This debate was presented by The American Vision at its 2015 "God, Governments, and Culture Conference." The debaters are Dr. Joel McDurmon and Jordan D. Hall.
"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
I would have watched this already save for the fact that a friend and I are looking to watch it later this week.
All accounts I've seen have said that McDurmon handily won the debate. I look forward to watching it.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
I'm not going to watch the video because they take too long to load. What I want to say about Mosaic law is that it is relevant. Look how detailed it is. Look how much work it is. And yet, we still cannot do anything to merit favor with God. God cares about righteousness. It's important.
#NashvilleStrong
“I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi
I really agree with what you said here. +repOriginally Posted by tobismom
AWESOME debate! JD Hall killed it! So full of Scripture. His arguments were never refuted.
I'm going to be watching with a friend this week. But, I haven't seen anyone say Hall won the debate until now.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
In the first cross examination, they argue about Bahnsen when Bahnsen himself contradicted himself.
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=65
I think you need to watch it for yourself.
I do. I'd have watched it already but I'm planning to watch with a friend, so I should have watched it by this week.I think you need to watch it for yourself.
Bahnsen contradicted himself. So what? Why does any position depend on the infallibility of Bahnsen?
Heck, you've contradicted yourself to, does that mean we should throw out everything you believe?
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
Well, if I was the spearhead of a new movement, then I'd be responsible for my inconsistency. But I'm not the spearhead of a new movement. I'm just a sinner saved by grace who is bound to make mistakes.I do. I'd have watched it already but I'm planning to watch with a friend, so I should have watched it by this week.
Bahnsen contradicted himself. So what? Why does any position depend on the infallibility of Bahnsen?
Heck, you've contradicted yourself to, does that mean we should throw out everything you believe?
WATCH THE DEBATE
FF, watch this too:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.ph...not-in-studio/
Last edited by Sola_Fide; 03-01-2015 at 11:53 PM.
JD Hall got destroyed...
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
How? Joel McDurmon never answered (and could not answer) how the adulterous person could be restored. How would you answer Paul's teaching? You didn't see how McDurmon was completely flustered throughout the entire debate?
I thought JD Hall was flustered the entire time.
I thought the Q + A section was going to be on the same video, so I've actually got 20 minutes left, but from what I've seen so far, JD Hall had no idea what he was talking about and he continually misrepresented theonomy, made strawman and irrelevant arguments against it.
Paul doesn't teach anything about the civil magistrate in 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 Corinthians 2 (Hall said it was 5 but he was wrong, he also misquoted Deuteronomy 15 when he meant to quote 13, I caught both of these even before I looked them up). In this current sick and twisted culture, abortion is legal and accepted. If a member of the church was excommunicated for having an abortion and they repented, Paul would say to restore them. That doesn't mean magistrates shouldn't punish murder.
Its hard to explain precisely why someone did poorly in a debate, but JD Hall's argumentation was terrible. He was totally outmatched.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
How can the church restore the repentant adulterer (as Paul instructs) if he is to be executed for his adultery?
At that time the civil law wasn't being enforced. The example of the abortionist makes my point. If a sinner repents, the church should never refuse to restore them. That doesn't contradict the fact that the State should execute adulterers and other people who commit civil crimes according to the OT. JD Hall never explained how this applied. I wish McDurmon had more specifically answered this, but that doesn't change the fact that his opponent didn't make good arguments.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
How can a theonomic nation follow Paul's command of restoring the repentant?
Paul's command was to the church. The government's command is to pursue justice. Where do we find justice? In God's immutable civil code.
I'm not saying this because I want to see people stoned to death for adultery, but because I believe it to be what the Bible teaches, and what the Reformed hermaneutic demands.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
Sola, should murder be punished? What is the proper punishment, and how do you know?
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
You know from God's moral law, not the Mosaic civil law that has passed with Israel.
Yes Paul's command was to the church, which is the holy nation that has replaced the civic nation of Israel. The new covenant is with God's people in all nations, not any specific country.
Where does the Bible say it passed? And what's your argument here? How can the civil law contradict the moral law?
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
So should murderers solely be excommunicated and not also executed? If not, why not?
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
Paul said it passed, because he called for the repentant adulterer to be restored to the church, not stoned to death.
Not necessarily either way, although the general equity of the moral law (read your LBC), I think, would compel the death penalty for murder. But the point is that there is no more binding obligation for any country to implement the polity of Moses.
I thought Joel's answer in the Q + A session answered that pretty well.
I'm well aware of what the LBCF says and I believe it to be wrong.
How do you know what the "general equity" requires? This is pure political relativism.
Again, I think Joel McDurmon excellently explained the issues with that.
But the point is that there is no more binding obligation for any country to implement the polity of Moses.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
Political relativism? How can God's moral law be relative?
You really have no idea what should be criminal and what should not, nor any basis for deciding. You asserted that the "general equity" requires murderers to be executed but not adulterers, yet you didn't explain why from any sort of exegetical standard. This, combined with the fact that you said JD Hall "easily won" the debate when he actually got trounced, and your numerous strawmen of theonomy, make it hard for me to take you seriously here. I think your FV church permanently colored your objectivity on this issue.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
The debate was "are the Mosaic civil laws obligatory today". That has to be established. It can't be established biblically, and the absence of the polity of Moses does not lead to "relativism". God's moral law, which is binding, is not relative.
Again, how do you derive the just penalty for anything from "moral law"? I'm willing to grant you moral law that isn't civil law, so you can say homosexuality, adultery, theft, and murder are all wrong. But you have no Biblical basis to punish any of them, your argument about the repentant adulterer could just as easily apply to the repentent murderer. You argued that the "general equity" of the moral law means that murder should be punished, but you never defended that.
But, let's even assume that Mosaic Civil Laws aren't obligatory for today. Why would you want to use anything else? What nation is there that has a law that's better? (Deuteronomy 4:7-8.)
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us