BY THIS STANDARD-Greg L. Bahnsen

[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 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.

[houston]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

So, the argument is that man will abuse a theonomic government so we should keep our current form of governance?

Well, long live the republic.