Thursday, October 30, 2008

Part of the Problem of the Label "Theonomy"

For example, I tend to call myself a "theonomist," and yet I reject (for the reasons mentioned in the article) the "theonomy" described in this excellent article (link) by Pastor Sherman Isbell.

UPDATE: (New Link)



Anonymous said...

theonomists are stupid. you gonna put people to death for wearing wool and linen together, you Judaizing freak?

Turretinfan said...

The answer to your puerile and ill-informed question is, "No."

Anonymous said...

so you're a pick and choose judaizer. and you think you deserve a cookie for that?

Turretinfan said...

Again, "no."

I'm not any kind of Judaizer, which you'd understand if you understood what the term meant.

Rather than wasting time harassing people, you should get our your Bible and read it.


Anonymous said...


I posted this at Spurgeon's Blog. This is a portion of the whole comment I make there and it addresses "anon's" issues over here:

natamllc at Spurgeon's Blog:

[[Joh 20:26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”
Joh 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”
Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen! Faith is not a work we can do, see or control.

I was just at the Turrentinfan blog and there was a most remarkable response to TF’s article on Theonomy. If I might I would quote the reader’s response, which is quite telling just what exactly is the problem here.

The responder wrote this: [[theonomists are stupid. you gonna put people to death for wearing wool and linen together, you Judaizing freak?]]

Yes, that’s it in a nut shell. He has a “Thomas” problem and when he reads the “Old” law through the lens of the “old man”, what would you expect his response to be?

Without Godly intervention, there is no Salvation, period.]]

I am more convinced now than ever that without the Personal intervention of God Almighty, when one reads the Bible, one will always come away as confused and bitter as Anon is and his comments reflect hereon.

I recall a T.V. program I saw once where the intent of the program was to malign God's Word and God by showing what seem like contradiction of Scripture. One of the people they focused on to put their argument forth to cause distrust in the minds of the hearers/viewers was Ghandi and his reading of the Bible, trying to make sense of it showing the apparent contradictions in Scripture.

There will always be contradictions after reading the Bible if the Holy Ghost, its Author, does not give you Spiritual understanding of what you read.

Here I cite example that, one, when after reading it without the Holy Ghost giving you an understanding of what you read you would easily come away confused wondering which is it, "do I keep the Law" or "don't I".

The first quote is Jesus Christ speaking as recorded by Matthew and the second quote is Paul the Apostle's "explanation of the use and misuse of the Law":

Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.


1Ti 1:5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
1Ti 1:6 Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion,
1Ti 1:7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.
1Ti 1:8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully,
1Ti 1:9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers,
1Ti 1:10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
1Ti 1:11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Now contrast that with these:

Joh 17:25 O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me.
Joh 17:26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them."


Rom 7:1 Or do you not know, brothers--for I am speaking to those who know the law--that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives?
Rom 7:2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.
Rom 7:3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
Rom 7:4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.
Rom 7:5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.
Rom 7:6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

Ok, which is it, are we to keep the Law or ignore it?

My answer might surprise you?

My answer: "BOTH".

So, as I said above in the comment I posted at Spurgeon's Blog with regard to "anon", it makes perfect sense to me that "anon" hereon writes what he does and makes such unstable and unrealistic comments towards you. I suppose this is the way he comments all the time when he reads articles such as yours. I do not fault him for his comments, instead I would be surprised if he isn't confused after trying to understand God's intent without God's Spirit giving him the understanding of the intent of God's heart and purpose in this world, one, to keep the moral and civil laws of the land and two, to bear fruit for God by the Spirit of the Law.

How does one realize God the Son or God the Holy Ghost is commenting on the things God the Father without the Spirit's help? Or, how do we do what God wants us to do so as to bring forth the Spiritual fruit in the civilian world we live in, if we read and do not understand Scripture when reading it or reading one's words such as yours above?

One doesn't!

Anonymous said...

update the link?

Turretinfan said...

Done, thanks.