tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9097408555576085021.post6083581649356857057..comments2023-06-19T01:01:06.019-07:00Comments on Fœdero Schism: dougsuppositionalismMark T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09673762599798493263noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9097408555576085021.post-78539585143543993072008-03-05T21:42:00.000-08:002008-03-05T21:42:00.000-08:00Hi Mark, I've not heard this view advocated befo...Hi Mark,<BR/><BR/> I've not heard this view advocated before (which doesn't mean much, ignorant of the wider world as I am), but I've always thought of the OT slavery regulations as being "limiting ordinances" that permitted an objective evil, because of the hardness of men's hearts, but restrained its worst abuses. Divorce, for example, is an objective evil that God hates, but God also permitted and regulated it, according to Jesus, on account of the hardness of men's hearts. It has been suggested that the "lex talionis", "eye for eye", rule be interpreted in the same way, not as mandating vengeance, but limiting it to no more than the harm suffered. In Christ we have been shown a better way. The theonomists are a scary bunch, I think.<BR/><BR/> Which brings me to an interesting question. If theonomist DW thinks slavery is righteous in principle on OT precedent, then he must also regard polygyny and concubinage as "in principle righteous" on as strong or stronger precedent. So the question is then: is the ultimate goal of FV union with Rome or with Salt Lake City?<BR/><BR/> SamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com