Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You know, you still can't grasp the fact that, hey, not everyone agrees with you, or that guy, and that the more you quote him, the more we think you and him should be locked up for the rest of your physical lives for the betterment of mankind.
You're right. I don't. Not really, atleast. For I have the common sense to realise that being gay is no reason to kill anyone. <staff edit>You are a pagan. I don't expect you to agree with anything that GOD has to say.
SOLA FIDE.
Paul, read this, understand this; know it.
VII. THE APPLICATION OF GOD'S LAW TO CIVIL JUSTICE
In order to more fully comprehend the issue at hand, it is important to understand the historical divisions of God's law.[...yawn...]categories: moral, civil, and ceremonial. This [...yawn...]Monroe to Jackson on I-20, the [...yawn...]the bulk of the controversy lies. The question is as follows: Are the judicial and penal [...hehe Penal... yawn...]Confession seems hopelessly confusing[...yawn...]interpretation of 19:4 is radically inconsistent with[...yawn...]version of the WCF[...yawn...]vignette[...Mmmm Vinaigrette, I'd like a salad... yawn...]passed by the Assembly was[...did I just drift off a bit?...]restrain crime and more efficiently govern people?
--Pastor T. Mark Duncan
Okay SoF, you've posted that like five times... I've tried to read it everytime, but I just keep zoning out. It's boring. Say it in your own words if you want...
Paul, read this, understand this; know it.
VII. THE APPLICATION OF GOD'S LAW TO CIVIL JUSTICE
In order to more fully comprehend the issue at hand, it is important to understand the historical divisions of God's law. To aid our understanding, God's law has been divided into three categories: moral, civil, and ceremonial. This division is found in our Westminster Confession, chapter 19. The moral law is summarized in the 10 commandments and are, without question, applicable to the believer today (see WCF 19:2,5,6,7).
The ceremonial law was designed to be applied only in the shadows of the Old Covenant, since those bloody ceremonies served as sign posts pointing to the One whose blood would take away sin. The bloody rituals of the Old Covenant have been replaced by bloodless signs of baptism and the Lord's Supper in the New Covenant. The bloody signs of the Old Covenant pointed to a savior to come. The bloodless signs of the New Covenant point back to the savior who has come. It would not be accurate, however, to say that these ceremonial laws are abolished. They still teach us the principle that God requires a substitutionary blood sacrifice in order to forgive sins. For example, if you are traveling from Monroe to Jackson on I-20, the signs informing you of the number of miles to Jackson are very helpful. Once you arrive in Jackson, however, you no longer need those signs. They have served their purpose. They still apply to those traveling to Jackson and they still serve to remind you of where you were and the distance you have traveled.
The third category of the law is the judicial category and this is where the bulk of the controversy lies. The question is as follows: Are the judicial and penal sanctions in the law of Moses applicable to the Civil Magistrate today? The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 19:4 states: "To them (Israel) also as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws which expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
Although this statement from our Confession seems hopelessly confusing, a bit of careful thinking should clear the fog. First, it CANNOT mean that it is God's intent for the judicial law not to be applied at all. This would mean that the State is not under God in any way and implies that the Bible has nothing to say at all about penal justice. This is absolutely unconscionable and I cannot understand how any Christian could advocate such a monstrous position.
Besides, this interpretation of 19:4 is radically inconsistent with the Westminster Standards in other places. In the original version of the WCF, chapter 23, pertaining to the Civil Magistrate, one of the duties outlined by the Westminster Divines for the Civil Magistrate was that he is responsible to see that "all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed."
Although this provision was deleted in the late 1700's in the American version of the WCF, it is interesting to note that WLC question 108 (citing Deut. 7:5) was left intact. "The duties required in the Second Commandment are...disapproving, detesting, opposing all false worship; and according to one's place and calling, removing it and all monuments of idolatry."
There is an interesting historical vignette helpful to our discussion on the relationship between the Westminster Confession and Theonomy. According to the book, Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly, p. 211, discussing the debate on Chapter 20, Of Christian Liberty and the Liberty of Conscience, the wording originally passed by the Assembly was "under the gospel consists, especially in freedom from the guilt and power of sin...from the ceremonial and judicial law..." The phrase: "freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law was moved to a point later in the section. For the purpose of our discussion, however, the important point is that any mention of being free from the judicial law was excised altogether and never appeared in the WCF. (Thanks to Bill Anderson for this information). This means, that as a result of the debate at the Assembly, the Divines determined that the Christian was not free from the claims of the judicial law!
There is also a "theonomic flavor" in Larger Catechism, question 191, which asks: "What do we pray for in the second petition?
Part of the answer reads: "...the Church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ be purely dispensed... Thus, the Civil Magistrate has a role in protecting the true Church and keeping her pure. Reformed Presbyterians opposed to theonomy, must, in order to maintain integrity, take exceptions to these provisions in our Standards.
NOW PAY REAL CLOSE ATTENTION HERE:
Secondly, if the judicial laws no longer apply in any way, how could any civil magistrate do his duty according to Romans 13? Romans 13:4 teaches us that it is the duty of the Civil Magistrate to be an avenger of God's wrath on the one who practices evil. How is a Civil Magistrate to carry out this duty without an absolute standard of what is good and evil? Without biblical judicial law, it is up to the magistrate himself to determine what is good or evil. The magistrate or legislative body must then arbitrarily determine the punishment for criminal behavior. Thus, King James I of England applied the death penalty for pickpocketing. An abandonment of theonomy leads to arbitrariness, tyranny and uneven punishment. Although Old Testament law has an unjustified reputation of being harsh, a theonomic ethic actually serves to protect citizens against tyrants run amuck. Thirdly, Christians must remember who wrote the judicial laws. They come from the mind of a perfectly good and just God.
God is perfectly fair. An abandonment of theonomy implies that man is wiser than God. It implies that God does not know what He is doing when it comes to civil law. Does any Christian really believe that better and more just laws can come from the minds of sinful, finite, fallen men? How absurd!! Christians who detest theonomy must understand that they are arguing against God.
Theonomists did not write those civil laws, God wrote each one of them. Theonomists believe the laws of God are wiser than men and at least are attempting to believe them and apply them.
The Westminster Divines employed the terms "general equity" because they understood that the Bible was written to apply to all cultures in all times. The case laws provide man with principles of justice that can be applied to all nations in all epochs. For example, Deuteronomy 22:8 requires a parapet to be built around the roof of a home. The theonomic position does NOT maintain that all houses today must have a guard rail constructed on the roof. We look for the general equity of the law. What is God teaching us in this statute? The general equity is a principle of safety. There are many modern applications, such as a requirement to build a fence around a swimming pool, lest a child wander in and drown. If someone owned a house with a flat roof and he entertained guests on the roof, the general equity would be, in that case, a literal application of the law.
To those who deny that the principles of the Old Testament civil code apply today, there is a question that must be answered. With what do you plan to replace God's law? Are the Republicans and Democrats more competent than the Almighty to draft just and righteous laws? Is fallen man better equipped than God to write laws which restrain crime and more efficiently govern people?
--Pastor T. Mark Duncan
Exercise your brain and learn something new. And understand that you are wrong and you are lying when you say I am evil.
SOLI DEO GLORIA.
I beg you to please remember that SoF is a madman, and is in no way to be seen as an actual representative for any faith but his own vile refuse.You're right. I don't. Not really, atleast. For I have the common sense to realise that being gay is no reason to kill anyone. <staff edit>
And... Given the above, how is the righteousness of the government's actions to be judged? How is it, for example, godly for the CSA to kill people for 'being a gangster' and yet similarly improper for Nazi Germany to kill Jews?
No, the opening statement does not say so. But Shield has said so in other posts.I personally don't agree with any of the opening statements and I think any nation that mentions homosexuality in the opening paragraph of its constitution is a bit nuts, but I agree that they're not totally unreasonable. However, nowhere there does it say "all people violating these rules, plus anyone we don't really like, will be lynched" nor "any country that we don't like the look of will be nuked".
Wow! A lot of questions. I give you props for at least attempting to read the text (p.s. good job on your humors revision; I chuckled.).
The gangster law would be put into effect because gangs have evolved into serious machines of death. [...]
Therefore there would be no gangs in the New C.S.A.. You would never see one of Gotti's boys, or a Bandido or a Crip in the C.S.A.. For if you came in and were to fly those colors you would be making a conscious and willful statement of "I am an outlaw gangster, and I am purposefully associating myself with this gang, who's express intent is Drug Trafficking, Extortion, Racketeering, and Murder": then this statement and willful breaking of the law will get you the sentence of death.
You know nothing about the criminal-justice-system relationship. You see, the reason why society does not execute people en masse is because the people aren't stupid enough to allow it and will meat the govt with their own violence -- militaries would dissolve, chaos would ensue, anarchy would follow, and everyone would wonder "why isn't God doing anything?" as they weep while their children die. Thats bad, and you know this. =)
--------
Answer my quesiton. Would a widow be forced to marry her brother in law as commanded by OT law? yes, or no?
=)
Oh, I'm quite well aware he's not a representation of an entire faith. If I was refering to the Judeo-Christian god, I would refer to him as either the "God of Abraham", "Judeo-Christian God", ect.I beg you to please remember that SoF is a madman, and is in no way to be seen as an actual representative for any faith but his own vile refuse.
He could just as well have been a wiccan making the same claims in the name of the goddess.
ah.Oh, I'm quite well aware he's not a representation of an entire faith. If I was refering to the Judeo-Christian god, I would refer to him as either the "God of Abraham", "Judeo-Christian God", ect.
I said "your god". His god is about as close to the Abrahamic deity as a pickle is to pizza..
Oh, I'm quite well aware he's not a representation of an entire faith. If I was refering to the Judeo-Christian god, I would refer to him as either the "God of Abraham", "Judeo-Christian God", ect.
I said "your god". His god is about as close to the Abrahamic deity as a pickle is to pizza..
You fail to see something. Those who live by the Spirit are not going to be doing all those horrible sins. They would have nothing to fear from the Government.
The C.S.A. would be a wonderful place to live. A place dedicated to the glory of GOD. A place where Christ is the corner stone. A place where we would love and bless GOD. Scripture would be engraved on all our buildings. Murals of GOD and all His glorious works would be everywhere.
Everyone is focusing on the Capital Punishment of the C.S.A.. There would be very little of that going on. Because there would already be very few people getting buck wild trying to commit all these evil sins.
Once again, you are only seeing things through American/ English eyes. You are assuming that the C.S.A. would be just like the U.S.A.. That would not be the case at all. There would not be a secular government. The government would be one dedicated to the glory of GOD. There would be lots of Prayer, Worship, Fasting, and Reading the Word of GOD in our government!!! As I said before, the C.S.A. would be founded upon the WORD OF GOD!!! Absolutely no apologies there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Once again, I hit a nerve with the left because I stepped on their favorite pet sin; homosexuality. And we all know that if anyone says anything negative about homosexuality, it is mandatory that all leftists must rally around the rainbow flag and start the chanting and whistle blowing! Block out all reason. Forget truth ever existed. Just start chanting and repeating the party lines and buzz words, and you'll be ok.
So sorry; I'm not politically correct. That term comes from the communist party, and I have nothing to do with communism. I am a free born man, and I speak as one.
SOLA SCRIPTURA.
SOLA FIDE.
SOLA GRATIA.
SOLUS CHRISTUS.
SOLI DEO GLORIA.
Oh, I'm quite well aware he's not a representation of an entire faith. If I was refering to the Judeo-Christian god, I would refer to him as either the "God of Abraham", "Judeo-Christian God", ect.
I said "your god". His god is about as close to the Abrahamic deity as a pickle is to pizza..
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?