BY THIS STANDARD-Greg L. Bahnsen

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm talking about "Christian anarchists".

No difference. You were claiming that people ought to be able to just withdraw from civic obligation. That IS the anarchist position held by these dimwits who choose to "not recognise" the legal authority of a grand jury.

It is one thing to reject governmental authority as illegitimate because of corruption. It is another thing to reject governmental authority because one believes he is simply not subject to civic obligations. Anarchism is the philosophy that demands the abolition of the state.

"Christian anarchism" is in the same place as "Christian communism" or "Christian Nazism" - la la land.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If there is no legitimate king but Jesus, there is no legitimate law but His.

Do you like your eggs scrambled, or sunny side up?

The Law of Christ is love God with all your being, and love others as yourself. In this, the whole law is fulfilled.

The Law you're talking about is a Reconstructionist interpretation of the Old Testament law given to Israel, which was used and abused by Israel, and ultimately used to crucify the Lamb of God, the King of Kings. And the Reconstructionists will use to crucify God's holy elect. It's Trinitarian to the core, their brainchild. They will not spare you or me.

Become one of them. I'll remain Apostolic, this Kingdom answers to Jesus directly. We don't need a middleman or you to govern us.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

No difference. You were claiming that people ought to be able to just withdraw from civic obligation. That IS the anarchist position held by these dimwits who choose to "not recognise" the legal authority of a grand jury.

It is one thing to reject governmental authority as illegitimate because of corruption. It is another thing to reject governmental authority because one believes he is simply not subject to civic obligations. Anarchism is the philosophy that demands the abolition of the state.

"Christian anarchism" is in the same place as "Christian communism" or "Christian Nazism" - la la land.

The human states will be abolished by Christ when He returns. Frankly, they're already dead, defeated. And you, and this hellish, twisted dream, you've given your soul to, will go down in flames with every other government of man.

We are already under Christ's rulership. Warning every statist that they're going to be toast.

We'll never bow to you, nor your pathetic nightmare you've chosen to compromise your soul for. Might as well start burning us now.

I like Quakers. They refused ministers licensing, marriage licensing, refuse to go under oath in civil courts, refused to pay taxes to fund the industrial military complex, refused to take off their hats for any civil court, and refused to testify if they felt it their religious duty.

We're much like them. You can shove this demonic version of power where the sun doesn't shine. We'll never bow.

Reconstructionist need political power because they're powerless cowards. Without the gun of government, they're nothing.

[Wilsonwas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So you oppose all government, then, since it is all liable to abuse? Do you oppose marriage, because it is liabe to abuse? Do you oppose any and all forms of church government because they are liable to abuse?

Or do you just oppose society looking to the Bible for solutions?

Really, you are one of the most intelligent people on here, and you have to resort to coloring the position?

All government should be severely limited, and the people should always possess a means to oppose it.

I said nothing of marriage

Church government should have checks and balances, but one can leave a church, and the cost will only be some freinds....so...some latitude may be afforded.

People should love god and keep his commandments of their own accord.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So you oppose all government, then, since it is all liable to abuse? Do you oppose marriage, because it is liabe to abuse? Do you oppose any and all forms of church government because they are liable to abuse?

Or do you just oppose society looking to the Bible for solutions?

That is what the argument ends up becoming. Circular reasoning. Since man supposedly can’t get it right therefore its inevitable end is failure. Yet, marriage should also be eliminated, working for an employer, answering to clients, anything that would concern hierarchy of any kind. Especially church, because of its structure of church eldership.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

Really, you are one of the most intelligent people on here, and you have to resort to coloring the position?

All government should be severely limited, and the people should always possess a means to oppose it.

I said nothing of marriage

Church government should have checks and balances, but one can leave a church, and the cost will only be some freinds....so...some latitude may be afforded.

People should love god and keep his commandments of their own accord.

You didn’t have to say anything about marriage. That is just the quandary this argument creates. Leaving church? Is just losing some friends? Really?

[Wilsonwas]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You didn’t have to say anything about marriage. That is just the quandary this argument creates. Leaving church? Is just losing some friends? Really?

Yes leaving a church and going to another, is not a big deal. This is called association by choice.

A marriage that is abusive may be left. Though a christian marriage should not be abusive.

It is difficult to impossible to leave a government- hence it should be limited so as to allow that it not become abusive.

The argument that all authority is equal seems Orwellian. It is a best an incorrect one because it is premised on "all authority must be obeyed". The three hebrew children, Lot leaving Sodom, Isreal leaving slavery are all cases where this was not true. Only authoritarians would disagree. I cannot see how you cannot see that.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

Yes leaving a church and going to another, is not a big deal. This is called association by choice.

A marriage that is abusive may be left. Though a christian marriage should not be abusive.

It is difficult to impossible to leave a government- hence it should be limited so as to allow that it not become abusive.

The argument that all authority is equal seems Orwellian. It is a best an incorrect one because it is premised on "all authority must be obeyed". The three hebrew children, Lot leaving Sodom, Isreal leaving slavery are all cases where this was not true. Only authoritarians would disagree. I cannot see how you cannot see that.

Your argument was:

People will inevitable corrupt every form of government, therefore theonomy should not be sought.

The only way that is logical is if all forms if government should not be sought. Hence my questions.

If man corrupts whatever he does, and therefore theonomy should not be pursued, then logically nothing that man does should be pursued.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

Yes leaving a church and going to another, is not a big deal. This is called association by choice.

A marriage that is abusive may be left. Though a christian marriage should not be abusive.

It is difficult to impossible to leave a government- hence it should be limited so as to allow that it not become abusive.

The argument that all authority is equal seems Orwellian. It is a best an incorrect one because it is premised on "all authority must be obeyed". The three hebrew children, Lot leaving Sodom, Isreal leaving slavery are all cases where this was not true. Only authoritarians would disagree. I cannot see how you cannot see that.

BTW, if man always corrupts government, then how do you limit it so as to allow it to not become abusive?

The premise of theonomy is that Biblical restraints on government are more secure than restraints derived from humanistic philosophy. Now, if you want to argue that man can devise better law than God can, by all means go ahead.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

That is what the argument ends up becoming. Circular reasoning. Since man supposedly can’t get it right therefore its inevitable end is failure. Yet, marriage should also be eliminated, working for an employer, answering to clients, anything that would concern hierarchy of any kind. Especially church, because of its structure of church eldership.

Exactly. If godly government is bad, then no government of any kind can possibly be good.

It's amazing to me how people rationalize surrender. Yet the rationalizations make no real sense. It's like the atheist's arguments: they all presuppose God exists. Self-refuting.