Thursday, July 06, 2006

Philosophy of (The Christian) Religion

Introduction: This is comparable to a book on the Philosophy of Religion. There are a few differences between this "book" and other books. You will notice that there are no (well, just one or two) arguments against the positions I've listed. This is because this "book" is also meant to substitute as an apologetics "book" for the Christian faith, hence the offensive nature. Furthermore, this "book" is intended to present the Philosophy of Christianity from a Reformed perspective and also a presupposition approach to answering many of these questions (or, what I feel is in the same “vein” as presuppositional-esk answers). I also included some dated (or, stated in a non-analytical way) statements of Omniscience and Omnipotence, the reason for this is because I feel that if one could just state the traditional reformed understandings of these doctrines one would avoid many of the so-called problems with these doctrines. I have also included "chapters" in this "book" that are not found in other Philosophy of Religion texts (e.g., Christian Theism and Abstracta). I hope this "book" serves to increase your understanding of the Reformed Faith (or, in other words, Christian Faith) as well as enables you to better defend it.



CHAPTER 1: Arguments For God's Existence

i. If Knowledge Then God: The Epistemological Theistic Arguments of Plantinga and Van Til. - Dr. James Anderson

ii. Two Dozen (Or So) Theistic Arguments. - Dr. Alvin Plantinga

iii. The Argument From Reason. - Dr. Victor Reppert

iv. The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality
. - Dr. William Lane Craig


CHAPTER 2: The Problem of Evil

i. The Problem of Evil. - Dr. Greg Bahnsen

ii. The Bible on The Problem of Evil: Insights from Romans 3:1-8,21-26; 5:1-5; 8:28-39 -John M. Frame

iii. Evil As Evidence for God -Grek Koukl

iv. Why Calvinists Can't Solve The Problem of Evil. -Dr. Victor Reppert

v. Why Calvinists Can't Solve The Problem of Evil (A Direct Response). -Steve Hays

vi. Why Calvinists Can't Solve The Problem of Evil (An Indirect Response). - Frame, Adams, Piper, Sproul et al

vii. Euthyphro's Dilemma. -Greg Koukl

viii. Euthyphro, Hume, And The Biblical God. -John M. Frame

ix. The Problem of Evil. -Greg Welty


CHAPTER 3: Free Will and Moral Responsibility

i. Free Will And Moral Responsibility. -John M. Frame

ii. Determinism, Chance And Freedom. - John M. Frame

iii. Free Will And Moral Responsibility Are Not Inconsistent. - Dr. Loraine Boettner

iv. On Free Will. - John Calvin

v. Compatibalism, Incompatibalism, Pessimism, Moral Responsibility, Metaphysics and Moral Psychology, and Challenges to Pessimism. - Galen Stawson, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy

vi. Free Will And Responsibility. - Dr. John Byl

vii. Arminianism and the Idol of Free Will. - John Owen


CHAPTER 4: The Attributes of God

[A] Time And Eternity:

i. Is 'Timeless' Divine Action Coherent. - Dr. Michael Sudduth

ii. Eternity. - Dr. Paul Helm

iii. Is It Coherent to suppose that there Exists an Omniscient Timeless Being? - Dr. Michael Sudduth

iv. God in Time. -John M. Frame

[B] Omniscience and Human Freedom:

i. Foreknowledge and Human Freedom. - John M. Frame

ii. God's Foreknowledge and Free Will. - Stephen Charnock

iii. Does Divine Timelessness Resolve the Problem of Foreknowledge and Human Freedom. - Dr. Michael Sudduth

iv. Cross Examination: Foreordination and Free Will. - Dr. Greg Bahnsen

[C] Omnipotence:

i. Omnipotence. -Dr. Joshua Hoffman and Dr. Gary Rosencrantz

ii. Omnipotence. -Dr. Edward Wierenga

iii. Omnipotence. -Geerhardus Vos

iv. The Lord of Power. -John M. Frame

v. Divine Omnipotence. -Dr. Sam Storms

CHAPTER 5: Miracles

i. The Problem of Miracles. -Dr. Greg Bahnsen

ii. Miracles: A Test Case . -Dr. Vern Poythress

iii. Counterfeit Miracles. -B. B. Warfield

CHAPTER 6: Faith and Reason

i. Ready to Reason. -Dr. Greg Bahnsen

ii. The Problem of Faith. -Dr. Greg Bahnsen

iii. Natural Theology and the Rationality of Religious Belief. -Dr. Michael Sudduth

iv. Theism, Atheism, and Rationality. -Dr. Alvin Plantinga

v. How To Believe in God in The 2000s. -John M. Frame

vi. Faith and Reason. -Dr. Michael Polanyi

vii. Faith. -B. B. Warfield


CHAPTER 7: Religious Language

i. The Problem of Religious Language. -Dr. Greg Bahnsen

ii. IS HUMAN LANGUAGE ADEQUATE TO TALK ABOUT GOD? A CRITIQUE OF VERIFICATIONISM AND THEOLOGICAL PESSIMISM. -Dr. Michael Sudduth


CHAPTER 8: Christian Theism and Abstracta

i. An Examination of Theistic Conceptual Realism As An Alternative To Theistic Activism. -Greg Welty

ii. Theism and Mathematical Realism. -Dr. John Byl

iii. Logic. -John M. Frame

iv. Reforming Ontology and Logic in the Light of the Trinity: An Application of Van Til's Idea of Analogy . -Dr. Vern Poythress

v. Creation and Mathematics; Or, What Does God Have To Do With Numbers. -Dr. Vern Poythress


CHAPTER 9: Christianity and Science

i. Why Scientists Must Believe in God: Divine Attributes of Scientific Law. -Dr. Vern Poythress

ii. Is Intelligent Design Science?. -John M. Frame

iii. Scripture and Geologists. -Dr. John Byl

iv. When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible. -Dr. Alvin Plantinga

v. An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. -Dr. Alvin Plantinga

vi. Naturalism Defeated. -Dr. Alvin Plantinga

vii. Revelation, Speculation, and Science. -Dr. Greg Bahnsen

viii. Science, Subjectivity, and Scripture. -Dr. Greg Bahnsen

CHAPTER 10: Christian Ethics

i. What Is Theonomy?. -Dr. Greg Bahnsen

ii. The Authority of God's Law. -Dr. Greg Bahnsen

iii. Cross Examination: A Biblical Standard For Civil Law. -Dr. Greg Bahnsen

iv. Penultimate Thoughts on Theonomy. -John M. Frame

v. Some Thoughts on Theonomy. -G.I. Williamson

vi.Christian Ethics: Basic Principles. -John M. Frame

40 comments:

  1. Wow, nice list there, Paul. Thanks for posting it!

    ReplyDelete
  2. This would make a great book! But why buy it when you can get it here for free?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good job Paul!
    Superb, you remain a local internet hero to me!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for posting this.

    I hope it gets updated and expanded as time goes on.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Warning needed on the Theonomy content. Take anything Manata presents with a good winnower to separate the wheat from the chaff. The chaff of Theonomy is very poisonous chaff.

    Also, Bahnson is an example of a Christian writer who captivates certain types and is very appealing, yet is sort of what Ayn Rand is to her audience on a secular level. I.e., almost/not quite. And the not quite in Bahnson's case involved discernment of truth of biblical doctrine.

    Learn from everything, but value the old paths; and realize: you can't see the counterfeit until you know the real thing. Learn from the magisterial reformers before you glom on to a guy and a teaching that appeared in the 1970s.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Great post Paul!

    Anonymous
    Learn from the magisterial reformers before you glom on to a guy and a teaching that appeared in the 1970s.

    Now, I'm not a theonomist, but the above is silly. It doesn't appear that you are aware the theonomist derive their view of text of scripture, as well as magisterial reformers such as Calvin.

    Again, this has not been a study of mine, but I've seen the conversation go back on forth on the All-Bahnsen Yahoo group - some related to its history.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey, I love Bahnsen for what he was. He was a brilliant guy and very gifted, but I actually think the Theonomy stuff hindered his usefulness. Paul may think I'm all wet on that, but I think a brotherly warning is appropriate about Bahnsen's views on the subject. Otherwise, for the most part, I love his stuff and thank God for giving him to us for the short time He did. I'll never forget how, by God's grace, he demolished Gordon Stein. Thanks for the great links Paul.....

    Peace

    ReplyDelete
  8. >Now, I'm not a theonomist, but the above is silly. It doesn't appear that you are aware the theonomist derive their view of text of scripture, as well as magisterial reformers such as Calvin.

    Read Calvin's Institutes, Bk. 4, Chp. 20.

    People with bad theology always claim biblical and historical precedent.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 1. Anonymous assumes I'm a theonomist?

    2. I prestented non-theonomists as well.

    3. Bahnsen thought his position was from the "old path." Indeed, you can't get much older than the moral principles of the standing case laws of the OT. ;-)

    4. Also, why are the magesterial reformers the "old path." Did biblical ethics not exist until then?

    5. The teaching did not appear in the 70s???, cf. Cotton, the original WCF (which Kline called "Theonomic," and many of the puritans). Furthermore, as the RTS staff pointed out in their questioning of Dr. Bahnsen, the vieew had been around before the 70s:

    FACULTY:

    I do not see your system as socially adequate. The Puritans made a mess of thing in society.

    BAHNSEN:

    Well, we disagree on our evaluation of the Puritans, even though I do not agree with everything they did (*see the appendix in the book on John Cotton). *Every law-code in this county traces back historically to the Puritan codes which drew heavily on the Old Testament law. Most of the blessed elements of our current social-political system are the fruits of our Puritan heritage.


    FACULTY:

    This is an entirely new point of view which has no support in the history of theology outside the minor exception of the New England Puritans. This view of the judicial law is out of accord with church confessions, commentaries on the Westminster Confession, and the statements of notable theologians [a sheet of quotations distributed]. So Theonomy is out of accord with the Reformed consensus.

    BAHNSEN:

    The Westminster Confession - just like many of the quotations distributed - says that the "general equity" of the judicial law is "required" today. This means that the moral principle illustrated and applied in the case of the Old Testament is binding, while the particular historical application is not binding as such today. (For example, we may not need to put up railings around our roofs today, but we are responsible to place a fence around our backyard swimming pool - in both instances to protect human life.) That the Westminster divines held this view of the case laws (judicial law of Moses) is more than clear from the direct statements they made elsewhere, as well as the vocabulary and writings of the Puritans of that period. That the Westminster divines held that the moral principles of the laws outside the Decalogue (*which they called the "summary" of our moral duty, not the full extent of its content) were still binding in the New Testament age is obvious from their proof-texting of the Larger Catechism in the exposition of the sins and duties covered by the Ten Commandments. Therefore, Theonomy is not a stranger to reformed theology. It is a basic point of view held by many reformed writers in the past, whether or not is has continued in popularity. Those who appeal to the "Reformed tradition" here are usually not aware of how they have to gerrymander that tradition to make their point. Moreover, many of those who have written about the judicial law in the past leave much to be desired in their theological exposition. For instance, Peck is cited in this sheet that was distributed. Yet Peck is easily faulted for logical inconsistencies, absence of exegetical support for his premises, inadequate moral evaluations (e.g., polygamy was tolerated in the Old Testament because it is not evil per se, and because of the uncivilized status of the people - even though he elsewhere says that the judicial law demands too high a standard of holiness for other historical nations), and arbitrariness (as a Southern theologian, he said that the judicial laws expired - with the exception of those about slavery). Further, we must note that even if the New England Puritans were the only ones who endorsed the civil ethic of Theonomy (e.g., John Cotton), they can hardly be considered a minor exception. There impact and importance are tremendous in terms of historical influence. Finally, not only can other Reformed theologians of the past be cited in support of the basic approach of Theonomy, but this question is really quite irrelevant to the theological work and argument of my book. Jesus indicted the Pharisees for honoring their traditions, only thereby to make void the word of God. In the end my task as a moral theologian is to be true to God's written word. That is where the argument must center and be decided, not in church history.


    FACULTY:

    Kuyper traced the use of the theocratic penalties of Israel in the modern day to the Roman Catholic church, and to the inquisition. [Paper on Kuyper's views distributed.]
    BAHNSEN:

    If that is meant as a criticism of Theonomy, it must be pointed out that it commits the logical fallacy known as the genetic fallacy. The fact that something was endorsed by the Roman Catholics says nothing about its validity (e.g., for all I know, roman Catholics of the period agreed with God's law that it is wrong to trip blind men and curse deaf men). More importantly, we must remember that the Roman church did not separate church and state in a proper way, as I would. Therefore, what Kuyper was criticizing was not my thesis at all. The version of "theocracy" I propound is not Romanist.

    FACULTY:

    No, Kuyper was writing against those in his own Reformed church in Holland who held your views.

    BAHNSEN:

    Well then, that at least establishes that my view has not been confined to the minor exception of the New England Puritans.


    6. What else should I have put up? Natural law? Pluralism? I think these systems are philosophically and theologically bankrupt.

    7. I've read Calvin's book 4 ch. 20. What about it? I had the same convo with some friends over at WTS Calkifornia, they no longer hold that to that tired critique.

    8. Other than that, though I'd not call myself a full-fleged theonomist, it looks like things still remain the same, i.e., hast over generalized, unlearned, and fallacious criticisms thrown at theonomy.

    9. Indeed, read "Theonomy: A Reformned Response" and you'll see many appreciative comments as well as others telling us that Bahnsen did a good thing by making Christians more familiar with the OT ethics.

    10. So, we could go where better men before us went. I'll even defend a position I'm not a ful adherent of :-)

    ReplyDelete
  10. >6. What else should I have put up? Natural law? Pluralism? I think these systems are philosophically and theologically bankrupt.

    The Word of God and the plan of God determines these things. Freedom of assembly, of speech, of conscience, to travel, etc. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. Man knows in his heart these freedoms are needed to fulfill the plan of God, so atheists and atheist (and anti-Christian) movements and regimes naturally restrict these freedoms. Put up Montesquieu, the Federalist Papers, the Constitution of the United States. You take these things for granted because you were never around when they needed to be brought into existence via war and continually fought for, and you've never been without them.

    I see Reformed Christians mock American patriotism in churches all the time (and I refer to non-theologically liberal Reformed Christians). I shake my head. There is alot of shallowness...

    ReplyDelete
  11. 1. The word of God determines what ehtics should be put up? I think that's Bahnsen's point.

    2. Freedom, speach, assembly, etc., may or may not be in man's heart (proof?), but man's heart is "wicked and deceitful" needing "the word of truth" to correct it. Furthermore, that's not much of an ethics. I saw no theory of penology.

    3. Your psychologizing of what I do and do not take for granted is unwarranted and off topic.

    4. Your speculation and pontification about what I do and do not mock is also unwarranted and off topic.

    5. In nothing above did I see anything resembling a response to my post.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Nice list, Paul...good idea. Great selection of authors/writers/topics.

    ReplyDelete
  13. No, Paul, what the plan of God itself needs determines these things. The plan of God requires there be basic freedoms to do such things as spread the Word of God.

    It's like this: ask yourself "what's the best form a government?" The answer is: whatever allows us best to spread the Word of God. And that includes freedom of conscience in it.

    In other words: it's not a small or unrelated thing that free republics emerged at the same time as apostolic biblical doctrine was being recovered and rescued from the tyranny and darkness of Rome. What you see that constitutes the freedom of those republics, and the sources that classically describe and explain it, is the very thing you're looking past. It's too foundational and too ever-apparent and too taken for granted to be seen.

    And: yes, the world knows in its heart that freedom is not good because freedom helps the spread of the Gospel. So of course the world fights this.

    You can argue against natural law all you want, in whatever philosophical way you want, but people know what freedom is and what tyranny is. People know the difference between freedom, life, and light and tyranny, death, and darkness. The devil and his followers want the latter. They want it because it helps to deter the plan of God.

    When you can see this then 'little' things like the Bill of Rights (and all the mountain of history that document resides on) become central things regarding God's plan. Modern day Reformed Christian (not even liberal ones) mock and disdain any display of American patriotism in their churches. They do it in shallow, juvenile ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous said...
    Read Calvin's Institutes, Bk. 4, Chp. 20.

    If I'm not mistaken, the theonomist point to Calvin's sermons on the OT books.

    People with bad theology always claim biblical and historical precedent.

    Of course, we all do this, so the criticism isn't justified. You would have to show where Bahnsen departed.

    Again, I don't know enough about theonomy to go toe to toe with you or anyone else. As I said, this is being debated over at the All-Bahnsen-Debate group as I write.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jeff Downs, quoting Calvin selectively and out-of-context is part and parcel of the Theonomists method (not to mention their spawn callinf themselves Federal Vision and Auburn Avenue Theology).

    Perhaps get some understanding of the issues before you throw all your good will to the Theonomists and your finger-pointing to their critics?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous,

    And how, precisely, is what you're saying a critique of theonomy?

    You (or some other anonymous) began by making grandious claims against theonomy, and now sound as if they just wanted a meduim to stand on their soap box. Your comments, while interesting and worthy of discussion, have nothing to do, that I can see, with refuting theonomy. Other than that, your comments seem to be at the level of mere assertion.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous,

    mamy theonomists have been *against* federal vision. Perhaps studying the issue before committing slander would help, not hinder, your cause.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Excellent links, Manata. I like the Bill Craig one on the existence of God and ethics.

    To anonymous, as to liberty to spread beliefs--can we grant Satanists the right to sacrifice virgins or should we impose our Christian morality on them and hinder their religious liberty? Agree to the latter and you are on the road to theonomy, agree to the former and you are ethically bankrupt.

    ReplyDelete
  19. You're introducing the absolute. I never said 'all' theonomists. That doesn't mean theonomy in the '70s didn't spawn most of the clowns now pushing the Romanist doctrine of FV, AAT, and NPP.

    Anyway, my main point has been, by default, a critique if theonomy. The Word of God and plan of God let's us know what is the best government and law. Whatever allows for the spread of the Gospel. Certainly atheist or anti-Christian tyranny is not conducive to that. The Constitution and Bill of Rights, not to mention the free markets and strong military (Calvinism is not associated with free markets and competent war-making just by chance) America has had, and still - thank God - has, represent this, despite the best efforts from the left to defile it all down to nothing.

    A real Christian will see this and won't mock and disdain American patriotism. When I see so-called conservative Reformed Christians do this - and they do it alot - I just have to laugh. They don't have the Spirit of Truth in them. When you do you discern these things. This is also the reason they are so easily bedevilled by false doctrine.

    - Anon. 1.0

    ReplyDelete
  20. >To anonymous, as to liberty to spread beliefs--can we grant Satanists the right to sacrifice virgins or should we impose our Christian morality on them and hinder their religious liberty? Agree to the latter and you are on the road to theonomy, agree to the former and you are ethically bankrupt.

    Good God. And you are the ones to proclaim your clear, critical thinking abilities all the time?

    By freedom vis-a-vis spreading the Gospel is meant: like...actual freedom to move around and speak without getting shot in the back of the skull and pushed into a shallow grave? You know, like fighting communists and other fascists and Islamists to maintain freedom on this planet? Follow recent, say, last hundred years history?

    And if your definition of theonomy is as broad as you claim then why don't you just drop it and talk like normal people. Oh, it's because you have an agenda afterall...?

    Anon. 1.0

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'll try to be more clear, Anon 1.0,

    You said, "Anyway, my main point has been, by default, a critique if theonomy. The Word of God and plan of God let's us know what is the best government and law."

    I'm failing to see how this is, at all, a critique of theonomy.

    Bahnsen summarizes his position in 10m points, point 2 reads,

    2. The word of the Lord is the sole, supreme, and unchallengeable standard for the actions and attitudes of all men in all areas of life; this word naturally includes God's moral directives (law).

    And so at this juncture all it appears that you're saying is what Bahnsen is saying. But you don't want to do that!!! Therefore you must be being very unclear and cautious in how your presenting your "critique."

    I hope you can now see my confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous said...
    quoting Calvin selectively and out-of-context is part and parcel of the Theonomists method

    Interesting, because one of the guys over at all Bahnsen, admitted that Calvin was a theonomist (small t)...I'm not exactly sure the difference between the small t theonomist and the big T theonomist.

    Anonymous said...
    Perhaps get some understanding of the issues before you throw all your good will to the Theonomists and your finger-pointing to their critics?

    I'm not throwing all my good will to the Theonomist. It is the mispreprestation and bad reasoning I don't care for. You are right that this is just one more issue I need more knowledge on, I wouldn't argue there.

    Why you are anonymous? This I can not understand.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Interesting links Paul. There are some good ones in it. It let's me know what you've been reading, and quite frankly they do not match up with any of the chapters I have in my many anthologies of the Philosophy of Religion books that have been edited by professionals. None of them have Frame or Bahnsen for instance. But then you appraoch philosophy from a theological perspective and perhaps the best essays weren't available in every case. I'll look into some of the ones I hadn't seen before. I may do something like this in the future on my site and we can compare the kinds of things we read and think about.

    ReplyDelete
  24. John,

    I have plenty of Phi. Rel. books at my house, they do not have Frame and Bahnsen. So, I do read what you read (e.g., Craig's, Pojman's, Yandesll's, etc.,), and then some.

    Now, this was an *online* resource. So, many of the articles in our more "respected" books are not available online. For example, one cannot get, say, Mavrodes and Frankfurt's discussions on omnipotence online.

    Secondly, I said that this was from a *reformed* perspective. There are no Phi. Rel. texts from a refortmed perspective (save what John Frame is doing, but it's still not like a traditional Phi. Rel. text). Kely James Clark has edited a Phi. Rel. text but even though he's a reformed epistemologist, I would not call him, or his book, as coming from a reformed perspective.

    Third, that's right. I do do philosophy from a theological position, everyone does, like it or not. Many pagans do not like this, but guess what? My theology can save the very enterprise of philosophy!

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Greetings.

    I must admit I do hold Dr. Van Til and Dr. Bahnsen in high regard. Whatever else you fault them for it can't be for muddling or compromising the clarity of the Gospel.
    Personally, in all that I've read and heard Dr. Bahnsen say in regard to Theonomy I still haven't found the "scandelous" departure from the scripture or far out exegesis or hermeneutic that some speak of. Some almost make theonomy out to be "Islamist" in the way it would bring terror and fear upon those under its rule (unless, of course your a murderer or witch I suppose). True, there have been aberrant expressions implemented in the past, and some fanatics, but would anyone really accuse Dr. Bahnsen of endorsing that?

    I think a rereading of Frame's old paper "Machen's Warrior Children"

    http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2003Machen.htm

    would help.

    By the way, Dr.Sinclair Ferguson's lecture on the NPP is excellent if you haven't already heard it.

    http://bethelchurchpca.org/sermons/Sinclair_Ferguson-New_Perspective_on_Paul_26Aug2005.mp3

    ReplyDelete
  28. You keep misunderstanding. When I say the Word of God and the Plan of God let us know what the best government would be I'm not referring to the Mosaic code. I'm referring to what the Word of God and the plan of God need to have carried out by God's elect, i.e. what they state or obviously imply needs to be carried out. They need freedom. They need what communist totalitarian rule, Romanist totalitarian rule, nazi totalitarian rule, Islamist totalitarian rule - etc. - don't provide. The Word of God and the plan of God need freedom. The very kinds of freedom outlined in documents such as the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, etc. This is why American exceptionalism IS part of God's plan. This is why when Reformed Christians mock American patriotism in their churches they are being shallow and ignorant and juvenile (and ungrateful to all who have gone before and sacrificed themselves to give us the very freedoms taken for granted today -- and the necessary freedom to spread the Gospel itself).

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous said...
    This is why American exceptionalism IS part of God's plan. This is why when Reformed Christians mock American patriotism in their churches they are being shallow and ignorant and juvenile (and ungrateful to all who have gone before and sacrificed themselves to give us the very freedoms taken for granted today -- and the necessary freedom to spread the Gospel itself).

    I have to admit, that I have not stepped foot in every reformed church, but I've never seen/heard the mocking you say takes place.

    I think there is a place and time for patriotism and Sunday morning or the Church in general in my view, is not the time or the place.

    ReplyDelete
  30. This is typical:

    http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=19523

    It's a form of left-wing political-correctness that is being adhered to out of both fear and ignorance.

    A real Christian can discern better, and is bold to not kowtow to the demands of the devil-following left.

    If you can't see that America is the stronghold and defender of freedom on this dark planet, or if you see it and don't recognize its significance both as just a practical matter and also in the plan of God, then you simply don't have the discernment that one is given by the Spirit of truth.

    - Anon. 1.0

    ReplyDelete
  31. I just read through complete that thread linked above. It's even more repulsive than I first remembered it.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anon 1.0,

    Well, the misunderstanding was not *mine.* Next time, explain yourself better.

    But, I still fail to see your "critique" of theonomy. I'm not gonna play guessing games.

    It appears you have no critique but simply want to spew your rhetoric. Indeed, I've seen nothing substantial in any of your posts for me to respond to.

    I admit God uses freedom as a means to spread the gospel, but he doesn't *need* it. Furthermore, this is a discussion on *ethics* not *evangelism.* I mean, you're not even in the right ballpark anymore.

    If your next response is more preaching then I'll bid you aideu.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "It's a form of left-wing political-correctness that is being adhered to out of both fear and ignorance."

    actually, it's a desire to be biblical. You may disagree, but don't break the ninth commandment in doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Biblical? If it's biblical then recognizing, valuing, and defending freedom is not biblical. The Bible expects you to bring some common sense to the table.

    And please stop pretending that to point out the practical needs of the Gospel and how that correlates to what is the best government and laws is not a critique of Theonomy.

    ReplyDelete
  35. look, all you're doing is making assertions. You're not honoring the Lord of Reason with your bullying tactics and shoddy "critiques."

    I see no place where they were denying freedom et al. They of course talked about ecclesiastical limits, but of course freedom does not mean "no limits."

    Secondly, I'm not pretending. Maybe in your mind what you're saying is a critique, but it's not obvious to me. Therefore it is *you* who needs to defend, explain, and expound on *your* argument. Quit expecting me to do your work for you. So, get to arguing or get out of the fight.

    ReplyDelete
  36. p.s. my comment didn't necesdsarly imply that it was biblical but that it's *desire* was *to be* biblical. You said they had different desires, hence you're lying about your Christian brothers and sisters. Quite ironic for how you've been saying the reformed churches pick on Arminians.

    And, just to let you know, Arminains have bigger problems than ethics.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Good God, where did Arminians get into this? (Again, with all your juvenile claims to clear, critical thinking and reason you guys come off with some bizarre statements.)

    ReplyDelete
  38. Why keep using the Lord's name in vain, Christian?

    I just thought you were contrasting reformed churches with non-reformed churches which are american patriot churches. If not, fine. It's not unclear thinking to speculate on what you're talkingh about, especially if you refuse to stick your head out of the hole long enough to get it shot.

    You've still failed, miserably, to present an argument against theonomy. This combox has degenerated into your soap box.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Great list, I just did the work of converting all of the links into one PDF. It is a 5MB 1135 page monster. If someone will host a site, I would be glad to upload this file so everyone doesn't have to follow every link to read this novel.

    For Christ's Crown and Covenant,
    David Morrow

    ReplyDelete
  40. Paul, how dare you attack my free will?

    ReplyDelete