19 July 2010

More letters to Theonomists part 2, concluding post


Missouri Synod????

Right— we’re both employing many un-argued assumptions. It’s a web-thread. To fully argue many of these points would require hundreds of pages. That’s not the point of this exercise, but you already know that don’t you?

As far as assumptions underlying the structure of our arguments…..well, I find the Constantinian position to rest on foundations which are proven invalid by the NT. We can talk more about that…we have been to some extent. We could take a vote. I think everyone here would say you’re the one who refuses to engage that point. For this discussion to amount to anything, we have to get back to hermeneutics. I’m arguing you’re reading the Bible inverted. You’re looking through the wrong end of the binoculars……that’s why the NT Kingdom is so far away. Show me an instance where an Apostle treated a Psalm or a prophetic passage the way you are?

As far as Henry and Calvin….usually one trots them out as an authority on the issue. What I’m saying is….I don’t respect their authority. Do we want to talk about why they were wrong on these issues? Well, I thought we were. It’s hermeneutics again. They made the same mistake you’re making. If you feel comfortable saying I’ll stick with Calvin…then by all means man…do so! Then the discussion is over. At that point we’re not talking about the Bible anymore…we’re talking about tradition.
I’m glad to hear you are unfamiliar with American Vision and Chalcedon……because you’re not going to get Biblical arguments there. What you’re going to get is the Constantinian tradition asserted over and over again. Oh, was that an assertion? Do I need to footnote that?

As far as assertive jingos……..Are you trying to argue the Magisterial Reformation didn’t embrace Constantinianism? I know some Anabaptists who would disagree, with just about every other historian…even the revisionist/propagandists at American Vision would agree with me.

Are you going to try and argue Germany didn’t turn Constantinian? England? France? Scotland then? Geneva? Hardly an assertive jingo. It’s called historical fact. Would you argue against it? I’d be more than happy to engage.

Even the most rabid Theonomist doesn’t dispute it…..for them it’s not a matter of whether it occurred, it’s a matter of theology and ethics.

This seems to be the direction 2K’S go when talking with some who disagrees?

It was called being polite. Allow me to re-phrase….

Show me a verse…..even one in the NT that even hints a Cultural Transformation or your policy argument? Show me something….anything in the NT that hints Paul was concerned with socially or politically confronting the infanticide of his day.

I know, I know… Make disciples of all nations………it’s called bringing the gospel to the Gentiles…often referred to as the nations. There’s nothing in the verse to indicate Transformationalism.

Will you accuse me of being a NT Christian instead of a whole Bible Christian? We all know that one. Well, we’re back to hermeneutics. In one sense……NT Christians are the only kind there’s ever been…..Don’t agree? We’re back to hermeneutics. I know why you don’t want to talk about NT Apostolic hermeneutics.

Your interpretation of Psalm 2 is flawed from the beginning because you refuse to submit to once again…the Apostolic hermeneutic. The NT teaches the nature of the Kingdom, the nature of the Messianic kingship, the kingdom principle, and how the kingdom is to be understood eschatologically. It helps us to make the distinction between Rule and Reign.
The Apostles show us how to read OT prophecy.

You are reading Psalm 2 as the Zealots and Pharisees did. Do you dispute that? Show me how you differ from their views of a Messianic Kingdom ruling over the nations of the world?

I would argue we do have a Messianic King who indeed Already REIGNS over the kingdoms of this world. That doesn’t mean those kingdoms are transformed into His REALM. He is the head of the church….not America.

I’m sorry you don’t like the term Kuyperian, but you’re advocating Transformationalism and thus the label is applicable. Tell me then, even in jingo if you want, how it is you’re not a Kuyperian? C’mon a 2K-extreme like me is asking.

I didn’t accuse you personally of promoting a wealth-oriented gospel, but I stand by my statement. There is among the Dominionist camp a latent prosperity gospel. I’ve encountered it time and again. I mentioned it as a backdrop to the view of Kingdom I’m advocating.

The American middle-class is rich. 99% of the world would agree with that statement.

So if you are 2K…then we’re all waiting with baited breath for you to explain what it is you’re talking about…….?

I have to say I’m a little disappointed. I thought we were having a good discussion. You accused me of pulling out the 2K line about ‘why are you even asking these questions?’

I ask it again. Where do you find Transformationalism in the NT? Show me something. That’s how weak your case is. There is virtually nothing in the NT to promote this position.

Instead, I find you’re pulling out the old Theonomy stand-bys. Pull out the assertion/argument card. Nit pick about nomenclature and argument structure. I run into this often….usually it is a means of escape. I could almost guess who you’ve been talking to…..Yes, dismiss me as a sub-Aristotelian amateur not worthy of your consideration……..

The Word of God is not mocked.

We are Christians. We understand the Bible is the Word of God and we’re talking about Spiritual matters. We do so soberly and seeking wisdom. Your tactic remind of Presbyterians who shut down an opponent by playing Roberts Rules games. I thought better of you.

We don’t need to turn to Aristotelian Term Logic, Syllogism, Validity, and Proofs to have a discussion. The Bible is not a math book. Yes, yes I know how can we have discussions that mean anything? Well it Aristotelian Categories are the answer…..let’s all go home. Because we thought we had an Eternal Word given to us. I guess all those things it was talking about…they were just formulae. How profound.

I continually find some who can’t argue their position run and hide behind these curtains rather than engage. And it is all the more ironic because one need only scroll up the page as it were, to find their own words are also full of un-argued assertion.

Be careful you don’t set up a standard for interpretation that in the end trumps the very heart of the Revelatory message God has given us.

John A.

No comments: