Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 218

Thread: Reforned/non-dispensational Calvinists... why aren't you theonomists?

  1. #1

    Reformed/non-dispensational Calvinists... why aren't you theonomists?

    NOTE: By "theonomy" I mean the viewpoint that God's law in the Old Testament should be implemented in society today unless specifically repealed in the New Testament. I do not merely mean that morals come from God, nor do I necessarily mean a postmillennial eschatology or that people will in fact ever get to the point where God's law can be implemented.

    Obviously many a non-Christian would be horrified by this idea, and I understand that the dispensational hermaneutic is to apply the OT only when the NT affirms the same. But, for those Calvinists who do not believe God's law should be implemented by civil magistrates today, what would be the reason under your hermaneutic?
    Last edited by Christian Liberty; 03-03-2015 at 01:21 AM. Reason: Spelling error.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    I understand that the dispensational hermaneutic is to apply the OT only when the NT affirms the same.
    I have commonly heard this rule of thumb taught, but as a dispensationalist, I don't think it works. There's no reason to think that any given book of the NT gives an exhaustive list of dos and don'ts for Christians, nor any good reason to think that you can make an exhaustive list by culling the NT for it.

    In my opinion the concept of natural law is where the answer lies to this problem.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    The Reconstructionist Road To Rome
    http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=67
    I read through that article and it doesn't really address reconstructionism at all, at least not as a political theory. Are we defining this term completely differently?

    I pretty much agreed with Robbins, with the exception of the fact that I do believe communion is a miracle (though not in the same sense that Rome does.) but, I don't see how this refutes reconstructionism as a political theory.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  6. #5
    Theonomy seems totally backwards to me. So violating God's law can't send you to hell but it can get you stoned? (And I don't mean with a green leafy plant.)
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Theonomy seems totally backwards to me. So violating God's law can't send you to hell but it can get you stoned? (And I don't mean with a green leafy plant.)
    I'm guessing you don't understand theonomy.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Theonomy seems totally backwards to me. So violating God's law can't send you to hell but it can get you stoned? (And I don't mean with a green leafy plant.)
    Actually, theonomists are really into "covenant theology", so they would say their law keeping in the covenant counts towards their salvation (as Theo has said many times), so they do say that violating God's laws sends them to Hell.

    Thank God that salvation is based on Christ's law keeping alone, or else no one would be saved.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Actually, theonomists are really into "covenant theology", so they would say their law keeping in the covenant counts towards their salvation (as Theo has said many times), so they do say that violating God's laws sends them to Hell.

    Thank God that salvation is based on Christ's law keeping alone, or else no one would be saved.
    We discussed this and you admitted that not all theonomists believe this... For instance, see here (not a blanket endorsement of everything on the site):
    http://theonomyresources.blogspot.co...vision-is.html

    You're coinflating at least two issues, if not more, into one package.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Actually, theonomists are really into "covenant theology", so they would say their law keeping in the covenant counts towards their salvation (as Theo has said many times), so they do say that violating God's laws sends them to Hell.
    Lol, that's not what the ones I know of believe. But you don't seem to care what anyone actually believes.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    Lol, that's not what the ones I know of believe. But you don't seem to care what anyone actually believes.
    Yeah... I'm starting to lean in a more theonomic direction, though I'm not totally sure yet, hence why I posted this thread. I'm somewhat annoyed that Sola is being so sloppy here, especially since he was a former theonomist. He should know better than this.

    From the above link:

    The Spurious Connection of Theonomy to the Federal Vision


    Since this is a pro-theonomy site, it would be appropriate to address the common slander that associates theonomy with the Federal Vision. Many resort to guilt by association attacks, saying, “see all those theonomists within Federal Vision circles! This proves theonomy promotes, or at least leads to, salvation by works!”

    There are so many logical problems with this argument, it is hard to know where to begin. Here are some reasons why attempts to connect theonomy with the Federal Vision are fallacious:

    • A guilt-by-association argument is a logical fallacy
    • We would expect any biblical doctrine to have some adherents who also hold to heretical views. Do we attack the biblical doctrine of the Trinity since Roman Catholics adhere to this doctrine, while at the same time holding to heretical doctrines as well?
    • It is wicked to blame sin, such as the Federal Vision heresy, on God’s commands (theonomy). We can’t blame legitimate laws of God (such as upheld by theonomists, not to say that theonomists get all laws right) for man’s perversion of them (by teaching that they play a role in salvation).

    • Advocates of the most biblical theologies will have wolves in their midst (Acts 20:29, 30)
    • There are tons of heresies outside of theonomy circles
    • The Federal Vision is rampant in non-theonomic circles as well. The argument, then, can be reversed against theonomy critics, to say that not holding to theonomy leads to the Federal Vision heresy.
    • The men who perhaps had the most direct influence on the Federal Vision are two non-theonomists (Norman Shepherd and N.T. Wright) and two former theonomists (James Jordan and Peter Leithart).
    • A while back, five contributors to the anti-theonomy book "Theonomy: A Reformed Critique" signed the "Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together" document. This document was for either Federal Visionists or Federal Vision sympathizers.[26]
    • The first denomination to condemn the Federal Vision was the theonomic RPCUS
    • Some of the most outspoken critics of the Federal Vision are theonomists. John Otis of the RPCUS has written the largest critique of the Federal Vision that I am aware of, titled Danger in the Camp. Brian Schwertley of the WPCUS has also written a very pointed critique of the Federal Vision, titled Auburn Avenue Theology: A Biblical Critique.
    • Those who claim that theonomy leads to Federal Vision turn around and claim to hold to Reformed theology—which historically advocates theonomy. The Westminster divines were theonomists. John Calvin was a theonomist. Heinrich Bullinger was a theonomist. John Owen was a theonomist. John Gill was a theonomist. We could go on and on. See the Theonomy Library's ever-expanding historical section.


    Granted, not all of the most influential theonomists have condemned the Federal Vision for the heresy that it is. Their silence has done a disservice to the Gospel. But it should also be noted that some of the more theologically-grounded influential theonomists have very adamantly opposed the Federal Vision; two major examples are Joe Morecraft and Brian Schwertley.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    We discussed this and you admitted that not all theonomists believe this... For instance, see here (not a blanket endorsement of everything on the site):
    http://theonomyresources.blogspot.co...vision-is.html

    You're coinflating at least two issues, if not more, into one package.
    Some have backed away from it. Some (like Greg Bahnsen when he got ordained) really started to go back the Westminster standards on salvation, but many people saw that as purely political. I've been in Reconstructionist churches and I can tell you that they say "the covenant" is the key to understanding the Bible. As John Robbins said, beware of anyone who tells you that they have "the key" to understanding the Bible. It is works salvation, plain and simple.

  14. #12
    Granted, not all of the most influential theonomists have condemned the Federal Vision for the heresy that it is. Their silence has done a disservice to the Gospel.*
    I agree with that. Some have rejected it. But look at Theo as an example. He attends a CREC church and is (I think) a quintessential example of the problems with Reconstructionist theology. You've seen it on here, what do you think?

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Some have backed away from it. Some (like Greg Bahnsen when he got ordained) really started to go back the Westminster standards on salvation, but many people saw that as purely political. I've been in Reconstructionist churches and I can tell you that they say "the covenant" is the key to understanding the Bible. As John Robbins said, beware of anyone who tells you that they have "the key" to understanding the Bible. It is works salvation, plain and simple.
    OK: my thoughts.

    #1- I'm seriously considering theonomy as a political system for a number of reasons, a big part of which is contained in the OP. I am not considering anything associated with the Federal Vision nonsense. [Note that supporting theonomy as the ideal system doesn't necessarily mean belief in postmillennialism, although I don't see anything heretical about postmillennialism per say.]

    #2- The very idea of a "reconstructionist church" screams "this is going to lead to works salvation" way more so than reconstructionism per say. Heck, a "libertarian church" or "Republican church" would certainly do so as well. The unifying ground for believers is Jesus Christ, not our politics.

    #3- You yourself mentioned that Greg Bahnsen stuck with the Westminster Standards. With that being the case, I fail to see how you can say that theonomy INHERENTLY leads to legalism. That some (or even a lot) of theonomists do that doesn't prove it. Correlation doesn't lead to causation.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    I agree with that. Some have rejected it. But look at Theo as an example. He attends a CREC church and is (I think) a quintessential example of the problems with Reconstructionist theology. You've seen it on here, what do you think?
    I forget what it was that Theo posted but I remember there being some problems. But, I don't remember any of those problems having anything to do with theonomy per say. This is a correlation/causation fallacy, I think.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  17. #15

  18. #16
    Will The Real Greg Bahnsen Please Stand Up
    http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=65



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Read those links FF. There are insurmountable problems with Theonomy.

  21. #18
    How are we defining "exhaustive detail"? This seems to be a sticking point. I'm guessing (and I say that as someone new to the subject) that Robbins wouldn't mean that the same way that Bahnsen would.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  22. #19

    Really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Actually, theonomists are really into "covenant theology", so they would say their law keeping in the covenant counts towards their salvation (as Theo has said many times), so they do say that violating God's laws sends them to Hell.

    Thank God that salvation is based on Christ's law keeping alone, or else no one would be saved.
    Sola, where have I ever said that our law-keeping contributes towards our salvation?
    "Then David said to the Philistine, 'You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of hosts, the God of the battle lines of Israel, Whom you have reproached.'" - 1 Samuel 17:45

    "May future generations look back on our work and say that these were men and women who, in moment of great crisis, stood up to their politicians, the opinion-makers, and the Establishment, and saved their country." - Dr. Ron Paul

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    Sola, where have I ever said that our law-keeping contributes towards our salvation?
    I'll bold the important parts:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Well, you said infused righteousness entitles us to heaven. I took it to mean sanctification, or something like it. Is that what you meant?
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    No, that's not what I meant. I was just saying that there is an external and internal change in us that are factors of our being entitled to Heaven. That which is wrought in us (because of the Holy Spirit giving us new hearts) and that which is declared of us (because of what Christ has done, despite us) are the means by which the Father reconciles us to Himself. Thus, "infused righteousness" and "imputed righteousness" work harmoniously to make us inheritor of eternal life and have access to that Trinitarian relationship which no atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. could ever imagine.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Well, the WCF says that it is not anything wrought in us which entitles us to heaven:
    I. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    Well, it's a good thing that the WCF is not the ultimate standard of truth for our faith, Sola.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    But I think the Bible is clear as well that anything wrought in us by the Holy Spirit is not salvific. Neither pre or post justification works of righteousness are salvific.

    Remember, the heresy of the Galatians was post-justification acts of righteousness were needed for salvation. Paul said "After starting with the Spirit, are you trying to be made perfect by the flesh"?
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    Wait a minute. Are you saying that God giving us a new heart has nothing to do with salvation? How else can we be born again (made into new creatures) if our natures are not changed by the Holy Spirit, from within?

    Also, the heresy that Paul was warning the Galatian Christians about was the doctrine that one must be circumcised under the Old Covenant laws before one could become a Christian, from the Judaizers' mindset. That is what Paul is referring to when he asks, "Are you trying to be made perfect by the flesh?"
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    It doesn't matter what post-justification work you add to Christ's already perfect work (circumcision, charity, honesty, etc) the result is the same. If you go down the path of law for justification, you must do ALL of the law.
    Galatians 5:3-4

    Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
    And since man cannot do this, it is his death sentence. This is how serious this issue is. These people were alienated from the very sphere of grace.

    The Judiazers said that simply one post-justification act of righteousness was needed for salvation. But others in Rome and the Federal Vision have made the Judiazers look like amateurs. They say many, many post-justification works of righteousness are needed for salvation. They are like Judiazers on steroids.

    What is needed for salvation?
    For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”

    Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”

    The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”

    Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”

    He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
    Galatians 3:10-14
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    Justification is not salvation, Sola. You're equivocating, which is a logical fallacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    But every person who is justified will be ultimately saved from God's wrath. You cannot have justification and end up not having salvation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    Salvation is not an ontological thing, erowe1, like an object which one can lose (like his car keys or his wallet). Salvation is an act of deliverance. So, someone can be saved from something and declared innocent by a judge, but then turn around go right back to the enemy from which he was saved. That happens all of the time, and in Scripture, it tells us that it can happen. That's why Paul warns justified Christians to not turn away from the Faith, but to persevere. It wouldn't make sense of Paul to give warnings about apostasy to those who are justified in Christ if it was never possible for them to fall away.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Sadly, this is the argument that any Roman Catholic, Arminian, or Open Theist would make, and it is why so many solid Reformed people have stood so strongly against Federal Vision/neolegalism. Can't you see how this is a denial of justification by faith??? How can you not Theo?
    You said "So, someone can be saved from something and declared innocent by a judge, but then turn around go right back to the enemy from which he was saved. That happens all of the time, and in Scripture, it tells us that it can happen."

    That means our law-keeping contributes to our salvation.

  24. #21

    A Huge Leap of Logic

    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    I'll bold the important parts:























    You said "So, someone can be saved from something and declared innocent by a judge, but then turn around go right back to the enemy from which he was saved. That happens all of the time, and in Scripture, it tells us that it can happen."

    That means our law-keeping contributes to our salvation.
    No, it doesn't, Sola, which clearly shows that you do not understand my position (a testimony which befits you more and more these days, I'm afraid).
    "Then David said to the Philistine, 'You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of hosts, the God of the battle lines of Israel, Whom you have reproached.'" - 1 Samuel 17:45

    "May future generations look back on our work and say that these were men and women who, in moment of great crisis, stood up to their politicians, the opinion-makers, and the Establishment, and saved their country." - Dr. Ron Paul

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    No, it doesn't, Sola, which clearly shows that you do not understand my position (a testimony which befits you more and more these days, I'm afraid).
    What does it mean then Theo?

  26. #23

    Seeing What You Want to See

    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    What does it mean then Theo?
    It means exactly what I told you, so go back an reread that conversation that you've cited.
    "Then David said to the Philistine, 'You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of hosts, the God of the battle lines of Israel, Whom you have reproached.'" - 1 Samuel 17:45

    "May future generations look back on our work and say that these were men and women who, in moment of great crisis, stood up to their politicians, the opinion-makers, and the Establishment, and saved their country." - Dr. Ron Paul

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    It means exactly what I told you, so go back an reread that conversation that you've cited.
    Well, can you put it in your own words? When I read "So, someone can be saved from something and declared innocent by a judge, but then turn around go right back to the enemy from which he was saved. That happens all of the time, and in Scripture, it tells us that it can happen", that says to me that something wrought in the believer is responsible for his salvation (which you also said in that exchange).

    That isn't Christ alone. That is Christ, plus my works after justification.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Theonomy is just the Christian ethnocentric cousin of the Sharia Caliphate and Jewish Zionism
    Last edited by presence; 02-26-2015 at 07:17 PM.

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    Theonomy is just the Christian ethnocentric cousin of Sharia and Zionism
    Somewhat, although the difference is that Sharia is what the Quran teaches. Sharia is truly Islamic, whereas Reconstructionism is not Christian, or what the Bible teaches.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Somewhat, although the difference is that Sharia is what the Quran teaches. Sharia is truly Islamic, whereas Reconstructionism is not Christian, or what the Bible teaches.
    Islam has these same rifts; revivalism/fundamentalism; political Islam / spiritual Islam, etc.

    Judaism does as well; political zionism / spiritual "true torah" Judaism



    In all cases I side with the spiritualists. Theonomy, Zionism, Political Islam are all a distraction

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    Islam has these same rifts; revivalism/fundamentalism; political Islam / spiritual Islam, etc.

    Judaism does as well; political zionism / spiritual "true torah" Judaism



    In all cases I side with the spiritualists. Theonomy, Zionism, Political Islam are all a distraction
    I disagree. In the case of Islam, it isn't a spiritual/political split, it is a secular/Quranic Islam split. In the case of moderate Islamic countries, it isn't spiritual Islam that is the cause of their lack of extremism, it is secularism that is the cause.

    You can ask Muhwid if you don't believe me. The Quran teaches the implementation of Sharia. Islam is a religio-political worldview. It is impossible to separate.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    The Quran teaches the implementation of Sharia. Islam is a religio-political worldview. It is impossible to separate.


    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    God's law in the Old Testament should be implemented in society

    []

    God's law should be implemented by civil magistrates
    seems we're going in circles

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    seems we're going in circles
    Yeah, I don't agree that the Bible teaches that the Mosaic civil law is for today. That is one of the reasons that Reconstructionism is wrong. Those civil laws ceased when Israel ceased.

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 154
    Last Post: 09-13-2015, 08:18 AM
  2. Calvinists and being saved
    By Brett85 in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 286
    Last Post: 03-30-2014, 12:43 AM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-06-2011, 06:30 PM
  4. Questions for Calvinists
    By TER in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: 05-30-2011, 08:12 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •