Liberty's Light

A Christian forum dedicated to the discussion of how a nation based entirely off of biblical principles ought to be like. We believe that Righteousness Exalteth a Nation, and that God's righteous hand is necessary for the blessing of any nation.
 
HomeHome  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  

Share | 
 

 Theocracy

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 27
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Theocracy   Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:04 am

A correct understanding of the biblical meaning for theocracy and how it affects us influencing government in the NT is crucial.

Therefore, I wrote the following article to start the discussion.

If you cannot read it there, let me know, and I will email it to you in rtf format. Smile

I plan to extend this article into a second one, refuting the top objections that come up (beyond what I already did).

The next crucial article is on the exclusivity of the powers of government.

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
Dr. Hipopótamo
Honor roll member
Honor roll member


Male Number of posts : 131
Age : 23
Location : USA
Registration date : 11/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Theocracy   Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:57 pm

Jay,
Good article. I see very little that I disagree with, but I am a bit uncertain about the meaning of some of the things you say here:

Quote :
Needless to say, theonomists are for the most part Calvinist, which makes it hard to debate them on this issue.

They are in part right (every lie has a bit of truth). God does remove kings, He does set up kings, He does guide the course of the nations, He does punish nations that give themselves over to abominations (every major nation that has accepted homosexuality, abortion, and like sins have ceased to exist within a few generations from that point).

But God did not orchestrate and lead Hitler to slaughter his millions. He did not order terrorists to attack the World Trade Center. It was not His will for any of these things to happen, any more than it is His will for any person to go to hell (although they do), or for the deaths of hurricane Katrina (although they still died), or for the thousands of innocent orphans of Haiti to have the troubles they are having (although they are).


All these things are our fault, because of our rebellion, our sin. Our world is cursed by sin. (For more info on that, see Answers In Genesis.)

This sounds like an attack on Calvinism? It would be interesting to know how you define Calvinism, because I consider myself a Calvinist, but may have a very different idea of what Calvinism is than what you have.

I wrote a little bit about God's will in regards to government here:
http://lawfulnation.pureforum.net/align-f14/sufficiency-of-the-scriptures-t100-15.htm#1212
however, this post was specifically about government, so I'll try to explain a little bit of what I believe God's will is as related to things like hurricanes, Hitler, and similar things.

God has 3 wills, which I will call his will of command, will of blessing, and will of decree. Under his will of command, God does not will for Hitler to kill millions of people because it is wrong. Under his will of blessing, He does not want Hitler to kill millions of people, because that will cause a lot of suffering, and that grieves Him. However it happens. Thus, God did, in a way, want it to happen because it is part of His Plan to glorify Himself. God could have killed Hitler. He could have rained fire from heaven on Hitler as he did on Sodom, or he could have caused Hitler to be killed in the First World War (the Bible is pretty clear on the fact that God controls what happens in war). But He didn't. So, in some way, God allowed, and even willed this evil to occur, in order to bring glory to Himself through it.

Hurricanes are similar, only they do not involve sin. God controls the weather. Jesus calmed the storm instantly. But God allowed hurricane Katrina to cause a lot of damage. Why? I don't know for sure. It is likely that God wanted to show his love through the many Christians who helped rebuild New Orleans. It is possible that God wanted the people of New Orleans to turn to Him, and it took a natural disaster to bring this about. I'm not saying God is pleased to see this destruction. I am saying that though it grieved Him, He brought it about in order to further a purpose larger than any human life or property.

If you agree with me here, than I would suggest that you explain how God's sovereignty doesn't logically lead to the theonomist's position. If you disagree, then we could start a topic about God's sovereignty. But I don't think agreement on this issue is fundamental to the topic at hand. So if you disagree with the concept of God's sovereignty, I would be happier if you would refute the logical connection between God's sovereignty and theonomy instead of directly refuting God's sovereignty, and I believe that would be a more effective argument. I could help you with that if you want.

In Christ,
Daniel

_________________
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6: 12)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Peter G.
Honor roll member
Honor roll member


Male Number of posts : 209
Age : 24
Location : Where ever a debate is, I'm in the midst
Registration date : 09/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Theocracy   Thu Apr 08, 2010 7:39 pm

Daniel,

No offense, but this thread isn't supposed to be about calvinism. Jay was just trying to make a point of his. If you want to debate about calvinism, do it through PM please. (Jay, if I'm wrong please correct me)

In Christ,
Peter G.

_________________
"The Government will control you if you don't control the Government."
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 27
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Theocracy   Fri Apr 09, 2010 5:20 am

Thank you Peter, you are right.

Dr. H.: I am indeed not a Calvinist. And the logical conclusions of Calvinism does create problems with Theocracy. But as you said, it isn't crucial to the understanding of Theocracy to understand Calvinism. That was a caveat, a sideline in the study.

In any case, what are your thoughts on the body of the study itself (the application of the OT Israel law to NT governments)?

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 24
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Theocracy   Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:35 pm

Jay,

I'll need you to either post your article here, pm it to me, or e-mail me.

-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Peter G.
Honor roll member
Honor roll member


Male Number of posts : 209
Age : 24
Location : Where ever a debate is, I'm in the midst
Registration date : 09/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Theocracy   Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:07 pm

Jay,

I have to agree with Caleb here. You should just post it so we can refer to it on this thread instead of going to another site. That would just make things easier. Plus a few people have had problems I believe.

In Christ,
Peter G.

_________________
"The Government will control you if you don't control the Government."
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 27
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Theocracy   Tue Apr 13, 2010 12:47 am

Me: “I believe that the Bible should be our foundation for discerning how we ought to influence government.”

Someone-else: “You are advocating a theocratic utopia!”

Me: “Ummmm... No.”


The above exchange is all too common, unfortunately, to be more than slightly humorous to me. I get that response all the time, and it is, to be honest, rather aggravating. :P

Many people have evinced a desire to understand what a theocracy really is, and as I am tired of trying to say the same thing over and over again, I thought it would be handy to answer the above response once and for all. (And put the debates all in one handy location. Wink )

But that is rather hard to do, because it really isn't a response at all, but a knee-jerk reaction. However, the word Theocracy has a lot of varying connotations, and as they all have a profound lexicological bearing on Godly government, I believe it is worthwhile to discuss them.

As with any word that you want to find the best definition for, I will of course turn to Webster's 1828 for a Biblical definition:

THEOC'RACY, n. [Gr. God, and power; to hold.] Government of a state by the immediate direction of God; or the state thus governed. Of this species the Israelites furnish an illustrious example. The theocracy lasted till the time of Saul.

This gives me a very good place to start my study. The modern dictionaries and common usage has watered and perverted this definition until it is practically unrecognizable, and lexicologically useless (except to throw at someone to annoy them). Getting back to the above definition would be a major improvement in the current state of our language, and also a major help in discerning God's will for the formation and influence of government.

There are two rival definitions that are prevalent in usage today (other than the correct one).

One is used by a group of eminent (but with whom I passionately disagree with on several vital and foundational issues other than that of the definition of theocracy) scholars who call themselves theonomists for the most part.

The other is merely a 'label.' A word used for attack, rather than refutation. This form is so perverted and weakened that it carries just about as much weight as the ridiculous word 'speciesist,' which term is used to label someone who thinks that humans are (oh horror!) better than any other species of animal. In other words: pointless, useless, and meaningless. This is the term used in my opening exchange, and which really merits little more than what I am saying right here: ignore it. Smile

There are, in fact, three groups of people who use the word Theocracy (other than the group that is right, of which I am a proud member, hehe).

The first are those people who use the word Theocracy correctly, and assume that I want to institute a nation in replica of OT Israel, complete with stonings for idolatry, adultery, and cursing your parents (with the possible exclusion of the ceremonial laws, whichever ones those might be).

The second is a group of people who believe that we shouldn't use the Bible at all in government (on various grounds, all of which are wrong and heretical, and I will mainly point these people to 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

The third are the theonomists, who at first with me that we should use the Bible to determine government, assuming that I intend to do what the first group fears I will (although they call it by a different name). In other words: these people want me to institute a nation in replica of OT Israel, complete with stonings for idolatry, adultery, and cursing your parents (with the possible exclusion of the ceremonial laws, whichever ones those might be).

I am now going to refute all of the above at once by explaining why I believe that we definitely should not try to replicate the OT government (whether or not you exclude the ceremonial laws). My reason is very simple:

Israel was not only a theocracy, it was the only true theocracy that ever has existed, and ever can or will exist (outside of heaven, but that is a different topic).

The theonomists (from what I can tell) claim that every nation is a theocracy, if any is, and deny that Israel was any exception to the rule. They point to such verses as Daniel 2:21 (“he removeth kings, and setteth up kings”) and other similar verses to show that God has sovereign rule over every nation equally, and that to assert that He has more rule over Israel than over any other nation is lessening His sovereign power. Needless to say, theonomists are for the most part Calvinist, which makes it hard to debate them on this issue.

They are in part right (every lie has a bit of truth). God does remove kings, He does set up kings, He does guide the course of the nations, He does punish nations that give themselves over to abominations (every major nation that has accepted homosexuality, abortion, and like sins have ceased to exist within a few generations from that point).

But God did not orchestrate and lead Hitler to slaughter his millions. He did not order terrorists to attack the World Trade Center. It was not His will for any of these things to happen, any more than it is His will for any person to go to hell (although they do), or for the deaths of hurricane Katrina (although they still died), or for the thousands of innocent orphans of Haiti to have the troubles they are having (although they are).

All these things are our fault, because of our rebellion, our sin. Our world is cursed by sin. (For more info on that, see Answers In Genesis.)

But.

God did rule directly over the OT nation of Israel before the Monarchy.

Look at Webster's definition (that he got from the Bible): whatever Israel was before the monarchy, and was not afterwards, that is what a theocracy is.

Theocracy is a state of government like a democracy, a monarchy, a republic, or even socialism.

The word is from two Greek words: Theos and Cratos: God Rules. Democracy is where the people rule (also aptly called mobocracy by the American founding fathers and me). A monarchy is where a king rules (there are elected monarchies, hereditary monarchies, etc.). Theocracy is where God rules.

That was what Israel was. It was the first and last true theocracy.

Judges 8:22-23 Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule thou over us, both thou, and thy son, and thy son's son also: for thou hast delivered us from the hand of Midian.
23 And Gideon said unto them, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you: the LORD shall rule over you.


God instituted a unique system of government for Israel. There was a hierarchy of officers, captains, princes, and elders, and above all those was one man: the judge (there were of course other judges, but this was the judge). So far it looks like a monarchy (rule by one man). But that is not what God thought. And neither did the Israelites.

1 Samuel 8:4-5 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.


They wanted a king so that they would be like the other nations (in direct defiance of God's covenant with them for them to be unique and separate, which we will get to).

1 Samuel 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

They were not merely requesting a change of human leadership (“they have not rejected thee”) but a change from God's theocratic system of government for a monarchy (“they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them”).

So how did the theocracy work?

Deuteronomy 17:8-10 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, [being] matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose;
9 And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire; and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment:
10 And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall show thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee:


If your local judges and Levites are unable to decide a controversy (not matters of doctrine, but matters of judicial law), the parties involved go to the temple, to Jerusalem, the seat of the government and of God. There they bring it before the judge and the priests. What do they do? They use the holy oracles of God to get the answer straight from Him who sees all, is the law, and who is perfectly just. That is why...

Deuteronomy 17:12-13 And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.
13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.


Disobedience is punished by death (even if the original matter was small). That is because it is flagrant and direct defiance of God's Word spoken to you directly. That is unique to Israel, and cannot be implemented with impunity in a NT government situation. True, we are commanded by God to obey the government (true government), but we are even more strongly commanded to obey our parents (in our youth). You aren't committing a capital crime if you disobey your father just once (even under the OT law). This is just one of the many instances where Israel's unique, theocratic situation deeply affects its criminal law.

Now, why was Israel a theocracy, and how did it become one?

Very important question, glad I asked it for you.

Deuteronomy 7:6 For thou [art] an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that [are] upon the face of the earth.
7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye [were] the fewest of all people:
8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.


There is the 'why,' plain and simple.

Deuteronomy 7:12-13 And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only [ye heard] a voice.
13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, [even] ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.


This is explained in several parts of the law, that the ten commandments were the core of the covenant between God and Israel. The bound themselves to obey them on pain of death. Several, were of course, already a part of the role of government (thou shalt not steal, etc.). Others were already sins (thou shalt not covet, etc.). Yet others were rather new (remember the Sabbath to keep it holy). But this law became assimilated into the government system of Israel (punishing covenants is part of the role of government), and therefrom sprang laws making actions that are abominations to God capital crimes.

This is why we cannot merely extract the ceremonial laws and implement the rest. We cannot replicate that covenant: it was initiated by God, and relied on the oracles that are now gone by.

We can do a few other things to learn about government from OT Israel though (you can learn tons of other things from it as well, of course). Such as, because we know that God kept the laws of Israel based off of the normal, unchanging, role of government (with some additions), we know that if a law wasn't in OT Israel, we definitely shouldn't implement it nowadays (a law in principle, not the exact application).

There are lots of verses that could be added, supporting my above conclusions, but I will spare you the necessary repetition. I will, however, conclude with a series of passages conclusively setting the OT Israel in its unique and unreproducible status.

Exodus 34:10 And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou [art] shall see the work of the LORD: for it [is] a terrible thing that I will do with thee.

Deuteronomy 4:5-8 Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it.
6 Keep therefore and do [them;] for this [is] your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation [is] a wise and understanding people.
7 For what nation [is there so] great, who [hath] God [so] nigh unto them, as the LORD our God [is] in all [things that] we call upon him [for?]
8 And what nation [is there so] great, that hath statutes and judgments [so] righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?


(Notice that the other nations did not say “Why don't we do that too?”!)

Deuteronomy 4:31-38 (For the LORD thy God [is] a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.
32 For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth, and [ask] from the one side of heaven unto the other, whether there hath been [any such thing] as this great thing [is,] or hath been heard like it?
33 Did [ever] people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live?
34 Or hath God assayed to go [and] take him a nation from the midst of [another] nation, by temptations, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, and by a stretched out arm, and by great terrors, according to all that the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes?
35 Unto thee it was showed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he [is] God; [there is] none else beside him.
36 Out of heaven he made thee to hear his voice, that he might instruct thee: and upon earth he showed thee his great fire; and thou heardest his words out of the midst of the fire.
37 And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought thee out in his sight with his mighty power out of Egypt;
38 To drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier than thou [art,] to bring thee in, to give thee their land [for] an inheritance, as [it is] this day.


(Notice that the purpose of Israel was not to convert other nations to its form of government, but to drive them out and destroy and decimate them.)

Deuteronomy 5:3-4 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, [even] us, who [are] all of us here alive this day.
4 The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire,


This theocratic covenant was even unique to a particular time period in Israel's history. It started at Moses, and ended at Christ (isn't that interesting?).

This is only one plank out of 8 foundational principles of theonomocracy.

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
Peter G.
Honor roll member
Honor roll member


Male Number of posts : 209
Age : 24
Location : Where ever a debate is, I'm in the midst
Registration date : 09/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Theocracy   Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:23 am

Sir Emeth Mimetes wrote:
Me: “I believe that the Bible should be our foundation for discerning how we ought to influence government.”

Someone-else: “You are advocating a theocratic utopia!”

Me: “Ummmm... No.”


The above exchange is all too common, unfortunately, to be more than slightly humorous to me. I get that response all the time, and it is, to be honest, rather aggravating. :P

Many people have evinced a desire to understand what a theocracy really is, and as I am tired of trying to say the same thing over and over again, I thought it would be handy to answer the above response once and for all. (And put the debates all in one handy location. Wink )

But that is rather hard to do, because it really isn't a response at all, but a knee-jerk reaction. However, the word Theocracy has a lot of varying connotations, and as they all have a profound lexicological bearing on Godly government, I believe it is worthwhile to discuss them.

I'll just respond tot his section for now.

And yes, alot of times its harder to come up with a response on the spot if your not prepared, and sometimes even then! Its just because you are "called out" and I'm sure most people start to turn red in the face and start to stutter just because they are caught of guard and are not sure how to respond. And this comes from lack of knowledge on the issue. Now just some comments on how to start the "arguement" effectively and to keep it going.

First, just like in debate, a good way to start talking/argueing with someone is to get them to define something like theocracy. So a good first response would be, "what is your definition of theocracy?" This one puts the other person on the defense, but it also helps to clearify what they ment so that you can give a clear response instead of guessing what they might have ment, and causing confusion.

Second, when they point out their definition (which should incompass one of the three Jay gave) then give the response accordingly. And the thing is, people are making a huge assumption without the facts when they claim we are "making a utopia" and such because as soon as someone says Theocracy, they are against it. (which in and of itself is interesting...) We need to level the "playing field" by making sure both people are on the same page. Ask questions the clerify a point for you and their benefit if something could be confusing. (I.e. the definition of theocracy) It just helps you in general when in an arguement.

Third, I would expect them to pull something like, "what do you know! your just a kid!" or anything along that line. Two responses to this, one, its only attacking you, not the arguement. Just politely point out that they did not respond to the point you made and that they were attacking you, and you are not up for debate. The facts are. And the second response would be to point out that they avoided what you said. So in fact, those type of statements are a double logical fallacy. An Ad Hominum (sp) which is latin for "to the man", and then also a red hering because they are dodging the issue, and also attacking your person which isn't up for debate. Think about it this way, your "opponite" says your stupid or whatever because you are just a kid. When in fact, they themself could be a kid, they themself are ignorant, and they themself have no real reply to your arguement. And they just get flustered and don't know how to reply effectively. And this "urge" is common to both sides, so don't get caught up in attacking the person, only the facts.

Thats all for now, I hope I stayed on topic...

In Christ,
Peter G.

_________________
"The Government will control you if you don't control the Government."
Back to top Go down
View user profile
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 24
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Theocracy   Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:08 pm

Jay,

What feedback would you like from us in regards to this article?

-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Dr. Hipopótamo
Honor roll member
Honor roll member


Male Number of posts : 131
Age : 23
Location : USA
Registration date : 11/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Theocracy   Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:58 pm

Peter G. wrote:
Daniel,

No offense, but this thread isn't supposed to be about calvinism. Jay was just trying to make a point of his. If you want to debate about calvinism, do it through PM please. (Jay, if i'm wrong please correct me)

In Christ,
Peter G.

I'm sorry; I wasn't intending to debate about Calvinism on this thread. In fact, my intention was to avoid a debate about Calvinism. I probably didn't communicate what I meant clearly enough, so sorry about that.

I was trying to say that I believe this post unnecessarily attacks Calvinism. I would be willing to discuss Calvinism on another thread or via pm, but in the context of this argument, I don't believe that the debate is necessary, so I was asking Jay to remove or change that part, so that I could agree to the post as a whole.

As it is, this post is mildly insulting, because it seems to imply that Calvinists are illogical and/or rude by declaring, "Needless to say, theonomists are for the most part Calvinist, which makes it hard to debate them on this issue."

Also, the refutation of Calvinism, though it is a part of the logical progression of Jay's post, could be replaced with a refutation of the connection between theonomy and Calvinism without alienating any Calvinists. The theonomists say that the doctrine of God's absolute sovereignty supports their position. To refute their position, Jay has two options. He can either refute the doctrine of God's absolute sovereignty or he can refute the connection between that doctrine and the theonomists' position. Either way, the theonomist's position is refuted. As he is not a Calvinist, it probably makes more sense for Jay to refute the doctrine of God's sovereignty than to refute the connection, which is what he does. But because I disagree with this argument, I would prefer a refutation of the connection.

If you are only using this post to convince us of your conclusion, then changing it probably isn't important, because I think I agree with your conclusion. However, with the time and work you put into this post, you might want to put it on the blog as well. If that's the case, then I would ask you to change that one issue.

Again, sorry to have to bring up the Calvinism issue. If you'd like to discuss it elsewhere, I would be willing to, but I agree that here is not the place. And if I am the only one on this forum who believes in God's absolute sovereignty, and you would still like to post this on your blog as it is, then I won't make a big deal out of it. I understand that with the diversity of people on this forum, we won't all agree on everything. But if I'm not the only one, then I might suggest changing it, especially since I believe your argument would be equally, or even more effective without going into a debate about Calvinism.

Either way, I would definitely take out the part about it being hard to debate with theonomists because they're Calvinists. This doesn't seem at all necessary to your logical progression, and it might alienate some of your readers.

And again, except for that one issue, the post is great. Thanks for writing it.
In Christ,
Daniel

_________________
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6: 12)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Dr. Hipopótamo
Honor roll member
Honor roll member


Male Number of posts : 131
Age : 23
Location : USA
Registration date : 11/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Theocracy   Sun May 02, 2010 3:05 pm

Apparently, my response to Jay's post has sounded like something close to an attack toward Jay and/or his beliefs. I'm sorry for that. I had no intention of attacking Jay, and I highly respect his right to disagree with me. He is my brother in Christ, and I do not wish to insult him in any way.

My intention was to avoid a debate about Calvinism on this thread. That's why I asked Jay to take the discussion of Calvinism out of his post. I guess I was assuming that Jay wanted to put this post on the Liberty's Light blog or archive it as something that we all agree on, and that he wanted our feedback on it.

I didn't take Jay's comments about Calvinism personally, and I didn't mean to argue with Jay personally; I was only responding to it because I thought Jay wanted our comments.

I should have asked first, like Caleb wisely did, what kind of feedback Jay wanted. I'm sorry about that.

So, Jay, I know this is a little late, but what kind of feedback do you want, and what are your intentions for this post?

Again, I'm sorry for my hasty response, and for anything I said that sounded like an attack.

_________________
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6: 12)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 27
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Theocracy   Mon May 10, 2010 10:28 am

No problem, Dr. H. No offense taken at all.

What I was doing with that was merely outlining a concept that is important for understanding other aspects of biblical government that I will be discussing.

I am making progress on my thesis, believe it or not. :P

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 24
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Theocracy   Fri May 14, 2010 7:02 am

Jay,

So, what kind of feedback do you want from this post: spelling/grammar, logical fallacies, encouragement, bad arguments, additional backup verses/information, wrong conclusions, or what?

-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 27
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Theocracy   Fri May 14, 2010 7:18 am

caleb wrote:
Jay,

So, what kind of feedback do you want from this post: spelling/grammar, logical fallacies, encouragement, bad arguments, additional backup verses/information, wrong conclusions, or what?

-Caleb

Everything but spelling and grammar. Haha.

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Theocracy   

Back to top Go down
 
Theocracy
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Liberty's Light :: Biblical Government :: Adjust-
Jump to: