everything" about him.

What I promote is the understanding of scripture I gain from their teachings on any given subject that I feel I am gaining further insight into because of their teaching or preaching. I think this is a "normal" reaction to learning about anything.

Also, let's be honest here. You know I've used scriptures now for months on this topic. Even right here on this comment board, you can see that my own understanding of the 5013c status is nothing but my own thoughts from scripture. No Bahnsen, no Gleason, etc...

I think the use of more learned scholars of scripture, (along with scripture), is very helpful, and is one reason why we subscribe to catechisms and creeds. I think you barked up the wrong tree here. My motive is not to promote the opinions of men, and I believe I have made that more than clear. My whole zeal and passion is to promote the truth of God. If I find that what I promote ends up not being the truth of God, I will stop immediately, you can be assured of that.

It is helpful to the body, as well as to myself, to promote teachings from learned men whom I believe are expressing the truths from God's word much better than I could ever do. You are doing exactly the same thing, with the exact same motive, as you study the current un-named book you have acquired. I have no cause to blame you for that. So, why blame me?

Bryan said...
"Steve, you have actually openly criticized the church for not holding to "theonomic" viewpoints. You have actually spoken ill of Westminister too."

Yes, you're right, and I make no apologies for that. I believe the Church to be steeped in humanism, which is the opposite of theonomy. Like I've said numerous times, the Church is thinking like the world when it comes to culture and society. I have also said numerous times that it has compartmentalized the faith and is picking and chosing when to have the mind of Christ, and when not to have the mind of Christ. I just can't stand it and must be vocal about it as often as I can.

Relatively, you've only known me for a little while Bryan, but I have been complaining about this, (about the Church in regards to culture), for at least 20 years now; before I knew what "Reformed" was; before I ever even heard the term "theonomy". These ideas have been in my heart and head frustrating me for 2 decades. This is why I found the Reformed faith so refreshing; especially the Covenental aspects of it. This is the faith I knew had all the answers to what had been bugging the cr@* out of me. So when I start seeing what I percieve as contradictions in that Reformed faith, and then learn that some reformers don't promote those contradictions, both historically and currently, well, I just find that refreshing and I do gravitate toward what they teach and try to learn and understand the scriptures the way they are understanding the scriptures.

Bryan said...

Oh and Gleason calling himself theonomist small t, still does not really get to the bottom of anything.

Is that like saying apostle small a ?


This could mean that he simply supports God's law to some extent. I do as well.

The term theonomy is one of the worst terms to nickname the Christian Reconstruction Movement.

The vagueness of that term and the true definition seem to be kind of prideful, when pushing these ideas around. It's like calling their movement "God's will".

It reminds me of a cult I bumped into which called itself "the Church of Christ".

Now what do you suppose they believe ? Can you gather anything from their name ?

HA. Yeah right !

Sermonwriter said...

Bryan said...
"The term theonomy is one of the worst terms to nickname the Christian Reconstruction Movement.
The vagueness of that term and the true definition seem to be kind of prideful, when pushing these ideas around. It's like calling their movement "God's will".


Yay! Good point. From now on, I will say that I am promoting "theonomic ethics", rather than "theonomy". This is the truth anyway, because you're right, "theonomy" is just too vague. It would be like, instead of the "God's will" movement, it could be "God's will in government" movement, or "God's will for family structure" movement, etc...

Also, I am not so sure I am a "reconstructionist" yet, or if I ever will be. That term is more applicable to postmillenialists. Until I learn more, I am sticking to what I know God requires from His law, and that is, for the Christian, to judge the world, the Church, and myself, by His standards, (ethics). I believe this to be the historical "Christian ethic", or, "theonomic ethic".

As you know I have posted some varying definitions of "theonomy" right here, and of all the varients on that page, I align myself, currently, to this one:

"The place or function of God's law in the moral philosophy of the Christian."

And Bryan, you also said, "This could mean that he simply supports God's law to some extent. I do as well." In speaking about Gleason.

So it sounds like our only difference might be "to some extent". I have not concluded in my own mind yet what that extent is. I have a pretty good idea, but none of this is conclusive to me yet. Currently, I believe the extent of God's law should extend to every single opinion I hold to mold and shape my "moral philosophy". In other words, to conform my conscience to God's word. I believe this is entirely Biblical, and this is where I believe the Church has dropped the ball.

Sermonwriter said...

Just as a quick example of what I mean. You mentioned to me a while ago that you knew someone who wanted to only pastor a Church "by the beach". My guess it was just innocent small talk or expression of what he likes, and that's fine.

But what if a pastor were to say that in all sincerity? Is his conscience conformed to God's law; His Word? Or is conformed to something else?

In a case like that, the pastor's moral philosophy is contrary to God's word, and he could easily be classified as a humanist in his thinking, rather than a Christian in his thinking.

Sermonwriter said...

Another example could be a registered Republican or Democrat who happens to be a Christian. They will vote their party no matter what...God's law says.

Their conscience and moral philosophy has been shaped by "the party" rather than the word of God. They end up voting humanistically, rather than Godly. This is wrong. They are not thinking or acting like a Christian. Again, I blame Church leadership for not making these points clear in the minds of believers. They have dropped the ball.

Bryan said...

Well Steve, you are saying the church has dropped the ball. I suppose this would mean that you want to return to a previous time period where the church actually had the ball.

I think that is a fallacy. I don't think there ever was a time period where the church had everything completely in line with God's will.

I also think that when the CRM points back to the Reformation and considers their movement to be a continuation of Calvin's legacy to also be a fallacy. Calvin's use of God's law seems to be different. So how can I believe it is a continuation of Reformed ideas ?

At some point you have to find temporary satisfaction as a sojourner and an alien in this world knowing that it is impossible to achieve an earthly kingdom that operates like a well oiled machine. I don't think that you should become complacent though. However, you should realize that our trials are temporary and that we should put our hope in the future.

2 Cor.
18So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

I look back to the Apostles big A to see what they were able to accomplish and how they did it, and how they looked at God's law, and how they put it into practice in their respective governments. Since they were official Ambassadors called by Christ. I consider them more worthy than a Reformer like Calvin. I think Calvin would agree.

(Not that you don't take this approach.)

Sermonwriter said...

Bryan said..."I don't think there ever was a time period where the church had everything completely in line with God's will."

Well for sure. I agree with you there. But the sad fact is, that a majority of modern reformers, pastors, teachers, and elders, have theologically, philosophicaly, and sytematically, removed a theonomic moral conscience from the minds of those they teach. How this has happened I am not really sure, but it is obvious that it has happened, and it is also obvious that this type of thing is historically foreign to the Reformed faith and to the first-century Church.

I thank you though for encouraging me to fix my eyes on Christ and things eternal, rather than on temporal trials. I hope I'm not doing that simply because I want to exhort the Church to actually "be" the Chruch. It can be a distracting endeavor, depending on whether or not I prayfully check my attitude with God's word/law. It can also make me look like a hypocrite depending on who I talk to, but I must move forward anyway as humbly as I can. So any encouragement like you give here is always welcomed by me.

However, I really do find "temporary satisfaction as a sojourner and an alien in this world knowing that it is impossible to achieve an earthly kingdom that operates like a well oiled machine." I find this satisfaction by "oiling" the Body of Christ with as much truth as I can, as well as revealing truth to unbelievers. If I didn't do that, I would feel like I was actually being disobedient to our Lord. Then I would be most miserable. So it's all a matter of perspective I guess.

Titus 2:11-14 -For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

Bryan said...

You say "removed", but that is like saying the ball has been dropped. It means that at one time there was possession.

You said 1st Century, and I suppose you are pointing back to the Reformation as times that were better.

How did any of the churches in the 1st Century exhibit a more proper alignment with God's law or exhibit a better understanding of a theonomic ethic ?

Bryan said...

Anyways, I would love to read this entire book I have in one day, but really I need to get back to doing some work, which is really starting to show some promise.

Tomorrow I will probably talk a little more.

Sermonwriter said...

When I say "removed", I am saying that the Church used to promote a theonomic ethic as something to be desired and practiced in every area of our lives, whereas today, this is severely neglected, if not ignored. In that sense, this historic practice has been "removed", with the result being, the minds of Christians are conforming to "worldly" and "humanistic" ethics instead.

I don't understand your second paragraph...sorry.

And as far as first-century Christians exhibiting a more proper alignment with God's law or exhibit a better understanding of a theonomic ethic, you can find examples on just about every page of the NT from the Gospels all the way to Revelation.

The first example would probably be John the Baptist rebuking the Pharisees, and then later on King Herod. The last example would probably be the exhortation in Revelation 22 which is basically a call for conformity to the law of God from Jesus Himself...
"12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."


And then, of course, there is everything in-between those 2 bookends.

Sermonwriter said...

By the way, the Pharisees and Herod both, were "humanists". The Pharisees had abandonded God's law for the Talmud and traditions of men. They were constantly rebuked by the Apostles as well as Jesus because their standard was not the standard of God, but it was the standard of men. (Humanism)

Sermonwriter said...

Sorry...one more thing. Not only were the pharisees humanists in the way I just explained, but they were "promoting" this humanism and "burdening" the nation of Israel with this humanism which was an even weightier reason for them to recieve rebuke.

I find a striking similarity in the Church today...though not quite as blatent in the Reformed Church, it is rampant in other Churches and is trying very hard to fully engulf the Reformed Church as well. As soon as the Reformed Church abandons the law of God, as they effectually have, then it won't be long for them to embrace all forms of humanism. Many of the people within the Reformed congregations already have. You can tell just by talking to them about certain things.

Castleman said...

Theonomy was not a name that was wanted by the theonomic crowd, rather it was placed on them.

Bahnsen was the most feared man in any Christian circle when it came to debating, and Westminster denied debating Bahnsen. That started my venture into the history of Theonomy. What I discovered is that Theonomy was the reformed church of old. Every single reformer was either like Bahnsen, or even more extreme.

Scott Kla-rk(won't say his real name) even admitted that Calvin was theocratic in his thinking of God's law. Knox was 10 steps above. The puritans were just as theocratic. They killed Baptists in early America.

While I do not share those extreme ideas as being that important. I do believe that the legislators must be confronted when they violate human rights.

I only want Christians to be more vocal about problems in society. Taxes are a big concern too me. I also don't like big government. These things too me are contradictions of logic and common law.

P.S. I got the new Punch out!! Come over and play it. Lakers won also...Answer your phone!!! haha

Sermonwriter said...

Castleman said..."Bahnsen was the most feared man in any Christian circle when it came to debating, and Westminster denied debating Bahnsen."

You can read all about this right here!

.
.
.

Sermonwriter said...


In 1990, the Westminster faculty (past and present) published an attempted refutation of Bahnsen: Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, which led within a few months to responses by the theonomists: Westminster's Confession, by Gary North; Theonomy: An Informed Response, edited by Gary North; and No Other Standard by Greg Bahnsen.

No Other Standard is Bahnsen's response not only to the Westminster faculty's book, but also to the two other brief critical books against him, and to the various published articles and typewritten, photocopied responses that have circulated over the years. One by one, Bahnsen takes his critics' arguments apart, showing that they have either misrepresented his position or misrepresented the Bible. Line by line, point by point, he shows that they have not understood his arguments and have also not understood the vulnerability of their own logical and theological positions.

What we have seen, year after year, is that his published critics subsequently refuse to debate him in public.

Example: Meredith Kline's sweetheart deal with the editor of the Westminster Theological Journal (W. Robert Godfrey) that Bahnsen would not be allowed to respond in the WTJ to Kline's hostile 1978 essay.

Example: The refusal in 1989 of H. Wayne House (co-author of Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse?) to allow Bahnsen to cross-examine him during a scheduled public debate, after House had issued a public challenge for Bahnsen to debate. Bahnsen insisted, so House canceled the debate.

Example: Norman Geisler's refusal in 1991 to debate Bahnsen at Liberty University, and then Geisler's appearance at an anti-theonomy symposium two days after Bahnsen had left the campus. They all know what the result of such a debate will be; thus, they launch hit-and-run attacks when they think their readers and listeners will never read Bahnsen's response.

Joe Louis once said of an ill-fated scheduled opponent in the ring. "He can run, but he can't hide." Likewise, Bahnsen's critics. No Other Standard corners them all, and one by one, floors them.
.
.
.

Bryan said...

Steve,This is what I can say for a fact now.

Theonomy is not consistent as to what laws are considered ceremonial.

Old Testament law does not easily transfer over to the New Covenant or present culture easily and therefore theonomists calling people heretical is plain nonsense. (This is what I presumed just understanding the bible the way I did.)

Calvin was theocratic but he did not use the same reasoning as theonomists when arriving at his reasons for civil law. He took pagan reasoning into account as well because God's order is naturally revealed to this world.

It doesn't take a long time reader of the bible or of theonomy to realize that Bahnsen and Rushdooney are going overboard when they call for adulterers to get the death penalty. Or the very long lists that they have.

Is this the policy of Jesus and Paul ? No.

Jesus basically introduces new adaptations of Old Testament law in regards to adultery in Matthew 5:17

---

While I think that theonomy by its incredibly incorrect use of God's law may have awakened many people to look more closely at civil law and Christian society, I still think it is basically a distortion, and therefore crap.

I think it is very pompous for Bahnsen to call people heretical. However, I think it is even more arrogant and pompous for you to call the church heretical when you might not fully understand the CRM (theonomy) according to its leaders views.

This is what irritates me.

Your loyalty is given to a system which seems fundamentally flawed and no two theonomists agree as to how these laws should play out, yet you still appear to be stubborn.

Steve, who cares if Bahnsen wrote a rebuttal to Westminister? Have you read it ? Have you read anything in its entirety that Bahnsen has written ?

If you can look at Bahnsen or Rushdooney's view of the death penalty and not question the correctness of that and your loyalties to them, I really wonder if I can say anything that would sway you at all.

Why should I even get into laws which may be ceremonial or not ?

You could either agree or disagree just like Rushdooney and Bahnsen do.

So what would be the difference ?

Nothing will change.

To cause a bunch of division within the church and within the family over what is good civil law is prideful and to call this system God's way, is also prideful.

This blog is actually overambitious and zealous without knowledge.

If you want to sway someone go out on a street corner with a sign that reads what your view of the death penalty is, and bring your Alex Jones megaphone with you.



I see no real end in sight for this civil law dilemma. When could you ever find any satisfaction ?

This would be a life long project in order to reform the church and then America, because it probably could never happen in your lifetime.



From reading Calvin, I am continually a supporter of his reasoning. The more I read the more he makes sense.

However, the more I engage in trying to understand the CRM the more I see it as a misapplication of God's law.

There is no overall and obvious application of Old Testament law being used in this way in the New Testament.



How closely does this theonomy system reflect Phariseeism, or Islamic religious government policy.

This is the fast lane to tyranny in God's name.

If you can take Bahnsen or Rushdooney seriously when it comes to this death penalty thing, I wonder why you would get a free pass ?

Do you think that being chosen by God gives you elitist status?

Or why shouldn't your very own sins be punished just as harshly ?

Bryan said...

I reiterate:

1 Corinthians 1
11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas[a]"; still another, "I follow Christ."

13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into[b] the name of Paul?

---

To show support for Bahnsen's rebuttal of a Westminister book is just picking teams.

You must really know the subject matter in order to be legit.


You know what maybe we should critically look at some of these OT laws, in order to see how ridiculous this all is.

Castleman said...

I wouldn't blow off theonomy so easily. There are allot of extremely educated men out there that believe thoenomy is the Christian outlook on society.

Calvin did use a theonomic worldview when it came to civil punishment. He cut peoples heads off for speaking ill of elders. He jailed women who had the hair styled in a certain way. He even jailed people who sang songs that had no meaning. Calvin believed that civil government was a soldier for God, and the Church was the most important government body.

Knox told Queen Elizabeth that she had no power because she was a women. Calvin agreed with Knox, but did not agree that he should have went about it the way he did.

When America was started, it was a mirror image of the Dutch Republic. The Dutch Republic was formed by a man that was taught by Calvin on government. The arrows in the claw of our American crest symbolizes our relation to the Dutch Republic. John Adams even said "The Constitution is an exact copy of the Constitution of the Dutch Republic." So why would the Reformed church deny the original Constitution? It can be said that Calvin wrote it himself.

This leads me to the real problem. In today's reformed church, every single pastor is ignorant of civil law, and at the same time, they hold a position that holding civil government accountable is not on their to do list. I find that to be extremely lacking.

Is theonomy correct? I haven't heard another answer to the present problems from the church. In fact, I have heard that we have no place. I find that to be a violation of my conscience.

If the church really believes that civil government is not to be held accountable by the church, then they cannot even vote. They cannot talk about who should be president, they shouldn't even speak out on abortion. They cannot have it both ways.

So if the church truly operated the way they fantasize, then the church would be an emotionless block, with no eyes or ears. It makes no sense.

Any form of voting or protesting is a demand for truth. Truth only comes from God.

Natural law is only evidence that God's law is written on the hearts of men. The unbeliever using natural law to operate in this world. But their sins manipulate their true understanding of God's law. How can the church tell the people that natural law is how we understand right from wrong. Our consciences are still messed up.

R.C Sproul calls that Jimminy Cricket theology. He says, "do not let your conscience be your guide". King David slept with a women, and then had her husband killed. His conscience was not alerted by these things. It took another Christian man to confront him.

Natural law is only evidence of God's law, but should never be relied on over God's law. We need God's law to help us keep our consciences on the straight and narrow.

The mere fact that we are even trying to use scripture to prove that we do not use scripture is kind of a black hole of chaos.

Bryan said...

Yeah yeah educated men..... so smart, just like Calvin, thick books, death penalties, and a plan.
---
(From the 100 aphorisms in the back of Calvin's Institutes). Do these faithfully summarize his teachings and do you agree with him ?

97. We are enjoined to obey not only good magistrates, but all who possess authority, though they may exercise tyranny; for it was not without the authority of God that they were appointed to be princes.

98. When tyrants reign, let us first remember our faults, which are chastised by such scourges; and, therefore, humility will restrain our impatience. Besides, it is not in our power to remedy these evils, and all that remains for us is to implore the assistance of the Lord, in whose hand are the hearts of men and the revolutions of kingdoms.



HERE ARE SOME LAWS : HOW DO THEY APPLY TO THE NEW COVENANT OR CULTURE TODAY, CAN YOU PULL OFF A QUALITY ANSWER WITHOUT BEING AUTONOMOUS ? (DON'T PRESUME TO THINK THAT ALL THEONOMISTS WILL AGREE EITHER, OR PUT THESE INTO THE REALM OF CEREMONIAL LAWSLeviticus 19 19 " 'Keep my decrees.
" 'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
" 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.


Exodus 2128 "If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. 29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death. 30 However, if payment is demanded of him, he may redeem his life by paying whatever is demanded. 31 This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter. 32 If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels [a] of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned.

Exodus 221 "If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.

Deuteronomy 25 1 When men have a dispute, they are to take it to court and the judges will decide the case, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty. 2 If the guilty man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall make him lie down and have him flogged in his presence with the number of lashes his crime deserves, 3 but he must not give him more than forty lashes. If he is flogged more than that, your brother will be degraded in your eyes.

Deuteronomy 228 When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof.

---

Bryan said...

We should presume that Old Testament standing laws continue to be morally binding in the New Testament, unless they are rescinded or modified by further revelation."
-Bahnsen, By This Standard, 345-346

Castleman said...

So Bryan,

Educate me on your stance. You obviously were angry when no one followed you to Chino. The way you handled it was anything but Christian.

You proceeded to delete me as a friend on facebook. You will not return my calls. But yet, I have your friend Grillo the saint calling me trying to find you. Sounds like a holly venture.

For some reason I had to give Susan a roof over her head on Sunday night, and here you still argue theonomy is wrong.

It sounds to me like you take God's law to great extremes. So who are your arguing against?

BACK TO YOUR POSTING!
" 'Do not mate different kinds of animals."
" 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."

HERE IS WHAT BAHNSEN BELIEVES!!

Laws that do not apply:

· localized imperatives — commands that applied only once — e.g., to build the tabernacle, to kill all the Canaanites.

· cultural details — e.g., ax heads, parapets on flat roofs.

· administrative details — e.g., form of government, location of capitol.

· typological foreshadows — e.g., ceremonial laws, including laws about the land, which typified the kingdom of Christ

WHAT THEONOMY IS NOT SAYING!:



· Obedience cannot forgive sins or justify anyone. However, forgiven people should obey God, as empowered by the Holy Spirit.

· God's laws are not to be imposed by force upon society. Rather, they are the standard Christian voters and officials should seek.

· Civil officials are not obligated to enforce every biblical law. E.g., there is no way to enforce laws against envy and unbelief. "Rulers should enforce only those laws for which God revealed social sanctions to be imposed" (p. 10).


SO!!!!

Obviously those laws you are talking about are not what Bahnsen has to say on the matter. You lump theonomy into a ball assuming its a new form of theology. When in fact Bahnsen was the highest graduate of his time from Westminster Seminary, and his paper on a Theonomic ethic was praised and published. Westminster changed, Bahnsen did not. I bet that Rand, Sproul, and every other reformed pastor that wasn't brainwashed in the new Westminster era would fully agree with Bahnsen. Sproul is now promoting Post mil views.

So who are you defending?

If you are not hear to actually find an answer, then just step away, and continue your life at mt Baldy lodge and with your unbelieving friends. As for me and my family, we will worship the Lord!

When will you realize that you have no clue about either side of the debate?

I

Bryan said...

Luke 15:2
But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them."

Bryan said...

Eric, I wasn't angry when nobody went with me to Chino.

I am confused as to how you could one day say you would be willing to transfer over there, and then suddenly arrive at a different decision.

I think everyone was optimistic about that idea until you pulled back.

For me this didn't make me angry at all. I actually did not think anyone would transfer. I thought that if God willed that to happen it would just happen. I only placed that idea out there.

However, you haven't really just pulled back. What you have said since then is that Chino is "borderline heretical".

That is an amazing leap in a few days! But I know it is not a leap. You have said such things before.



So what is the real story Eric ?

Why the two stories ? Which one was true ?

Bryan said...

Why did you back out ?

And why did you wife interrupt you when you agreed to transfer ? She knew something that you had said.

What was your hidden agenda ?

Was this just another false promise ? Like the one you told Susan the other night, or the ones you told Grillo on separate occasions, and the lies you told me ?


I cut you off from facebook for the same reason Napoleon Dynamite tells his Uncle Rico to leave town.

You are trying to basically push breast enhancement formulas onto my family and friends.

I have gotten sick of looking at you blog posts.

They actually are quite upsetting to me. I am very concerned that you are pushing your ideas of marijuana and stuff onto the children.

In that particular post you do mention Christianity, so don't tell me you are only sticking to civil law.


If you want to falsely portray me. Go right ahead, you are not lying to men but to God.

I make no apologies for living my Christian life among the unbelievers.

Castleman said...

"I think everyone was optimistic about that idea until you pulled back."

I never once tried to convince anyone to not go. The fact that you pin this issue on me is stupid.

Mike said that he wasn't going to go before I said anything on the matter. I thought Steve was going, and I even called him the night before to make sure he was. Not until Susan called him at 9:30 did I hear any different.

But, if in some way people decided not to attend Chino because I wasn't going to go, then I cannot argue with their reasoning.

I am not trying to be mean, but the facts speak for themselves. I talk to Steve on a regular basis, I have a good standing relationship with Mike. I spend time with all of the kids in the good times and bad. So when a major decision is going to be made and the do as I do, then I can make the argument that I don't just show up out of the blue and try to convince them of anything. I call Mitchel everyday, I talk to Steve everyday, I hear from Mike once a week, me and Paula have taken in Mary, and I talk to Kathy once a week. Why wouldn't they listen to me over you? I am not saying you are right or wrong about Chino, but I have a visible standing relationship with everyone. That might be why they decided not to attend last Sunday, but I assure you I had no intention on convincing them in any shape or form.

I have been talking about Gleason's church for some time now. I have always in some regard been very vocal about my dislike for Chino, but I was willing to try it to see what happened. It just so happened to I got a reply from Gleason last Friday, so I was excited.

I never had any interest in destroying your plans, in fact I think you plans are exactly what we need. But I cannot go to a Church that I feel is in worse shape than where I am at now.

So I am set on Gleason's Church, and I would be very excited if you had the same feelings. I remember you saying that they are very involved with each other, and I see that as being a great place for everyone. Gleason is a very well respected pastor.Pastor Rand was very good friends with him. I have never heard any pastor speak ill of him. That can't be a bad thing. I even believe that dad would love Gleason's church.

Would you not want to attend that church? I think it would be a great idea.

p.s. I didn't want to come off that harsh in my last post, but it made me angry to see you deleted all my comments that were positive about your art and you deleted me as a friend on facebook. On top of that, Grillo called me and cursed me out. I was pissed. Sorry about the tone.

Castleman said...

"Was this just another false promise ? Like the one you told Susan the other night, or the ones you told Grillo on separate occasions, and the lies you told me ?"

What other false promises have I not come through with? I have helped Grillo 4-5 times move. He has lied to me ever since I have known him, and he has ripped me off on almost every occasion. The fact that you help Grillo, and not me move once, Julie or Dave move once, or even you and Susan flaking on Steve and Anna and the kids because you were not going to "give into foolishness" is the real story. I have helped everyone move, even Grillo, and I was not going to put myself in a bind with him again. Just a week before that he was swinging at me and called me a bitch at your house. I am astonished that he is even around you.

What lie did I tell Susan? Because I assure you that I have never committed to anything with her. I rarely even talk to her because of the amount of bull she has to say. So please educate me.

Everything that I have to say on my blog is extremely important, and 100% true. The fact that you cannot handle my views is another story.

The fact that you have to delete me, and act as if you are so above me is so ridiculous. If you really believe what I say is false, then prove it legally. If you can show me the law and disprove anything I state, then you are a better at law than I. If you do not want to post a comment and promote my blog, email me. I challenge you to figure out what I am saying. All of it is true, and all of it works. I stopped a cop from arresting a man the other night, can you say the same? I am studying things that help my neighbor. This venture I am exploring has done nothing but give people joy, except you.

Castleman said...

Oh yea, and I never charged to help any of those people move.

Bryan said...

Yeah and that does not answer how Chino goes from being acceptable to borderline heretical in a few days, in your opinion.

Bryan said...

You cannot swallow all of the bad things you have said over the past year about Chino.

It would be too hard to swallow it all, wouldn't it ?

Yeah. This is about standing your ground. It is not about family, or anything.

That is why you exhibit no behavior that shows you are looking for a church.

I have already taken Steve out to that church one time before.

It's all not that hard Eric.




Maybe you should stop talking now.


Your tongue is setting off too many wildfires.

Castleman said...

Psalm 1 verse 1-3
"Blessed is the man who does not walks in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sit at the seat of scoffers: But he delights in the law of the Lord, and meditates on it day and night.

He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and the leaf does not wither."

Calvin writes that the first part of that psalm should remind you of the friends you keep. You are not to have unbelieving friends.

The Christian delights in God's law. Not because we always do it, but because we can.

Like Jonathan Edwards says "If a tree does not produce good fruit, rip it out of the ground, why does it even use up the dirt?"

Saved through faith is the second step in the Christian life, now we are to be worried about our gratitude, and we are to love our neighbors to such an extent that our lives come secondary.

I have made the point that the government steals from our neighbor, they kill our neighbor, and we should be fighting for them. That is how we preach the Gospel.

The modern reformed church is stuck on the second step. We should be reminded of our guilt and God's grace every week, but if we are not producing a Godly life in society, we would be better off dead. "Why even use up the dirt?"

Bryan said...

Has Grillo even moved 4-5 times ?

Name them.

Castleman said...

I talked to Gleason this week about moving to his church. The fact that you keep defending the theonomic view of the Sabbath confuses me.

I have been absent from church for a short time. Don't act as if your church attending history is great. You left Ontario URC for a non reason, and you still haven't returned. I stayed throughout the problem you set for me and Paula. I remember the days when Susan would be at Steve's talking in his ear about Adam not liking the government types at his church. What was the point of that?

I do promote the family to be together, but not at Chino. That church is a 100 steps behind Ontario. The things I know about that church are true, and there is even a present issue that I cannot even discuss that is extremely radical. Why would I go there?

Castleman said...

I helped move his father and mother in-law out of upper Claremont. I helped his father move from a Claremont house to a Claremont Condo. I helped Andy and Jacki move to the Beach, and then I helped them move again when the moved upstairs. Every single time he has put me in horrible positions.

fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. That is how I feel about that situation.

Castleman said...

The last time he was at your house he asked me if Paula was on crack because of her weight. That to me sums up Grillo.

Bryan said...

Actually it would be nice to have you flogged for taking everyone's books and telling lies to everyone.

Maybe theonomy is a good option.

Bryan said...

Ok so you got fooled 4 times. So what does that say ?

Does that mean that you are now authorized to tell lies in order to escape the horror of just saying no ?

Why did you lie to me ?


You wanted to work. You needed the money for your cigarettes, but when the sun came up, the bed was just too comfy.

Snore Snore. ZZZZ ZZZZ

Castleman said...

flogged? Obviously you are mistaken about theonomy still.

Why did I lie to you? I was planning on coming, but I was up until 9:00 am. That is the truth, and it was not intentional.

Grillo was beating around the bush about paying me, and for you to assert that I was only willing to work for cigarettes is a ignorant statement. You make cartoon like statements about my life, but even the unbelieving world calls me first to help move. Grillo called me first, and he just bumped into you. Julie calls me first to watch the kids and mom second. Why is that? Is it because I am always flaking? The evidence speaks for itself, and if this was court, you would lose the cause.

Castleman said...

lies? All men are liars, so you can find every man guilty. But do not assert that I am a pathological fibber like I was when I was a kid, that argument died with the Cosby show.

Bryan said...

Matthew 3:8
Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.




Oh well, I guess I am too stupid to actually learn what theonomy is.

Although I have this book which certainly has told me a lot about it.

I guess it is just too tough for me.


Sorry guys.

I won't post here anymore since I cannot figure it out.

Wow ! I must have missed this teaching in my reading of the scripture.

Oh well. I am too dumb.



Bye !!! Thanks for everything !!!!

Castleman said...

Matthew 3:8
Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.

Repentance is how you gain fruit. Through awareness of your sin, you also have awareness of God's law. So the key word is "WITH". It doesn't say fruit is repentance, it says Produce fruit in keeping "WITH" repentance.

If you believe the scriptures do not teach that Christians bear good fruit, then what do they do? Guilt, grace, GRATITUDE. Only thinking that guilt and grace are the only teachings in scripture is not a new thought. How do we have gratitude? By obeying God's law. It isn't only by repenting. What did Calvin demand on his return to Geneva? He demanded that discipline would be strictly upheld. That is because in a Christian world, gratitude is key. Don't keep pointing the finger at my life, I am not Jesus, but I do have questions that should be answered by the church. That is all. My life does not counter those questions.

Sermonwriter said...

Bryan said..."Steve, who cares if Bahnsen wrote a rebuttal to Westminister? Have you read it ? Have you read anything in its entirety that Bahnsen has written ?

Well, I care, and you should too if you are looking for honest answers to the question of theonomy. Rebuttals are always a very important part of any debate, and I find that in Bahnsen's case, they are extremely important because his rebuttals are brilliant.

And yes, I have read 2 of Bahnsen's works in their entirety. It's been a while, but I read his original publication, By This Standard, about 4 years ago, and then shortly after that read his rebutal to Westminster, No Other Standard: Theonomy and its Critics.

I've also purchased and listened to many of his lectures on theonomy which I purchased from Wordmp3.com, but have since misplaced all of them, but all of a sudden Eric and Paula happen to have 2 of them, (for some reason; perhaps the providence of God?...I don't know but they mysteriously have them and have been blessed by them!).

Also, Bahnsen's Youtube channel, though no posts on theonomy exist there, is an excellent teaching source for a presuppositional apologetic. There are a couple of debates on there and quite a few "world view" lectures.

I honestly cannot find any good arguments against the case Bahnsen makes for "theonomy". That's what I and Eric have both been saying all along. Where's the alternative? Where is the honest argument? I really have not heard one yet, and I don't say that out of any kind of so-called pride, I say that in all sincerity. If theonomy is so WRONG, then why can't anyone say WHY? !!!

Sermonwriter said...

By the way Bryan, the reason I read Bahnsen's rebuttal to Westminster's critique of theonomy, was because I wanted to know what the arguments against theonomy were. I wanted to have an honest and objective opinion about this subject.

I honestly feel like I've given BOTH sides of this debate a "fair shake", and Bahnsen has won hands-down on every point in my opinion. Until someone can come up with something better than Westminster has produced, I must, in all intellectual honesty, side with Greg Bahnsen on the subject of theonomy. It's as simple as that. No other motives or agendas exist here except for a desire to know what is true. I have no sinfull ambition here to defend some kind of pride or some kind of investment that I've made in coming to my conclusions. As I've always stated, I am more than willing to reject theonomy should anyone be able to give me sound Biblical reasons to do so.

Bryan said...

On a windy day, a rooster lays an egg on a roof, which side of the roof does the egg roll down?

If nobody can offer me a rebuttal to that question, I will continue to hold to my own beliefs. What are those beliefs, you ask ?

Well those things can change. I haven't made up my mind yet. But this rooster thing really poses a problem.

Bryan said...

I think I am holding to west side for now. That is west side small "w", unlike the West Siders, who hold firmly to the position that the egg always rolls West.

However, if someone can argue that I should believe in east. I will be willing to change my mind.

Bryan said...

What I meant to say is offer me a solid answer to my question about which side of the roof the egg will roll down.

If you can show me why it is not west side almost 70% of the time, I have no choice but to believe it is 69.987546 % according to the Egg Master, who I will follow.


Nevermind the quagmire, I am trapped forever.

Don't tell me that this is not important. I know it is.

Bryan said...

Have you ever tried shadow boxing ? It is a lot like debating a theonomist.

What is a theonomist ? That depends big T or little t ?

Bryan said...

You can't call homosexuality a sin, without being a theonomist.If you would like to cancel your membership to theonomy, please allow 30 days for processing.

Sermonwriter said...

Well then, if that's the best you can offer the debate, I would suggest doing what I did and read those 2 books I just mentioned so you can see that God's law is neither dependent on wind nor roosters! :o

Seriously. I took the challenge myself before I was sure...I was convinced. You may take the challenge and reject it still, but at least you would be approaching people like me with sincerity rather than with a condesending spirit...which tends to be devisive by the way. The books are free; they're not that long; they really will teach you something that you do not know now. Arm yourself. Get prepared and read those books. I have posted the links right here on this page.

Ephesians 4:1-3 -walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Sermonwriter said...

By the way Bryan, I have accepted your challenges to me before. For instance, you asked me to read "How the Kingdom Comes" by Michael Horton, so that I would have a better understanding of where you were coming from and where I was going wrong. Sure, it's not a whole book, but I did read it.

In fact, I read it and critiqued it, and then I even posted it on my blog, right here. I am not afraid to study theonomy's critics or even publish their arguments to possibly influence others, because I am after the truth and I want others to know the truth too. I just hope you are only after the truth as well, that's all.

Castleman said...

We are to submit to the elders in the church. Does that mean I have to submit to Mormon elder? And if not, why? I assume its because a title doesn't give Godly authority, rather substance does.

We are to submit to the civil government. What if the mafia took over Southern California? Does that make them the ruling authority? Does the man with a gun become the one in charge? What makes someone an authority?

We are to submit to both governments God has ordained, but we are not to submit to people that claim to be servants of God that really aren't. So what makes an elder and elder, and what makes a civil authority a civil authority? The answer to both is God's law. It is as simple as that.

The pastor are the feeders of the sheep, and the civil government is the protectors of the society of the sheep.

The pastor are to feed to sheep a food that has already been prepared, and civil government is to protect the fence that God has made. If the pastors add or take anything away from the food that has been prepared we are not to only not submit to them, but we are to hold them accountable. What if the civil authority starts claiming the sheep as their own? We are to not only not submit, but we are to speak out. This isn't as hard as it seems.

Why does God say sex before marriage is wrong? Well, natural law may lead you to believe that it isn't good for health reasons, or that God doesn't like it because it confuses things. Rather, the theonomist was argue that sex before marriage is distortion of God's character, and the image he created us in. We are to glorify God in all fascists of life, whether that be the bedroom, the courtroom, or the classroom. All corners of life God exists, and all corners of life God is to be obeyed.

Obeying tyrants, is disobedience to God.

Sermonwriter said...

Exactly, and, well put Castleman.

B said...

The U.S. government is not a tyrant against Christianity so far as to not allow us to worship God, evangelize, and to confess we worship the Lord. I can own a bible.

I believe we have a pluralistic society which allows for other religions to exist and to worship despite our differences.

So don't call what God has ordained tyranny.

I believe in obeying this government for the Lord's sake, and for the sake of our neighbors.

1 Peter 2
13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.


To Emperor Antoninus Pius from Justin Martyr
"So we worship God only, but in other matters we gladly serve you, recognizing you as emperors and rulers or men, and praying along with your imperial power you may also be found to have a sound mind."




"The Lord ... said, 'Render to Caesar what are Caesar's, and what are God's to God;' that is the image of Caesar, which is on the coin to Caesar, and the image of God, which is on man, to God; so as to render to Caesar indeed money, to God yourself".

Tertullian, De Idolatria, ch.15



Most wisdom borrowed and digested from William S. Barker's article on Theonomy, Pluralism, and the Bible.

---


It is not so called theonomy to believe in submitting to the government or by addressing the government to coerce them.

What we do is act and behave like Christians and submit to the magistrate, for the sake of the world.

Your Christian obedience matters.

It is not all about whether or not Caesar should be paid a tax and whether it is lawful or if it is hypocritical to use money which bears the image of a false god.



And that is my final point.

I apologize for quarreling with you on these matters.

I respectfully bow out of this debate.

From here on out, I choose to let bygones be bygones and to let what is obviously true shine forth from your deeds whether they be good or bad.

"since it is the power of princes to remit penalties; yet no legislator can affect that a thing, which nature pronounces to be vicious, should not be vicious, and if tyrannical arrogance dares to attempt it, the light of nature will presently shine forth and prevail."- John Calvin



In other words live your theology out, and I will see what the effects are.

B said...

I'm done. So don't expect me to answer any more questions.

Sermonwriter said...

Alrighty then 'B'. I too apologize for being "quarellsome" if you percieved me that way, and I was hoping we could let bygones be bygones.

Don't expect too much from my life though. I only shine as bright as the Lord choses...if at all. Heck, I could be dead tomorrow. Then what'll you do! Haha. Please don't pattern your theology on my life. It's not worth it because I am but a sinner saved unto good works.

Sermonwriter said...

However, "B", I DO hope that my life could eventually be an encouragement to you, as well as the rest of my family. THIS responsibility I do accept.

Castleman said...

"The U.S. government is not a tyrant against Christianity so far as to not allow us to worship God, evangelize, and to confess we worship the Lord. I can own a bible."

Really? How do you worship God? God demands that you love your neighbor. This is my major point against the modern church. How can you say you are free to worship God, but you are not freely aloud to love your neighbor?

If the church actually wanted to worship God, we would have a defense of our neighbor that would land the Christians in jail. That is true faith.

Render unto Cesar what is Cesar's is not a plead to obey government. It is an example of being a servant of God, or being a servant to Cesar. How could of Christ answered "THE TRICK QUESTION" with an answer that would have been what the pharisees wanted?

I won't write too much more because I wonder if you even read what I write. I writing about that verse probably 5 times, and it is backed by Calvin, and is extremely clear in its writings.

Castleman said...

"since it is the power of princes to remit penalties; yet no legislator can affect that a thing, which nature pronounces to be vicious, should not be vicious, and if tyrannical arrogance dares to attempt it, the light of nature will presently shine forth and prevail."- John Calvin

Calvin is saying exactly what I am saying. It will be evident when kings and legislators write evil laws, because through natural law we will know its wrong.

He is saying that all law is based on the ten commandments, and those commandments are written on everyone's heart. Through natural law it is evident that men have certain rights that cannot be taken away, and through natural law come common law, the very thing that the Constitution is based on. Common law was the basis for the Magna Carta, which Calvin learned and believed to be true and honoring to God and our neighbor, and that same common law is our Constitution.

This is what I am arguing dude...geesh