BY THIS STANDARD-Greg L. Bahnsen

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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?

Love hate relationship? No, Tolstoy hated Sophia, and she returned the favor. He had issues which his theology couldn't remedy. He isn't the go to guy on the Kingdom of God, or pacifism. Again, you use the title Christian Anarchist? There is no such thing, it would be void of any church leadership, which only leads me to believe that you know as much about Anarchism as you do about the Tolstoys.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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?

They could all pack up and move. Just like it is now.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Remember when Aquila was pushing for active protest in congregations?

Exactly. While there are some people LARPing as "Christian anarchists" the term is, as you pointed out, a total oxymoron.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Exactly. While there are some people LARPing as "Christian anarchists" the term is, as you pointed out, a total oxymoron.

What was funny, is that Aquila posted pages on divorce and remarriage disqualifies elders. In anarchism you wouldn't even have those rules, because it isn't about the group. It is only about the individual, church leadership (or any leadership) doesn't exist.

[Wilsonwas]

Seems inconsistent with Romans 8:3-4

3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according.

"Weakened by the flesh" how? By the flesh leading to fleshly failure, error in judgement, and in the failing of the law which led Christ to the cross to perfect salvation for all mankind.
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Romans 10:4)

It is good that a nation follow the ten commandments- which are the source of "natural law", and that it follow Christ. It ought not to contrive to compel by law persons to be "Christian" as this is in opposition to Gods will to have beings that worship in faith and free will.

Men fail as governors because they failed at even keeping one law, to not eat of the tree of knowledge. To say that i support government based on failed philosophy of man is incorrect. To say that I do not support a reconstructive government based on the law of Isreal is eqially incorrect. I support only governments limited to the requirement of keeping mans failure from becoming overriding of mankind.

All government must be severely limited, because man will inevitably fail it. Thonomic, or Secular humanist, the only difference I can see will be the length of time before it fails.

I say you seek power over men because you support a government with very strong power , supported by a beleif that it is doing the will of God. Such a thing goes equally wrong as does godless communism because great power is centralized in zealots or in a set f persons as Orwell noted that think they are "more equal than others"

Paul shows us that he himself refusec to use power he might rightfully have had,
2 Thessalonians 3:9 "It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate." (ESV)
But chose to be an example rather than a rod of correction. You cannot possibly deny that all of history shows us humanity is much less likely to follow Pauls example - that men who desire power often do so for prideful, or otherwise sinful intent. And that high ideals succumb to low base desires with ease.....David observing a woman bathing.....leads to proxy murder....as an example.

I dont give a fat rats tail what form you choose- government should be limited more even than its subjects.

[Aquila]

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.

Bingo.

ALL human government is fallible, because ALL human beings are fallible. Christian Reconstructionist government would be run by fallible men, with fallible interpretations of Scripture. Secular governments are run by fallible men with fallible laws.

One insists that they speak for God. The other thinks it is God. Both are human constructs. And neither is truly perfect in understanding, wisdom, or judgement.

That's why it's foolish to equate Reconstructionism with the Kingdom of God. It's the same idolatrous statism as communism, just religious in nature.

The Kingdom is entirely spiritual. Transcendent of all forms of earthly civil governments. Those in the Kingdom are ultimately beholden to it, not ANY earthly civil government. We obey common laws and pay taxes to keep peace...until they seek to force us to violate a Kingdom boundary. Then, we peacefully obey God over men...Reconstructionists included.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Bingo.

ALL human government is fallible, because ALL human beings are fallible. Christian Reconstructionist government would be run by fallible men, with fallible interpretations of Scripture. Secular governments are run by fallible men with fallible laws.

One insists that they speak for God. The other thinks it is God. Both are human constructs. And neither is truly perfect in understanding, wisdom, or judgement.

That's why it's foolish to equate Reconstructionism with the Kingdom of God. It's the same idolatrous statism as communism, just religious in nature.

The Kingdom is entirely spiritual. Transcendent of all forms of earthly civil governments. Those in the Kingdom are ultimately beholden to it, not ANY earthly civil government. We obey common laws and pay taxes to keep peace...until they seek to force us to violate a Kingdom boundary. Then, we peacefully obey God over men...Reconstructionists included.

A kingdom of this world is what the Jews were looking for. They were looking for an earthly king that would rule an earthly kingdom. They failed to recognize the messiah because He didn’t fit their expectations.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

Seems inconsistent with Romans 8:3-4

3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according.

"Weakened by the flesh" how? By the flesh leading to fleshly failure, error in judgement, and in the failing of the law which led Christ to the cross to perfect salvation for all mankind.
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Romans 10:4)

It is good that a nation follow the ten commandments- which are the source of "natural law", and that it follow Christ. It ought not to contrive to compel by law persons to be "Christian" as this is in opposition to Gods will to have beings that worship in faith and free will.

Men fail as governors because they failed at even keeping one law, to not eat of the tree of knowledge. To say that i support government based on failed philosophy of man is incorrect. To say that I do not support a reconstructive government based on the law of Isreal is eqially incorrect. I support only governments limited to the requirement of keeping mans failure from becoming overriding of mankind.

All government must be severely limited, because man will inevitably fail it. Thonomic, or Secular humanist, the only difference I can see will be the length of time before it fails.

I say you seek power over men because you support a government with very strong power , supported by a beleif that it is doing the will of God. Such a thing goes equally wrong as does godless communism because great power is centralized in zealots or in a set f persons as Orwell noted that think they are "more equal than others"

Paul shows us that he himself refusec to use power he might rightfully have had,
2 Thessalonians 3:9 "It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate." (ESV)
But chose to be an example rather than a rod of correction. You cannot possibly deny that all of history shows us humanity is much less likely to follow Pauls example - that men who desire power often do so for prideful, or otherwise sinful intent. And that high ideals succumb to low base desires with ease.....David observing a woman bathing.....leads to proxy murder....as an example.

I dont give a fat rats tail what form you choose- government should be limited more even than its subjects.

Is it impossible for man to be as pure as Christ?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

A kingdom of this world is what the Jews were looking for. They were looking for an earthly king that would rule an earthly kingdom. They failed to recognize the messiah because He didn’t fit their expectations.

So, some day they will get their earthly King to rule over them in an earthly kingdom?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

So, some day they will get their earthly King to rule over them in an earthly kingdom?

I didn’t say so. I don’t even believe so. What do you believe?