“This movement rose out of Calvinism. It is an extremist Christian movement, not held by very many people. The concern is that when a religiously dominated society has control of family, moral, and governmental regulations, who is to govern the governors?” Matt Slick
Aside from mistakenly equating Reconstructionism with Theonomy, with respect to Matt Slick's superficial question certainly another question comes to mind - or at least to the mind of any minimally discerning
reader: "Who is to govern the governors” in an increasingly secular society? More specifically, who currently governs our irreligious God-hating, would-be autonomous governors? If Slick says, "God", then why not the same answer for a "religiously denominated society"? If Slick says "no one", then according to his view of things, he places secular government in the same boat as "religiously dominated" government. Either way, Slick's question doesn't bolster Slick's position. It only shows that Slick is not terribly concerned with consistency, which gives me hope that he (and others like him) will see how bad their arguments are -
even if they don't end up agreeing with the theonomic thesis.
7 comments:
God would not have it so (that an individual carry out the penalty), but to what I think you intended, biblical precepts should prevail. What would you recommend?
That's the point. From a Christian perspective why should there be any particular punishment for any given crime?
Would it be OK to prescribe death for stealing a loaf of bread and a holiday at the shore for murder?
What I find strange is that most Christians are fine with almost any penalty just as long as it doesn't resemble the general equity of OT law. And if it must, then just don't justify it with God's word. Arbitrariness and inconsistency is the hallmark of such a mindset.
Slick's "Who is to govern the governors” holds some water, in the sense that no human, fallen and sinful governor .. can ever be full of perfect truth grace and mercy.
I think you missed Slick's point and consequently mine.
The only thing more amazing than DeMaria's inabiilty to think is his dishonesty. Second to that is the moderation at Greenbaggins. That they allow him to post and that they do not press him on his proofs is repulsive to me. Is it possible that they're not understanding what is going on?
Not sure why that person isn't on a shorter leash.
Post a Comment