BY THIS STANDARD-Greg L. Bahnsen

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The more I read about Christian anarchy, the more I tend to identify with it.

Doesn't matter. The Kingdom of God is moving forward, and you simply don't have a say-so about it. Your incessant pleas for Christians to surrender the field of battle are falling on fewer and fewer ears.

Twenty years.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Doesn't matter. The Kingdom of God is moving forward, and you simply don't have a say-so about it. Your incessant pleas for Christians to surrender the field of battle are falling on fewer and fewer ears.

Twenty years.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Thanks, I'll check it out.

Is there a specific element to this that you want to draw my attention to?

You? No, I honestly think you're here for propaganda purposes, so I'm not at all interested in "convincing" you of anything. The link was for those reading the thread.

I find your waffling between "anarchism" and demanding taxpayer funded government managed healthcare to be... illustrative.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You? No, I honestly think you're here for propaganda purposes, so I'm not at all interested in "convincing" you of anything. The link was for those reading the thread.

I find your waffling between "anarchism" and demanding taxpayer funded government managed healthcare to be... illustrative.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Recently I have been looking more deeply into the entire "social compact theory". And I have concluded it is pure humanistic hogwash. What's interesting is it seems to be the basis for BOTH socialism and "libertarianism".

The social compact theory, also called the social contract theory, is the basis for the concept of "natural rights". the theory runs essentially thus:

Man is by nature in his original state an independent unit, sui juris, completely equal to every other man, and entitled by nature to exercise his entire will. Natural liberty is defined as the freedom to do whatever (the man) wished. John Locke refined this definition by stipulating that natural liberty was the freedom and priviledge to do whatever one wished "within the bounds of natural law", but this boiled down to the same thing, because man, as the highest known animal and endowed with reason, was the final arbiter of what constituted natural law. So man gets to define for himself what the boundaries of his liberty are, which is nothing other than saying man has "the right" to do whatever he wishes.

Natural rights were identified with this "natural liberty", and were claimed to be basically the right to secure one's own existence and to secure whatever makes oneself happy. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are the philosophical assertion of the Lockean theory of natural rights, natural liberty, and the social contract.

The theory proceeds to explain that because there are so many of these naturally independent and free individuals, whose wills often clash, that therefore men banded together by a "social compact" or agreement. This social compact or contract consisted of an agreement to bind themselves to one another, relinquishing certain of their individual natural rights or liberties specified in certain rules that restrained those certain natural rights, and agreeing to submit to the authority of certain men whom they all chose to appoint to government. The authority granted to these governing persons was to be used to secure the remaining rights to the rest of the population. The "certain rules" or terms of this compact make up the "organic law" or constitution of the society. Later person entering the society by birth or immigration are assumed to have consented to this compact or contract, and thus are assumed to owe their allegience to the organic law, the rules thus stipulated, the chosen government, and the relinquishing of those certain specified rights for the proffered protection of the remaining rights.

This is the Hobbes-Locke theory of the origin of human governments. It is also the foundation for the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, and is the philosophy upon which much of British and practically all of American jurisprudence rests. Blackstone, the famous commentator of English Law, recognised that the theory was in fact false, in regards to the actual facts of history. There never was a time in which a bunch of free, wholly independent humans "banded together and ceded certain of their unlimited rights, to form a social compact or covenant" etc. However, Blackstone, and most other jurists and political "scientists", maintain that the fiction must be assumed, in order to justify and even imply a source of political authority and civic obligation.

This theory is the basis for libertarianism, which asserts that "that government is best which governs least" on the basis that it is better to enjoy the maximum amount possible of one's natural rights, ceding the least amount possible to government. Socialism, on the other extreme, maintains essentially the opposite view, that the rights of the society far outweigh the individual's natural rights. Yet, it too is based in this same theory of a social compact whereby "free men surrender certain natural rights to form a society to which they and all future members of that society are bound by implied consent". This is also the basis for "liberal democracy", or classical liberalism (not at all to be confused the modern so-called "liberalism") which formed the basis for the American theory of law, rights, and government.

Of course, there are immediate objections to this theory which spring up to the mind of the critical thinker: "If government has certain rights which individuals do not have, how did the individuals cede those rights to begin with to government?" For example, government has the right to execute criminals and traitors, but individuals do not. Have individuals ever had the right to execute whom they determined to their own satisfaction to be criminal or otherwise dangerous? If not, then how did government ever come by such a right? Did individual men ever have the natural right to forcefully take the property of their neighbour? If not, how ever did they "give" that right to government?

Also, if the theory's historical claim is not in fact true (most admit it is not), then the system founded on a lie is necessarily false. If the theory incorrectly explains the origin of government, society, rights and obligations, then the theory must be incorrect, and must therefore have no authority in jurisprudence. The adherents of this theory admit that it has no facts upon which it rests. It is purely a hypothetical, a speculation, an opinion founded on nothing but a desire to provide an explanation for society, government, civic obligation, and "rights". Locke himself admitted as much.

Again, if this theory is correct, and a man were to reclaim his "natural state", and announce he had no allegience to ANY society, government, or social compact, and retained ALL his inherent natural rights, EVERY society on earth (especially those founded on the very theory in question, and upon which such a hypothetical person relied), every society would brand such a person as an outlaw and a brigand, or at best mentally ill and a crank. So even the holders of the theory do not truly believe it.

Moreover, the theory is utterly at odds with Revelation. The Scriptures show that man, created by God, is under Divinely imposed obligations, which inhere to man's nature just as surely as his physical instincts do. In other words, man's moral obligations to God are as much a part of man's state as his instincts, physical constitution, etc. As soon as a human comes into existence, there is a Divine claim upon him. A child is born into a family, and has familial obligations which arise - not from any supposed "assent to form a compact", explicit or implied - but from the fact of the familial relation. Thus so it is with society. A person born into a society is born with certain obligations to that society, because those obligations stem from the individual's moral obligations to God, which in turn derive immediately from the person's creation and formation by God.

The theory is atheistical. A Christian believes the Bible. One who believes the "social compact" theory of human society must assert man is an independent unit without any derivation from God. The theory itself supposes man is born an independent unit with unlimited "natural rights" and no actual obligations, until man "consents" to form society and creates upon himself his civic duties. Which in turn makes man to be the source of all rights and obligations. Which in turn makes man the final authority in morals. There simply is no room for a Divine Creator in such a scheme.

There are a number of absurdities which necessarily follow from the adoption of this godless humanistic theory, including the absurdity that government is a necessary evil adopted in order to restrain natural rights for a supposed common good, which in turn means that all government in inherently immoral. But if all government is inherently immoral, then the supposed civic obligation man binds himself to is likewise immoral, and the supposed "compact" itself becomes immoral and thus inherently and naturally non-binding! The theory is literally self-refuting!

Hobbes is rather consistent, then, in maintaining that originally there was no such thing as "right" other than the ability to enforce one's will. "Might makes right" is the actual, natural, necessary, and logical outcome of such a theory. Morals, under this theory, become literally nothing other than fictions invented in society for the sake of expediency. That is where this theory leads.

And, against all this absurd monstrosity of human "wisdom" stands the Bible, the revealed Word of God. Christians cannot be consistently Christian while supporting and adhering to this humanistic theory of the "social contract".

[Amanah]

The law of Nature, and nature's God, according to our declaration of independence, was based upon the bible itself:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Alexis de Tocqueville said that our democracy would only work as long as we are a Christian nation, because and once America ceased to be a Christian Nation that our democracy would cease to work:

Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts - the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.Alexis De Tocqueville: "Democracy in America"

Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.Alexis De Tocqueville: "Democracy in America"

Religion in America ... must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief. I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion-for who can search the human heart?-But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.Alexis De Tocqueville: "Democracy in America"

The sects that exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due to the Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God....
Moreover, all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same.Alexis De Tocqueville: "Democracy in America"

In the United States the sovereign authority is religious,...
Alexis De Tocqueville: "Democracy in America"

http://www.ministers-best-friend.com...n-America.html

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The law of Nature, and nature's God, according to our declaration of independence, was based upon the bible itself:

I would disagree with this. I would point out that the Declaration of Independence was largely the work of Jefferson, a reflection of Enlightenment ideals, and essentially espouses the social compact theory of government maintained by Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, and company. This is proven by its own assertions:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This is pure social compact theory, pure natural rights theory. And completely unbiblical.

I am not saying the act of declaring independence was in and of itself unbiblical, but the philosophy espoused in the written declaration's prologue most assuredly is erroneous and unbiblical. The idea that governments derive their powers from the just consent of the governed is unscriptural. Jefferson borrowed heavily from George Mason's "Virginia Declaration of Rights" which included the following statement:

Section 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.

This is flat out Enlightenment humanism, and flat out contrary to the claims of Jesus Christ, Who declared all power in BOTH heaven AND earth was vested in HIMSELF (Matthew 28:18). Government power does NOT derive "from the people", but from God:

Romans 13:1-6 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. (2) Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. (3) For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: (4) For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. (5) Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. (6) For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

Daniel 4:24-25 This is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree of the most High, which is come upon my lord the king: (25) That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

Now, the Declaration enumerates numerous reasons why the colonies could no longer maintain union with Britain. And those reasons were certainly sufficient for secession. But the underlying philosophy espoused by the social compact theory, which as I stated earlier is the very basis of American jurisprudence, is simply not Biblical.

[Amanah]

are upholding the principles of Life, Liberty, and private Property theonomic?

off the top of my head I would say that the bible:
*protects life
*liberty is based on obedience to God. A theonomic society is free in as far as people obey the bible and don't commit sins against God and each other.
*The bible protects property, theft demands restitution.

The very thought that people have rights came from the bible.

I agree with Alexis De Tocqueville that our Republic works as long as our nation is a Christian Nation.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Doesn't matter. The Kingdom of God is moving forward, and you simply don't have a say-so about it. Your incessant pleas for Christians to surrender the field of battle are falling on fewer and fewer ears.

Twenty years.

Esaias, what you're advocating is not the Kingdom of God. It is the Kingdom of Rushdoony, and religio-statists who don't have the faith, nor power, to advance a kingdom without assuming the power of coercion. You're "Christian soldiers" are dying for an idol called "Christian Reconstructionism", which is only an interpretation of men.

The true Kingdom is within us. Ruled directly by Christ, through the Holy Spirit. We do live biblically, but we are not beholden to any earthly government... even if it flies a Christian banner.

Assuming that America were to become "Reconstructed" tomorrow, where would those like me, who oppose it, protest against it, preach against it, admonish obedience to Christ alone, and actively denounce it, stand?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You? No, I honestly think you're here for propaganda purposes, so I'm not at all interested in "convincing" you of anything. The link was for those reading the thread.

I find your waffling between "anarchism" and demanding taxpayer funded government managed healthcare to be... illustrative.

I've never been one to blindly follow the crowd. I've told you that liberals think I'm too conservative, and conservatives think I'm too liberal. I'm a free thinker. And if you review the link to the book I suggested on the topic, the author covers that since Christian anarchists are not beholden to any specific statist agenda, party, or platform, if compelled by deep conviction, the Christian anarchist is free to "jump into" the political fray if they see a cause for the greater good. However, it is admonished that the Christian anarchist who does so jump out of the fray as soon as possible, else they risk becoming corrupted by political power.