Comments on: Paul was not a Theonomist

By: There is only ONE Kingdom « The Reformed Standard

There is only ONE Kingdom « The Reformed Standard — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 01:16:05 +0000

[...] it is to be spiritually discerned. Some of his sentiments of that nature are found on his post: "Paul Was Not a Theonomist." I bring this up because is speaks of the world as if it were a sterile experiment in some glass [...]

By: Where I Stand « Blogorrhea

Where I Stand « Blogorrhea — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 07:29:09 +0000

[...] equity of the moral law of God? Paul was not a Theonomist, so why should I be? 2K all the way, [...]

By: A Lover, not a Fighter « Blogorrhea

A Lover, not a Fighter « Blogorrhea — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:57:35 +0000

[...] I just want to briefly note that Frame’s conclusion that I boldfaced right there echos exactly what I argued here, concerning Paul’s reinterpretation of the rationale language of O.T. death penalty laws. I could quote from this article all day, but if I quote any more, then I might as well just paste the whole article! If you are intrigued by these quotes, then you should go read the whole article, to see how Frame conceives of a Christian state that tolerates false religion. I’m not sure I agree with all of it, but it is more fully thought-out than anything I have heard from the Theonomist camp. [...]

By: Jeff Kazules

Jeff Kazules — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 05:58:08 +0000

By: RubeRad

RubeRad — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 04:42:57 +0000

That’s not what I have in mind with church/state separation either. It is just typical of the theocratic, non church/state-separated nation of Israel, which was actually a special instance, noteworthy because of the very unusual-ness of the situation.

By: Jeff Kazules

Jeff Kazules — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 04:32:51 +0000

I think I’ve made some progress on this point with you at long last. But no, not that far as the church making the laws. God has done that. The state AND the church need to determine how to apply them today. We might also consider the possibility of a ‘middle man.’ In Israel, only a certain family of the Levite tribe were allowed to be priests. The other levites had various jobs, but we find some of them as interpreters of the law that were consulted by the judges, rulers and kings from time to time. I want to discuss this in more depth. I’ve just done some reading on it that I want to share with you.

And no, that example isn’t what I have in mind with church/state separation. It was actually a special instance, noteworthy because of the very unusual-ness of the situation. Again, I’d like to discuss later.

Cheers for now.

Jeff

By: RubeRad

RubeRad — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 21:58:48 +0000

Since that comment belongs here, I will respond to it here.

I am not saying, nor was the confession saying, that in each and every case against a blasphemer or idolater, etc. that the state needs to defer to the church with a church court or church judges or the like.

Now I see what you're saying. When you say "the state cannot determine cases of heresy or blasphemy," you mean they can't determine them right off, but they can learn. What you're really trying to say (or trying not to say) is that the Church should make the laws, and the State shuld enforce them. I don't understand how you can keep calling a concept like that (or Israel) Church/State separation. I think 2 Kings 11 pretty well describes the kind of Church/State separation you have in mind.

By: Jeff Kazules

Jeff Kazules — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 06:54:19 +0000

I disagree with your logic here. See new comment #65 on a different post. Jeff

By: RubeRad

RubeRad — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:55:12 +0000

This is NOT what is meant by saying that the state needs to learn from the church what is false worship or idolatry or blasphemy, etc. From 1 Corinthians 5, we learn that the church is not to “pass sentence,” “condemn,” “JUDGE,” those that are “outside” of its jurisdiction. That in no way is a prohibition of the church from “assisting” or “helping” the state in creating laws that accurately reflect God’s righteousness.

You assume that the church can assist and help the state to create laws that accurately reflect God’s righteousness — and then it ends? That is just the beginning. There is no way the state can accurately administer the laws without continually submitting to the JUDGMENT of the church. WCF and Jeff agree with me about “the state not being able to determine cases of heresy or blasphemy”. So you are stuck with the two bad options of the state JUDGING these cases that they have no competence to JUDGE, or the Church JUDGING these cases that they have no jurisdiction to JUDGE.

JUDGE.

JUDGY.

JUDGE-O-RAMA.

JUDGULATION.

JUDGIVITY.

By: Jeff Kazules

Jeff Kazules — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:32:42 +0000

In an impishly humorous response to #20 above:

You seem to think I have made an obvious misinterpretation of the text, but if it’s so obviously wrong, why do Forester, Bruce, ME, Chilli — everybody but you (and I guess Lord_Ron) — all seem to agree that the straightforward intent of I Cor 5 is to tell the church “don’t judge outsiders”.

Maybe because I’m smarter than all of them, too! :)

Or, because they didn’t pay attention in logic class either. :)

Or, they haven’t learned how to exegete scripture yet. :)

I don’t know really, the above quips are really just big fat silly elbows. Please don’t take offense. I mean it all in a kidding tone.

On a more serious note, I didn’t learn the modern reformed understanding of the law before I learned theonomy. I came from other circles. I think the same is true of Lord Ron as well. My previous pastor, etc. I don’t have that way of thinking or teaching influencing the way I look at the scripture. This is just a thought or hunch. I don’t think it is fair to put Chilli in that bunch yet, he’s new to this conversation and not fully in context yet. The rest of those names though are all reformed. What I don’t know is if Theonomy came before or after that truth. Just an observation. Maybe it has something to do with why we look at it differently.

Love you all,

Jeff