I was thinking about the Theonomy Debate I posted. Stephen did a good job, but I thought of something else I would like to point out in regards to what Jim/fleebabylon said:

That [Stephen’s advocacy of executing adulterers] is because you are self righteous and puffed up in your ignorance. Jesus was the only one who was without sin and thus qualified to stone the adulteress woman yet he himself bore the wrath of God for her instead, becoming sin for her, paying the price in full. This is the new covenant, the covenant of life. The law is the ministry of death. Worldly governments and lost people are still under the law, but Christians are under grace. If your grace causes you to shout for the stoning of the adulteress rather than preaching the good news you are seriously confused. Maybe it is you that doesn’t like some of Jesus’ grace.

Clearly, Jim thinks it’s a bad idea to execute adulterers. Stephen pointed out repeatedly that Jim couldn’t provide a basis for determining whether executing adulterers is just or unjust. That is an important point, and absolutely true.

The thing I want to point out is that it seems Jim’s argument could be applied to any crime, including rape, murder or whatever. I assume Jim is in favor of some form of punishment for murderers. But why? I could quote verbatim what he said about adultery, and say he is self-righteous and puffed up in his ignorance , because he’s in favor of punishing murderers.

We live in a country where homosexuals and adulterers aren’t punished, but murderers are. That is the only basis for Jim’s arguments–that he wants to maintain the status quo. But unfortunately for Jim, homosexuality was punished in this country not that long ago. And adultery was punished at one point, though that has been a while.

The thought crossed my mind that maybe Jim has been guilty of adultery, but not murder. In which case the argument becomes hypocritical on a personal level. Though I certainly don’t know anything about him and don’t wish to accuse him.

I once heard a liberal criticize conservatism in that they fight against the new thing while participating whole-hog in the old thing. That is certainly a valid criticism where it is true (and it seems to be true in the vast majority of cases). It’s hypocritical to spite someone for getting a government subsidized Obamacare plan while sending your kid to government subsidized public school. Conservatives and Christians must be more consistent.

 

This is just another way to show the self-refuting garbage that results from rejecting theonomy. Once you reject the absolute standard of God’s law, you’ve begun to build your house on shifting sand. There is nothing to stop your slide into liberalism, except your own personal preferences.