BY THIS STANDARD-Greg L. Bahnsen

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The association is also voluntary. Disagree with the teaching, or elder, freely leave.

So how many times do you get divorced from a church family?
Odds would become slim as you continually walked when you were corrected.
Mentors, Patriarches, grandfathers get scarce as you keep rejecting and moving on to the next group? Don't ya think?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Jesus isn't. But unless He rules physically on Earth, most only serve an interpretation of who He is.

Would theonomy follow Rushdoony's Jesus, a Presbyterian Jesus, a Catholic Jesus?

That sounds carnal, humanistic, and shallow. So, you are saying that in no way someone can really live for God?

The Holy Ghost cannot rule and reign in a person's heart?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

nope again, but your love of power over people shows quite nicely.

Oh, my bad, I didn't realise facts and logic would create a buffer overflow. My apologies.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Rushdoony?

When did anyone mention him?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Jesus isn't. But unless He rules physically on Earth, most only serve an interpretation of who He is.

Would theonomy follow Rushdoony's Jesus, a Presbyterian Jesus, a Catholic Jesus, an Apostolic Jesus?

Again:

All law is enforced and carried out through men's interpretations of the laws, and of the underlying political philosophy those laws are based on. You would prefer fallible men busy themselves with interpreting fallible legal systems and theories developed by fallible men, rather than have fallible men busy themselves with studying God's Word.

Or to put it another way, since men are capable of error, it is best to have men govern according to man's ideas rather than God's Word.

Apparently you cannot see the inherent contradiction and irrationality of your position. That is because you do not believe God's Word has any inherent power to change people's lives and hearts. And the reason for that? Because it apparently hasn't wrought any real change in your heart.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

nope again, but your love of power over people shows quite nicely.

How was that your take away?

Do you attend a church with a pastor, or collegial leadership?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Again:

All law is enforced and carried out through men's interpretations of the laws, and of the underlying political philosophy those laws are based on. You would prefer fallible men busy themselves with interpreting fallible legal systems and theories developed by fallible men, rather than have fallible men busy themselves with studying God's Word.

Or to put it another way, since men are capable of error, it is best to have men govern according to man's ideas rather than God's Word.

Apparently you cannot see the inherent contradiction and irrationality of your position. That is because you do not believe God's Word has any inherent power to change people's lives and hearts. And the reason for that? Because it apparently hasn't wrought any real change in your heart.

Chris, how can you not see the logic of this post?

Good God in Zion!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Rushdoony?

When did anyone mention him?

I think I'll start bringing up Bakunin whenever I hear "anarchism" being proferred for sale.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I think I'll start bringing up Bakunin whenever I hear "anarchism" being proferred for sale.

Remember when Aquila was pushing for active protest in congregations?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

If Leo Tolstoy had the Kingdom of God within him, why did he hate his wife so much that he told his daughter not to allow her at his funeral?

Their relationship was a love/hate relationship. Every marriage has its problems. I try not to judge things so personal and complicated.

But I also wouldn't go as far as to say that Tolstoy had the kingdom within him. I believe that his conceptual understanding of the kingdom is far deeper, more compelling, more but challenging, spiritually practical than Rushdoony's.

How would a theonomic state deal with a Christian anarchist, or community of Christian anarchists who refused allegiance to the religious state, and desired to be self-governing?