Where I Stand Updated: November 15th, 2008
Stealing from my friend RubeRad, here is where I (currently) stand on various Reformed discussions.
Subscription to the Confession?:
Mostly subscribe. And to that which I don’t have misgivings, I strongly subscribe. I have only minor misgivings at this time. I think it is extremely important for the elders and deacons to understand and subscribe. The Standards should be guarded strongly as a means to keep the denomination strong, as well as other reasons. The local church members and children should all definitely be taught it in a never-ending way.
Corporate Worship?:
Not studied enough to take a strong stance on the normative principle of worship verses the regulative principle. Since I adhere to the Westminster Standards, I will trust them until I have reason to believe otherwise. That defaults me to the regulative. However, I’m not all that strict. Instruments, hymns, contemporary P&W is all fine with me so far. [EDIT, 11-15-08] More and more, I am appreciating the use of a formal liturgy at our PCA church. We fall between low and high view of the liturgy, but we do practice that there is an invocation and a benediction and all that is between should be guided by the RPW. I also have been understanding more and more that God tells us how to worship and punishes those who try to approach Him in the way that they want to with disregard for God’s instruction. The story of Cain and Abel comes to mind.
Exclusive Psalmody?: See previous answer.
Eschatology:
Not Premillenialist, probably Postmillenialist but open to Optimistic Amillenialist (I haven’t actually sat down with the scripture to study this one enough to be confident in my stance).
Is the world “better” thanks to Christianity?:
yes, unless you want to say that human sacrifice and the ownership of women was a good thing.
Prophetic school of thought (partial preterist, idealist, historicist, or futurist):
Orthodox Preterist (commonly referred to as partial preterist). God divorced Israel with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70 as Christ foretold. The book of Revelation is almost completely an unfolding of the seige of Jerusalem. But Christ will come again in our future. See Kenneth Gentry and R.C. Sproul for more info on this.
Christian Liberty:
I like to play poker for real money, even at the casino (though it hasn’t been for a VERY long time! Alcohol isn’t my favorite drink but I will consume it from time to time. As long as one isn’t a drunkard, I have no problem with it. I don’t smoke, but I wish it were healthy since I liked smoking when I did. I’m with Paul when he said that all things were legal but not necessarily profitable.
Apologetics:
Presuppositionalist all the way, since they are fine with using evidence as long as it is from a presup worldview.
The Sabbath:
The Truly Reformed understand that the one day in seven is a creation ordinance and still in effect. Being an orthodox Presbyterian (little ‘o’), I hold to the Westminster Standards. Take a look at questions 115 through 121 in the Larger Catechism. That’s a good description of what I believe.
Have the gifts of tongues and prophecy ceased?:
Some people call it “gibberish.” But when I went to Africa and heard them speaking their native language, it sounded like gibberish to me. Can I say they weren’t really speaking a language? I am a conservative charismatic where the gifts are concerned, and definitely not a cessationist. But as a *conservative* charismatic, here in America especially, I have seen charismania, and don’t approve of it.
General equity of the moral law of God?:
Paul was a Theonomist, Calvin was a Theonomist, the Westminster Divines were Theonomists, and most importantly, Jesus is a Theonomist, so why shouldn’t I be? God is Sovereign all the way, baybeee! All must bow their knee, and that includes kings and princes and governments. Governments should be setup according to the moral teaching of the entire bible. Justice is moral, injustice is immoral, morality demands justice, and what is and isn’t moral doesn’t change from age to age or nation to nation.
Justification and the Federal Vision?:
We are justified by faith alone. As for the FV, I must admit I don’t fully understand all of what they believe. I read this document at their website and disagreed with several points. However, I don’t see anything in it that would make me think they’re heretics and worthy of anathema. But, I’m unwilling to use the phrase that we are “justified by faithfulness.” Being brought up Roman Catholic, that just hits too close to Rome, and I hate their doctrine, just as Bahnsen did.
Counseling?:
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. Proverbs 9:10
Days of Creation?:
God personaly wrote the ten commandments on the tablets for Moses in Exodus 20. Verse 11 says: For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. God applies the creation days to what are obviously literal 24 hour days, by commanding us to keep the Sabbath holy.
Jesus tells us in Mark 10:6: But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’
Since Moses and Jesus believe it, I’m going to doubt my fellow men and put my faith in God first (instead of science).
Redemptive-Historical Preaching?: Uh, what’s that? I could look it up, but I’d rather get this post written. Seems to me it’s linked with a lot of my buddies that adhere to the Klinean view of theology. I REALLY don’t like his intrusion ethic stuff, so for now I’m looking at it with hesitation
Proper subjects of baptism?:
Every member of the visible church, which includes the children of visible covenant members.
Proper mode of baptism?:
This is one of the ‘minor’ areas I disagree with the Standards. I believe that baptism is a Greek word that we never translate, and just transliterate instead. It makes it easy for us to ignore the actual translation. I believe that the word means to immerse. When people are commanded “to be baptized,” they are being commanded “to be immersed” into something. Not “to be poured” or “to be sprinkled” onto something. When you put the translated word in place of the transliterated word, it becomes clear that people can’t be sprinkled but liquid can be sprinkled. (This is a verb/noun/subject problem more clear in Greek than English. People can be sprinkled with water, but that changes the grammar and doesn’t help with a rebuttal to this argument)
Proper participants in the Lord’s Table?: I have been of the opinion that covenant members should partake of the covenant meal and that children are covenant members. I’m not hard and fast on this, and am open to the credo-communionist position that the Standards teach. But I’m not fully studied here yet, either. Right now, all my children have been examined and approved by my local session, so I am safe either way. 
Church government?:
Presbyterian. Hierarchy and democracy (rule of the mob) both necessarily bring about tyranny. Jesus came to proclaim liberty.
Women in leadership?:
I’m with John Knox. Search for the sermons he preached to Queen Mary.
Infralapsarian or Supralapsarian?:
Always tended toward supra, but I know a great many competent godly men have disagreed on this position, so I could be wrong.
How many petals?:
One is not Truly Reformed unless one has all 5, and even then having all 5 doesn’t make one Truly Reformed.
Favorite authors?: Greg Bahnsen, Arthur Pink
January 16, 2008 at 7:39 am |
Good to see you finally succumbed to the siren song of The Blog!
I don’t even understand what that means!
If I were a “baby in heaven, waiting to be born”, I think I might have a lot better chance of avoiding human sacrifice back then, than abortion now. And women’s liberation has brought with it a societal devaluation of motherhood and the disintegration of countless families. What’s that verse about men continually inventing/devising new and innovative ways to sin? It’s not quite this
Calvin may have been, Moses certainly was, but Paul was not and Jesus was not, and as of 1788, the Westminster Stanrdards no longer are. C’mon man, you had to know I’d be bringin’ the linkage!
I’m no expert, but in my mind, it is a hermeneutic grounded in Luke 24:27: everything in the Bible is Christ-centered, and so should preaching be. Think of how our pastor preached Nehemiah centered on Christ. The antithesis to RHP is more focused on relevant, practical, life application (i.e. Law). RH asserts that it’s never OK to preach Law without preaching Gospel — and it is important to keep law in its subordinate context; condemnation before the gospel, and sanctification after from and distinct from justification. It’s the TR “three-legged stool” of Guilt-Grace-Gratitude.
Actually, the question is not how you feel about the standards, it’s how you feel about who needs to subscribe to the standards? URC (and CRC?) are strict, such that subscription to the Three Forms of Unity is mandatory for church membership. Presbyterians are not strict, requiring subscription only for the ordained.
January 16, 2008 at 7:47 am |
The site looks good, bro – sorta like a baby boy’s bedroom wall.
Redemptive-Historical sees Jesus in all the OT texts. This is good. However, some have applied this in a way so as to say that the OT texts can’t be moral lessons. Those folks should read Hebrews 11.
I think we can do both. Yes, all the OT texts point to Christ and this should show in our exegesis, but as we know, Jesus and the apostles present imparatives from the OT texts as well.
January 16, 2008 at 8:25 am |
Gene Cook’s Narrow Mind with John Frame discusses (affirms) the “moral lesson” concept, within a RHP context. Worth a listen.
January 16, 2008 at 10:16 am |
A relevant quote from a RH preacher about Heb 11:
January 16, 2008 at 1:41 pm |
Well, I can’t resist following in Rube’s footsteps here, responding to some of the stuff in the post. I’m not doing it to spark huge arguments in this thread, but maybe it will spark further posts on your part.
Prophecy: Revelation was almost certainly written after the destruction of the temple. I haven’t taken the exegetical class on Revelation yet (next year fall), but that’s the consensus among the Reformed. There are some who believe it was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem, but I have been very briefly introduced to the evidence, and it looks pretty pathetic. But again, I haven’t studied it closely. So if this issue is important to you, then you really need to look into the dating of the book’s inception.
Christian Liberty: doesn’t mean you can smoke, drink, and gamble. Understanding the law properly means you can smoke and drink. You can be the most ardent Pharisee and still allow for smoking and drinking, because the law of God doesn’t forbid it. As for gambling, I don’t think it violates the law of God, but I think it’s unwise. I think it’s a waste of money, and the atmospheres in casinos are not exactly edifying. Similarly with bars. I hate going to bars, but I love wine in particular. Love it. But I hate those kinds of atmospheres. It’s not a violation of the law, but again, I think it’s a wisdom issue. Gambling is not a sin, but it’s surely unwise, and poor stewardship.
Cessation: you don’t adhere to the Westminster Standards on this. I would like to see a post about tongues that interacts with the WCF’s claim that that has ceased. Tongues and other miraculous signs always accompany the advent of new special revelation. Since the revelation is closed, there are no more accompanying signs. That is the Reformed position. So get in line!
Theonomy: God being sovereign does not entail theonomy. He is exercising his sovereignty by putting enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.
Justification & FV: read the OPC’s justification report, and I’m sure it will make sense to you.
http://opc.org/GA/JustificationBook.pdf
Note that that link will download a pdf directly. The biggest problem with the FV is the denial of the covenant of works, which affects their view of the covenant of grace, which destroys the gospel. If you understand the gospel properly, that we cannot in any way earn our salvation, but Christ earns it for us, then there’s really no need to concern yourself with the FV. It makes my head hurt to read that stuff. It’s incredibly convoluted and mushy. But it is definitely heresy.
Creation: the Sabbath, as worded in Ex 20, does not demand 6-24 hour days. This is a false dichotomy. The assumption is that since Ex 20 speaks about the days of creation, and because the lesson is the Sabbath, a 24 hour day, therefore the days of creation must be 24 hours long. But the analogical view of the days does not demand that the form of the narrative has NO meaning. In liberal theology, it is only the Idea (capital I) that means something, not the content of Scripture, the form in which the Idea comes. So for example, the resurrection didn’t actually happen, but the Idea behind the resurrection is a valid religious Idea. Perhaps they say that the church is spiritually the resurrected Christ or something. Anyway, this is not the reformed analogical view of the days. The same hermeneutic is NOT being employed. For us, the form of the narrative does carry meaning. It is not arbitrary. The 6-24 presentation of the days does convey meaning, and meaning that is inspired and inerrant, etc, not merely mythological or something. But clearly the 7th day of creation is not a univocal, 24 hour day. There is no evening and morning. It’s God’s eternal Sabbath rest. And so for us, the purpose of the narrative is to point to the covenant between God and man, and to point to the Sabbath. It’s an analogy. That means it’s not univocal (one to one correspondence), nor equivocal (no correspondence), but analogical. If I say my car is a lemon, I don’t mean it’s a piece of fruit (univocal), but my statement isn’t meaningless either (equivocal). Rather, I am saying that my car is like a lemon in some ways, even though it’s not a piece of fruit. In other words, it’s God speaking to us in baby talk. In Job 38, we are reminded by God that we were not present at the creation, and as such, we can’t understand it. This analogical position allows for that point of view, allows for us to affirm the historicity of the narrative, and yet also allows us to account for the myriad problems with taking a univocal view of the days. For example, in Gen 2:3, the entire creation week is said to have taken place in only ONE day. The text, not science, demands an analogical view. Augustine, for example, knew nothing of evolution, but rightly recognized that the narrative has a pedagogical form, and said that creation took place in an instant. Now, I don’t agree with his view, but he demonstrates that the text CAN be taken by itself to point to an analogical view of some kind by a competent minister, without being pushed in that direction by liberal hermeneutics or the atheistic atheology of evolution. So you have presented us with a false dichotomy. I would encourage you to check out the OPC’s report on creation. Your view, I think you’ll find, is faithfully represented:
http://opc.org/GA/CreationReport.pdf
Contemporary worship: Reverence and Awe and simplicity in worship are biblical principles, as well as the dialogical principle. Hart and Meuther’s book With Reverence and Awe is a good introduction.
R-H preaching: Rube’s right. It’s about preaching the Scriptures in a way that recognizes their Christ-centered nature. I’m sorry you don’t like Klinean intrusion ethics, but that makes sense when I consider your theonomic stance.
Baptism: you are committing what is technically called the etymological fallacy.
1Cor. 10:2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
Here, Paul says that the Israelites were baptized into the mediatorship of Moses by passing through the Red Sea on dry ground. They didn’t even come into contact with the water. They were neither immersed in the cloud nor in the sea.
This is an opportunity to discuss something about linguistics. Use governs meaning. Consider the word “Queen”. To be sure, the word originally means a female monarch. But today, it can also refer to a rock band, and it can refer to a homosexual man, or a transvestite. To insist that the original definition of the word must govern its meaning is fallacious. Language doesn’t work that way. Words evolve in how they are used. We cannot be rigid with what a word objectively means. The meaning must be derived from context, because we must answer the question, “How is the speaker/author USING the word in this utterance?” This is why exegetical preaching is so crucial to getting at what the text is actually saying. This is why the context of redemptive history is so crucial to getting at the point of the text. If the Author of Scripture is intending to point us to Christ, then it is fallacious for us to take it in some other way. We can’t take peoples’ statements and force them to say what WE think they mean. We have to ask what the author meant, what he was trying to say. Only then can the words of Scripture be translated and communicated to a modern audience.
Lord’s Supper: those who cannot discern the body and blood of Christ are violating the sanctity of the sacrament, and thus eating and drinking damnation unto themselves by participating in it. Therefore, a valid profession of faith must precede participation. For the same reason, when someone comes under discipline, their profession is in jeopardy, and thus they are forced to abstain.
Infra/Supra: Tough one. I hate to try to place a logical order on the decree of God. I have trouble reconciling this to his simplicity. (See Rube on Confessional Outhouse on that one.) I haven’t taken the Doctrine of God class yet though. I think that too will be next fall. This will possibly be my paper topic. I think there’s merits to both sides, but both sides can be objected to in ways that cannot really be answered, and as such, I defer to divine simplicity. Why are we trying to put an order on something that cannot be divided? God does not think in steps like we do. We are finite. He is infinite. The thinking process in which we think through one premise and then another, taking steps to reach a conclusion, necessarily entails a temporal existence. He who transcends time and has infinite, perfect knowledge of all things doesn’t need to think through things in a logical sequence. So did he ordain election before the fall, or after the fall? Neither. He is simple. He is ONE. Hear O Israel. The whole debate between supra and infra just seems to me like making God more creaturely. I don’t like it.
January 16, 2008 at 3:41 pm |
Echo,
Thanks for posting on my new site! I’m glad you stopped by.
I don’t want to make it into a huge argument thread either, so I will respond just to clarify. If it is clear you understood me but disagree, then I’ll ‘try’ to let it alone.
Actually, Ken Gentry did a lot of work on the matter regarding the dating of Revelation, and it turns out that there is only one early source that mentions AD 95 (that’s from memory, so give me a year or two). Anyway, all the other references to this later date that form this “consensus” quotes this first source, and this first source turns out to be highly questionable. So, the actual “pathetic” evidence is the late year evidence.
Regarding cessation, a common mistake among the reformed is to make the revelory gifts of the Spirit equal to the writing of canon. As a conservative charismatic, I strongly agree that the canon is closed. Anything prior needs to be submissive to the final authority of scripture. I believe that once you take this into account, the Standards don’t actually speak to this doctrine. If you still disagree, that’s okay with me. We can leave it at that.
Regarding my Theonomy statements, you must afford me a little slack with scarcasm, okay?
I will take your suggestions on 6 days of creation as something to ponder.
With baptism, I am not the only paedo that thinks that the original mode and meaning of the word was immersion. I would happily welcome a way to release my conscience to make the leap to sprinkling, but am unconvinced so far. If one who agrees with me on my mode statement could show me how to say this honestly: “I believe the Bible teaches that although immersion is what is meant, but it also teaches that it is okay to replace it with sprinkling,” then I’d be a happy man.
You make great points about exegesis that I agree with and have known for a long time. However, you need to apply your advice and apply it here. Israel was immersed INTO Moses, not the Red Sea, not the cloud, not the water. They weren’t sprinkled or poured into Moses. See? It still applies and I am trying to read the original intent. You want to read into it what you think it means and force a water ritual into the verse. There is more to say, but that clarifies it and we can disagree for now, and I’ll keep this subject on the list as possible posts.
My understanding is that the OPC majority report on communion back in the 80’s found for paedo-communion. I’m sure that paedo-communion people feel justified in their interpretation of 1 Cor 11 regarding to discerning the body. Still, I am open on this one.
I like the simplicity idea. Kinda like saying let’s forget about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and let’s just get to work that matters.
Thanks again,
Kazoo
January 16, 2008 at 9:16 pm |
They were baptized into Moses IN THE SEA, just like we’re baptized into Christ through water, by water, whatever. I know you’re not the only one who holds that view. That doesn’t mean it’s right, of course.
The argument I was making about cessation was not that tongues are equivalent to canonized Scripture. You don’t need to believe that in order to agree with my argument. My argument was merely that tongues were a sign. The purpose of the sign was to lend credibility to the new revelation: not the sign, but the Scriptures, and the new revelation of what was being preached about Christ. Signs accompany new revleation throughout redemptive history. Since there is no more new revelation coming until the end of history, there will be no more signs until then, no more miraculous signs giving credibility to the bringers of new revelation, to prove that they come from God. Sorry if that was unclear before.
And uh, WCF 1.1 ends with the word “ceased” referring to types of revelation other than Scripture. For THAT argument, yeah, your argument would be valid. But in order to be in agreement with the confession, you have to say that tongues are not revelation at all. I think you’re hard pressed to make that claim.
January 16, 2008 at 9:31 pm |
Echo,
Okay, ‘maybe’ I’ll have to say that tongues disagrees with that part of the confession. If so, I’ll still keep it in the ‘minor misgivings’ department.
Your logic about the signs seems to hold up if you’re correct about the purpose of the signs, and if that was the only reason for them, and if we are truly talking about signs in that sense. I think 1 Cor 12:7 reaches out to all generations until the Lord returns. Same with 1 Cor 14. Tongues and prophecy are for edification. One for the individual, the other for the church. However, let’s not go down that road again, at least not here and now. We’ve done it before.
You know others that hold the same view of baptismal mode that I do, but do you know any ‘paedo-baptists’ that hold this view of mode? Pretty rare, wouldn’t you say? But I don’t hold it for rare’s sake.
Catch you on another blog!
Kazoo
January 18, 2008 at 10:37 am |
[...] from the Sabbath pattern in the 5th commandment (and has been patiently waiting for a response). Kazooless also considers this argument fundamental enough to include in his capsule justification of his [...]
January 18, 2008 at 10:51 am |
There is no question whether Christ is Lord of everything. … The question that remains, however, is how he is Lord of all.
See also my latest…
Maybe these three (short, I promise!) discussions of mode could make you smile a little bit?
January 22, 2008 at 1:19 pm |
Kazoo says, “Paul was a Theonomist, Calvin was a Theonomist and most importantly, Jesus was a Theonomist, so why shouldn’t I be?”
Inero Montoya says, “You keep using that word…I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Darryl Hart says, “Theonomists are Calvinism’s version of Methodists.”
January 22, 2008 at 1:39 pm |
Hello Zrim!
Thanks for stopping by.
I use the word based on the modern usage of it when it was coined after Greg Bahnsen had his book, “Theonomy in Christian Ethics,” published. It has been commonly used now to roughly refer to those who agree with the thesis he submits in that book.
I don’t know who Darryl Hart is, and I don’t know exactly what he is referring to in that comment, but instead of taking his word from it, I’d prefer people understand what it is based on the major proponets writings, instead of critics who may or may not have become thoroughly informed on the subject. Theonomy is really not much more than the view on the law that Calvin himself took. See Calvin’s sermons on Deuteronomy. It’s just a little more refined now.
In Christ,
Kazoo
January 23, 2008 at 12:34 am |
Kazoo,
Hart is an occasional lecturer at WSCAL and an expert in church history, and is OPC. He is very familiar with theonomy.
Signs are always and only for pointing to the thing signified. See Luke 5:17-26 for a very compelling example of the point of signs. There, a paralytic is brought to Jesus, and Jesus forgives his sin. When the Pharisees balk at what Jesus has done, he heals him, in order to prove that “the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” The sign (the miraculous healing), points to the thing signified (Jesus’ authority to forgive sins). Also, if you look back at the previous chapter 4:18-30, there is another incident where Jesus makes the exact same point, drawing on OT examples. Signs are never, ever ends in themselves. They always serve a greater cause.
In the case of tongues, the question has to be, what is the thing signified?
E
January 23, 2008 at 12:38 am |
One more thing of explanation. The miracle in that passage, Luke 5:17-26, serves to prove Jesus’ authority to preach his message. I say that tongues were no different. They prove the authority of what is being said. And what is being said is new revelation, namely that Jesus is the Christ of the OT who was to come. That was the new revelation, the new message. We no longer need such signs, to preach, for example, because the message isn’t new anymore. It’s preserved in Scripture.
E
January 23, 2008 at 12:46 am |
Zrim,
Godfrey says, “The CRC has become another American Methodist church.”
That’s in print. I’ll give you the reference if you want it.
E
February 7, 2008 at 7:47 pm |
[...] About Me [...]
February 16, 2009 at 6:54 pm |
Calvin was a Theonomist?
I’m not sure I want to enter the fray but I just ran across this quote from Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. This is not to prove that Calvin did not see huge benefits from using the Law of Moses in government but I think it does clearly show that he did not believe it was required, and so was not a Theonomist as would be defined according to Bahnsen. He actually calls this view “perilous and seditious… stupid and false”
Calvin, Institutes – Ch. XX .14
“In states, the thing next in importance to the magistrates is laws, the strongest sinews of government, or, as Cicero calls them after Plato, the soul, without which, the office of the magistrate cannot exist; just as, on the other hand, laws have no vigour without the magistrate. Hence nothing could be said more truly than that the law is a dumb magistrate, the magistrate a living law.
As I have undertaken to describe the laws by which Christian polity is to be governed, there is no reason to expect from me a long discussion on the best kind of laws. The subject is of vast extent, and belongs not to this place. I will only briefly observe, in passing, what the laws are which may be piously used with reference to God, and duly administered among men.
This I would rather have passed in silence, were I not aware that many dangerous errors are here committed. For there are some who deny that any commonwealth is rightly framed which neglects the law of Moses, and is ruled by the common law of nations. How perilous and seditious these views are, let others see: for me it is enough to demonstrate hat they are stupid and false.
We must attend to the well-known division which distributes the whole law of God, as promulgated by Moses, into the moral, the ceremonial, and the judicial law, and we must attend to each of these parts, in order to understand how far they do, or do not, pertain to us. Meanwhile, let no one be moved by the thought that the judicial and ceremonial laws relate to morals. For the ancients who adopted this division, though they were not unaware that the two latter classes had to do with morals, did not give them the name of moral, because they might be changed and abrogated without affecting morals. They give this name specially to the first class, without which, true holiness of life and an immutable rule of conduct cannot exist.”
February 18, 2009 at 12:01 am |
Thanks for stopping by Gabe. I think you should re-read the sentence you think says Calvin thought theonomic thought to be perilous etc. It seems to me that he is saying that the views which deny the law of Moses when trying to rightly frame a commonwealth are perilous and seditious. And then when you read Calvin’s Deuteronomy commentary you find that theonomists are closer to being Reformed than modern day so-called Reformed guys.
The “Calvin was a theonomist” sentence really is more a phrase that goes way back to my banterings with RubeRad verbally and on his blog. I realize it is anachronistic and not entirely accurate. Bahnsen refined theocratic thought and helped by giving the reformed world a better structure to think more consistently about these things.
kazoo
February 18, 2009 at 7:02 am |
Kz, you are tripped up by a double (triple?) negative. As a 2K/Natural Law guy, I say that a commonwealth may indeed be rightly framed, even though it neglects the law of Moses, and is instead ruled by the common law of nations. You, on the other hand, disagree, thus you are among the “some who deny that…” The views of those “some” (theonomists) are what Calvin calls perilous/seditious/stupid/false.
Don’t feel bad though, buddy. At least Calvin didn’t call you a Sophist.
February 18, 2009 at 7:16 am |
PS Gabe, I can attest with Kazoo that Calvin is a mixed bag when it comes to supporting/rejecting theonomy. If you look earlier on the same page, you will find that Calvin’s concept of the “common law of nations” included religious laws:
R. S. Clark draws I think a helpful distinction that Calvin was a theocrat (advocating enforcement of the 1st table by the state), but not a theonomist (as your quote affirms, Calvin didn’t see Mosaic Law as a template/model/basis/example for all nations)
February 18, 2009 at 9:37 am |
Well, I see the double negative, but still am not coming up with your conclusion. I’m going to try and write it out here, breaking it apart. You correct me where I’m wrong, okay?
For there are some who deny that any commonwealth is rightly framed which neglects the law of Moses, and is ruled by the common law of nations.
****************************************************************
For
There are some who deny “X.”
“X” = a commonwealth is rightly framed which neglects the law of Moses
“X” = a commonwealth is rightly framed which is ruled by the common law of nations
Theonomists deny “X.”
*****************************************************************
So, I think we’re agreeing on that first sentence. Now I guess the problem is with the next sentence:
*****************************************************************
How perilous and seditious these views are, let others see: for me it is enough to demonstrate hat they are stupid and false.
*****************************************************************
So the question is what does he mean by “these views?”
It seems to me, even taking the following paragraph into consideration, that he left this (at least in the English translation) ambiguous.
What view, the view that denies? Or, the view that is being denied by the deniers?
To clarify: “There are some who deny ‘X’”
“X” = the view that says Moses’ law should be neglected when framing a commonwealth
or
“X” = the view that says one should deny the view that says Moses’ law should be neglected when framing a commonwealth
******************************************************************
So, I see what you’re saying, and that it might be possible, but I could be correct as well, especially when you take his other, less ambiguous, writings and actions into consideration.
Either way, as Rube says, it’s a bag of worms when trying to appeal to Calvin on this matter.
BTW, Calvin was pleading with the magistrates for a lesser sentence on Servetus’ behalf.
kazoo
February 18, 2009 at 9:59 am |
Yes, obviously other material Calvin wrote has potential to cause some confusion, but I think the distinction between between a theodidactic view and a Theonomic view is important.
I believe a simple reading of Calvin’s statement above makes it clear that the subject of his sentence is those individuals who “deny that a commonwealth is rightly framed which neglects the laws of Moses”. He then goes on to say that this view (referring to the subject of which he was writing) is dangerous. That would be my understanding of his statement.
I think this can be further supported by the second to the last sentence in the quote from my original post.
“For the ancients who adopted this division, though they were not unaware that the two latter classes had to do with morals, did not give them the name of moral, because they might be changed and abrogated without affecting morals.”
Here Calvin (and the ancients) admit that both classes of the Law, excluding the Moral, might be changed and abrogated without affecting morals.
This would indicate that Civil Laws might be abrogated without affecting the moral law of God, which is binding on all men.
I’m not sure if RubeRad would agree with me, but I believe that this moral law that binds all men is not limited to the moral laws contained in the Decalogue, for this is only the “letter of the law”. But men are bound to God’s moral law which is best known through the power of the Spirit and was further clarified by Christ. This law is and was largely ignored by man (including Israel) due to sin and being turned over to a reprobate mind.
All this said, I think it best to be theodidactic but I think it dangerous to put on the yoke of the Law since we have been set free from that yoke through Christ Eph 2:15. Look forward to your thoughts.
In Christ
February 18, 2009 at 10:55 am |
Gabe,
You may very well be correct, even though you have to change the noun ‘views’ to ‘individuals’ to make it intelligible. Calvin was a wonderful gift to the church, then and now, and I for one don’t want to take him lightly. I also don’t want to read into him my own views.
Another friend of mine did a critique on theonomy quite a while ago, and used Calvin to do it. He got slammed by yet another friend. You’ve got to read all of his parts, but you find that he ended up recanting that Calvin was on his side. http://joshbrisby.blogspot.com/2007/01/critique-of-theonomy-part-1-calvins.html
To the more important issue, I am a theonomist. I usually qualify that with “Bahnsen style.” For me, as a Presbyterian, what is important about the law is that class which we call moral. I am not offended or afraid of the 3 classes that Calvin and our Standards use. I don’t want to see a bunch of Isreal’s all over the world. I don’t want Moses’ judicial law to be our laws.
I agree with you that it is the moral law of God that is [still] binding on all men. However, as Calvin alludes, the judicial has *something* to do with morals. So, the *moral* aspect of the judicial laws and punishments is what I believe still has abiding validity, and only the *moral* aspect. It’s our tough job to discover these separate from the circumstance of the nation. But it is too bad that there are those that won’t even consider that as part of man’s obligation.
Believe me when I say that I am very much in favor of God’s saving Grace that has made me free. The law was never to be used as an instrument to justify. Justification was always by Faith as we see with Abraham. But that doesn’t mean we ignore the 3 uses. When the law is used lawfully, then it isn’t a yoke, or a heavy burden.
Can you give a definition and explanation of what you mean by theodidactic?
blessings,
kazoo
February 18, 2009 at 1:05 pm |
I must admit, I may be confused about Theonomy, at who’s fault I’m not positive.
You say “I don’t want Moses’ judicial law to be our laws.” but Bahnsen says “God’s law is binding in every detail until and unless the Lawgiver reveals otherwise…. the civil magistrate today ought to apply the penal sanctions of the Old Testament law to criminals in our society.”
Does Bahnsen say that governments are bound to do this by covenant?
I would define a theodidactic view as one that supports the use and reference of OT laws when creating and enforcing laws for today, but understands that they are not binding and required on anyone but Israel.
To add a note about my possible confusion above. It seems like I read Theonomists stating that the civil and penal sanctions of Law of Moses should be enforced, but then later qualify the statement to pertain only to the principals contained in those laws and sanctions. My question to this would be, by what scriptural proof is this qualification made(certainly not by Mat. 5:17-19)? And how can anyone be dogmatic about an argument in favor of something so vaguely defined?
I hope my ignorance of some of these things is not offensive.
In Christ, Gabe
February 18, 2009 at 1:27 pm |
Gabe,
It’s a crazy world out there. Lot’s of people saying many things over many years. Some changing or honing their views, etc. That’s why I say “Bahnsen Style.” I believe Gary North would say that if it was to be stoning, then it still should be. Bahnsen would say that the punishment was death, but the way the execution was carried out is a circumstance and so the gas chamber is fine. He would say that the death penalty is the general equity of the particular law, or the moral precept.
But I will admit that there is a lot of vagueness in the camp (it’s not much of a camp anymore, this issue was mostly lost a long time ago and the proponents have just moved on keeping silent about it. Young guys like me have kinda picked up the torch, but anyway…). With the vagueness there is plenty of room for discussion and hard exegetical work. But if one throws out the framework that you mention above quoting Bahnsen, then Christian ethics will have a different result.
I think the best way to clear up the confusion if you’d really like to do so, would be to read Bahnsen’s book “Theonomy in Christian Ethics.” He goes into almost every detail imaginable clarifying or “qualifying” what the thesis does and does not mean, how the rest of scripture sheds light on the subject, etc.
Regarding scriptural proof, I think it is a large subject and not so easy as to point to one scripture as a proof-text. There is the study of how the judicial laws are “case laws” which show how the general principles of the ten commandments work out into specifics within the context of their day, time & citizenship. You can see Paul speak in Romans 1 about things done that are “worthy of death.” Hebrews 1 or 2 mentions that the laws penalties are just. These are all general statements. So you can see how one can start to get the qualifier. And if someone is going to make a statement and then qualify it, then don’t you think you should not ignore the qualifier?
Gotta go back to work now.
Kazoo
February 18, 2009 at 1:30 pm |
Oh, I see. So the question boils down to whether Calvin was on the side of “law of Moses” or “common law of nations”. As Gabe points out, the rest of the context makes it pretty clear that Calvin was on the “common law of nations” side. Further down (4.20.16) he makes it quite explicit:
February 18, 2009 at 1:37 pm |
Fair enough. I think that is pretty clear. Thanks Rube.
kaz
February 18, 2009 at 1:47 pm |
FYI, I tracked down Calvin’s reference to City of God 19.17:
The whole chapter is a pretty good, quick read (it’s probably only a page or two printed)
February 18, 2009 at 1:48 pm |
So should a retraction be in order, or at least a retraction to a statement as dogmatic as “Calvin was a Theonomist”. I assume you think it fair that Josh Brisby retracted his dogmatic statement.
February 18, 2009 at 1:53 pm |
Well, as K noted, the statement is a bit of a jab at me, because of my posts Jesus is not a Theonomist and Paul was not a Theonomist.
February 18, 2009 at 2:41 pm |
I have actually read those post’s, which is partly how I came across your blog Kaz.
So I had a thought and would like to get feedback and critique if needed, it is new and fresh…
Let me first preface the thought by saying, I believe the OT contains many types and shadows (Hebrews 10:1) of thing which have now been made more clear through the reveling mystery of the Gospel, praise God!
So, Theonomist’s say that they only want the principals of the civil law and penal sanctions applied today, but it seems to me that they make little or no practical exception from those actually defined within the law. I believe the New Covenant provides substantial differences in application for today. Let me run a conversation that I had with myself past you and get your thoughts:
Q. What is the principal in the law against adultery?
A. Obviously there are principals related to the man/woman relationship, but I would say the primary principal is found in Ephesians. We learn that marriage is a picture of the covenant relationship we have with God. And to break this covenant with our spouse is to then break the divine ordinance God has established to represent this God/man covenant. If we put that together with what Christ said about lust being adultery we see why he makes the point. Unfaithfulness to our spouse in any way is a breaking of that covenant. So the principal is primarily about our relationship with God and true(not just outward) faithfulness to our spouse. Should we then in the NT era kill someone for adultery? What about lust? These two sins are attached to the same principal and are considered the same sin in the eyes of our Lord, so should they receive the penalty of death according to the law of Moses. I think we see in the NT that this is not the case. The law of Moses was the letter of the law, it was righteous and had to be followed, but now that we are under the spirit of the law and not the letter, we are not bound by it due to Gods grace. Israel, being a shadow of the church and of Christ should be understood in this era through the church and Christ. And in the NT we now see how we are to respond to sin and what judgments (church discipline) should be carried out by Christians. This is not to say that the state does not bare the sword, but must be understood in light of these new revelations.
Still fresh in my mind but I wanted to get it on paper..
In Christ, Gabe
February 18, 2009 at 4:55 pm |
I am pretty confident that I can give the theonomist’s answer: lust is a sin, but not defined by Moses to be a crime, and in any case, it cannot be attested by 2+ witnesses, so there would be no death penalty for lust. Duly witnessed and prosecuted adultery, however, would be a capital offense.
But then of course so would breaking the Sabbath.
February 18, 2009 at 4:57 pm |
Gabe,
Is that the same thing as taking the sword out of its sheath?
I’ve been off the blogging world for many months now with all my time taken by making up for my wife’s inability to walk or drive. She had surgery and is almost done healing! Praise God! But I’ll try to give you a response this evening.
Question in the meantime, can you tell us a little bit about yourself, your walk, how long ago you became familiar with theonomy, etc.?
kazoo
February 18, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
You bet! I’m 30, been married for 9yrs. We’ve got two kids with one on the way. We live in Idaho, moved from So. Cal about 5yrs ago. I came out of the charismatic movement about 10yrs ago and was then discipled by a man I very much respect who has mostly reformed views (I would guess). We currently attend a none denominational church, it would probably split between Dispensational and Reformed in most of its views. I don’t have any Christian college training, but enjoy reading the old guys. J. Edwards got me started in the Reformed thought and I’ve enjoyed reading them.
I began studying eschatology a couple years ago, and began to lean more and more amill. My good friend then a year ago began study eschatology and ended up leaning postmill. He then became more and more interested in Reconstructionism and Theonomy. So I began to learn about it. Decided to stop studying eschatology and focus on the covenants for the last half year or so. A lot of this is pretty new to me but I have to admit I’ve been rather obsessed with getting to some answers to settle my own mind.
February 19, 2009 at 7:11 am |
Well then, nice to meet you, Gabe! It sounds like you and your friend are kind of like me and kazoo; you might enjoy reading all the back&forth between us (and a few others). However, if I could recommend for you one book, it would be The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses by Vern Poythress. You can still find copies around, but since it went out of print, the whole book is available free online. He does a good job teasing general judicial principles away from Mosaic particulars; he has some very interesting ideas about applying those principles in a modern context; and I think no other critic will ever give Theonomy a fairer hearing.
If you want an openly hostile critic, then go to Kline.
February 19, 2009 at 7:17 am |
BTW, After reading a number of the interchanges, I’ve been quite impressed by the obvious level of respect and Christian love that the two of you have maintained even though your views have remained so different. It’s been encouraging!
February 20, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
Quick question, maybe the answers not so quick, I’m not sure.
If adultery deserves the death penalty from a just government ruled by Christians (I’m not saying this could not be the case), is this true in all adultery cases? Suppose we are in such a state, and a Christian commits adultery (God forbid) and then repents should the elders (who could also possibly be the magistrate?) recognize his continued right to fellowship with the church but then turn him over to the state to be judged and executed?
OK, not as short a question as I thought, just wondering about the Christians roll in all spears of life based on NT principals that are to govern those in the Church.
February 20, 2009 at 4:55 pm |
Gabe,
Thanks for the compliments. Rube and I are good friends that belong to the same congregation. Our families get together every once in a while and they participate in Cadet’s and such.
Your questions might be quick, but the answers are not so. If anybody ever tries to tell you that the theonomists have a very simple and unsophisticated answer to ethical dilemmas such as this, don’t believe them.
I have been meaning to reply for you, and will do so, but I’ve been a bit distracted with life. So, I apologize.
So, a quick statement, and more to come later:
First off, I notice in your questions sometimes you use the word “we” indiscriminately. But sometimes it can mean “we human beings, Christian and non alike.” Other times it means “we Christians.” And so forth. When I am speaking about how to rightly frame a government, I am thinking of that government as a completely separate sphere, or entity, than the church. So, “we Americans” or “we Californians” or “we San Diegans” should have such and such type laws.
Secondly, officers of the church should never be officers of the state and vice versa as I understand the theonomic ethic.
Third, a church can use the keys to pronounce forgiveness to a justly convicted adulterer, but the church has no authority in the government. So, just as the government can’t use the keys to pronounce God’s forgiveness to the justly convicted adulterer, the church can’t remove the civil punishment.
Fourth, I believe that the ‘crime’ of adultery morally requires the government to execute the convicted. But saying that, I also believe that conviction of such crimes morally requires the judge/jury to adhere to high standards of evidence, such as a minimum of two witnesses for example.
Gotta go for now.
Blessings,
Kazooless
February 20, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
Thanks for the reply, and I understand that life and family have demands and joys that far out way blogging and other such activities, so don’t feel bad, I certainly wont feel neglected.
About #2: “Secondly, officers of the church should never be officers of the state and vice versa as I understand the theonomic ethic.”
If this type of rule were in place wouldn’t you still agree that non-officers of the church are still held to the same standard as officers, even though the later might have more responsibility and accountability to God in some areas?
IMHO, I think we sometimes look at the Church more like an institution and not an all encompassing possition. We are the Church because we are God’s people. We never stop being God’s people regardless what what spear of life you are talking about, we are always the Church. And so I don’t believe the instructions we have been given are to limited to only certain institutions or areas of life.
In Christ,
Gabe
February 21, 2009 at 10:20 am |
Gabe,
Yes, I agree in so far as you have stated. But I think you have some unspoken inferences in that last paragraph that isn’t correct.
The idea of “separation between church and state” is a biblical one found as examples in Old Israel’s polity and the Mosaic law. It is there as a protection for the people. History has shown us that when the state governs both the church and the government that a despotism is inevitable. And history has shown us the same when the church runs the government as well as the church. Take Henry VIII, Bloody Mary, Elizabeth, James and Charles for an example of the former and the Pope as an example of the latter.
There are several ways to understand the church properly. You mention an overarching sense of the church universal or maybe militant. We, God’s people, all over the world are in that position no matter what “sphere” in which we find ourselves operating. I whole-heartily agree with that, especially as a theonomist and reconstructionist. But there is also the sense in which there is the institution of the church, or many institutions of the church. This is also a completely valid category. As sinful human beings, not yet attaining glory, we need ‘governance.’ There must be some structure of authority and leadership, as well as discipline. This is for non-sinful practical reasons as well as for disciplinary reasons. For example, I belong to the PCA, Presbyterian Church in America. This is a conservative orthodox denomination framed after the 1788 Westminster Standards (which is almost identical to the original). In it, we have individual churches lead by the session (plurality of ruling and teaching elders). Our individual church is in a confederation of other local churches each of which is represented by a few of our elders. The group of all the elders from our locale is called the presbytery. Then, we have a national general assembly. It is this institution that I am speaking of above when I speak of ’spheres.’
So, all members of the church, officers and non-officers, are held to the same standard regardless of what sphere they are operating in, yes. I would go even further to say that all human beings are held to the same standard. It is none other than the moral law of God. Unbelievers just suppress this truth in unrighteousness.
Now, here is what I think you’re having trouble with. You mention
But stop and think for a moment and you’ll see that this can’t be true. The bible gives many commands to ‘groups of people’ that aren’t given to others. Fathers love your wives. Wives honor your husbands. Children obey your parents. Farmers let your land rest every so often. Merchants use just scales. And so on and so on.
So, in like manner, magistrates wield the sword (justly). Bishops tend to the flock. See? It’s not a different standard that we are speaking of, but different responsibilities. We separate the powers firstly because God has revealed to us that is what we should do, and secondly because that helps protect us from any one man or institution becoming despotic or tyrannical.
Okay, with that in mind, go back to what I wrote to answer your adultery questions and re-read. Let me know if you still have questions on that.
I believe I still have more to answer for you further up, but this will have to do for now. Gotta bring the kids around town for some of their activities.
Blessings,
Kazooless
February 21, 2009 at 12:02 pm |
Kazooless,
Just to clarify, when I said “so I don’t believe the instructions we have been given are limited to only certain institutions or areas of life”, I meant that in terms defined by the Bible. That the Bible addresses specific groups of people goes without saying. But I would say that it addresses us as Christians all the time. And that the truths of the gospel regarding forgiveness and love are not isolated to the institution of the church, but are to be lived out by Christians at all times.
As to the state wielding the sword, I believe Rom 13 is directly addressed to Christians, not to the magistrate. Paul is writing to Christians living in an oppressive government and he wanted to ensure that they were responding to that evil government correctly and assure them that God is sovereign over all. Paul instructed them to submit, because God establishes all governments, including the one they were living under. In God’s sovereignty he creates government to suppress evil. All governments wield the sword, not only just governments. It is obvious that these governments that suppress evil are often evil themselves. God still establishes them and uses them as He wills.
So regarding a Christian who has committed a sin considered capital under the Mosaic law, I believe that principals of the NC and examples of actions by Christians living under those NC principals are not compatible with Christian enforcing such judgments on one another. I’ll write a little more specifically about Paul later on to provide an example. This is not to say that the Mosaic law was unjust, but it is only still just if that is what God still requires. Even you seem to admit that the Mosaic Law is not what God actually requires any longer but that only the principals of that law are still in force, correct? I believe that to OC and the Mosaic law have been done away and have been replaced with a NC and a New Law that more perfectly reflect the principals of Gods eternal moral law.
In Christ,
Gabe
February 21, 2009 at 1:57 pm |
Gabe,
So do you see a difference in the way a non-Christian magistrateshould govern from the way a Christian magistrate should govern?
I had every intention of creating a sort of “apologetic for theonomy” with this blog when I created it. The hope is still there, but the time and energy I need to do so hasn’t been available to me these couple of years. I’d like to answer questions in detail, but I am not going to be able to keep up fully. There are plenty of resources available out there though. I especially recommend “Theonomy in Christian Ethics” by Greg Bahnsen as a starting point. I have a link on this site to a place to purchase it. If you don’t have that under your belt, you’re really missing the best foundation to argue against. Also, Gary North has a ton of the books written back in the day published for free download at what used to be http://www.freebooks.com. I guess it is now: http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/sidefrm2.htm and I’ll have to go in and fix my links.
As a theonomist, I don’t believe you’re reading Romans 13 correctly and I don’t believe that the civil government is to punish differently AD vs BC.
Let me know how you would answer my question above.
Kazoo
February 21, 2009 at 2:37 pm |
Well I would expect a non-Christian magistrate to govern according to the flesh and I would expect a Christian magistrate to govern according to the Spirit. When you talk about “should” I’m not sure what you mean. What “should” the king of Egypt done when Moses said to let Gods people go? Well he “should” have headed Gods word but that was not what God had sovereign decreed to happen. Non-Christian magistrates “should” turn to Christ and believe in Him and then continue to govern, or perhaps choose not to continue to govern, based on NC principals. But I don’t expect governments to turn to Christ, in most cases, based on scriptures references to what the Christian will endure and should be prepared for, and also based on what we can expect for the future.
I know this is where we will differ as well…
I plan to read TiCE when I can get it, which of his free books would you recommend as a substitute until I can get it?
In Christ,
Gabe
February 21, 2009 at 4:51 pm |
“Should” is what God expects. That’s what I mean. In ethics, we are not concerned with expectations based on the nature of the case, such as fleshly or spiritual. Ethics is concerned with what behavior is the ‘right’ or ‘moral’ behavior in a given scenario. Yes, the Pharaoh ’should’ have obeyed God’s command. So, ethics is not concerned with whether the magistrate is Christian or not Christian. And no, maybe the governments will never be influenced and run by Christian principles. But ethics doesn’t care about what ‘will’ be. Ethic answers the question of what ’should’ be.
So, the question of “What is the moral punishment for the civil crime of murder” isn’t answered by taking into consideration the type of person exacting the punishment. And, the nature of the case, morality, tells me that the moral punishment is just that: THE moral punishment. There can’t be two that are both moral and time doesn’t change that. The moral law doesn’t change. Morality reflects the character of God, which is never changing. If it was moral in Israel, then it was moral in Babylon. If it was moral back then, then it is moral today and will be tomorrow.
Most of this is academic, since in our day and time we’re not going to see much of this influence our government. You might think based on your eschatology that it never will so why try. That’s fine. Eschatology is another subject. It doesn’t ‘logically’ change the answer to the question “how ’should’ we live?” But for me, I think the church itself needs a lot of work done within her on the subject of doctrine and ethics. She needs to be re-Reformed and go back to the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity and Calvin. There is plenty of non-controversial understandings of the law found there that need to be re-discovered first. Then we can go back to working out the more detailed specifics that theonomy addresses.
Regarding TCE and his other books, read “By This Standard” if you can’t get your hands on the first. It’s okay, but he really watered it down a bit for the average consumer. It’s certainly easier to read, but the other is well worth the effort. As far as not being able to get the book, I assume you mean “buy” the book. I thought I would suggest that you take a look at your local libraries. Many of them can order books they don’t have from other libraries and if you have any seminaries near you, you might find it there.
Okay, you’ve sucked me in more in these last few days than I’ve spent in these last few months. I hope that helps to answer some questions. Remember that I’ve really just tried to explain the view, but not tried to give the defense for it. That’s another job in and of itself.
kazooless
February 21, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
Thanks for the tip about libraries, I will check there. I understand what you are saying about ethics, but I’m not sure it is as “cut and dry” as you state. God does not always demand life for life. Cain and Able? Just because God uses different means of punishment at different times does not mean that he changes.
“And, the nature of the case, morality, tells me that the moral punishment is just that: THE moral punishment. There can’t be two that are both moral and time doesn’t change that. The moral law doesn’t change.”
To assert that God cannot differ in His actions, responses or requirements at times is, I believe, an incorrect use of the doctrine of the immutability of God.
Anyhow, I appreciate all your replies and input. I’ll keep an eye out for new posts on your blog in the future.
In Christ,
Gabe
February 21, 2009 at 9:26 pm |
Gabe,
I’m glad to have met a new friend via this blog. My wife is finally up and about and able to drive again so I am hoping to reclaim a bit of the time I used to use for the blog world now. Praise Him!
It’s interesting to me how this conversation has progressed. I don’t know if Rube is still paying attention, but I think he might be able to confirm this. So far, most of what you bring up as questions or differences are pretty much the same that come up all the time. You mentioned Paul earlier and that you’d bring up some specific instances later. I am willing to be that you were going to mention the Corinthian passages about the man sleeping with his mother. You just now bring up Cain and Abel. Again, not new. And there is an answer. It is truly amazing to me how there really isn’t anything new under the sun.
You’re certainly right that what I’ve stated here isn’t “cut and dry.” Like I said earlier, it’s a large issue. A blog is not going to be able to address all the details and nuances necessary. There are volumes and volumes of books written on the subject of ethics. So obviously we all have to keep that in mind with this type of discussion. The Bahnsen book I am recommending is in itself over 600 pages. But he does a great job of addressing almost all of the common objections. Keep in mind that it was intended to provide a good systematic groundwork for the theonomic ethic. It doesn’t go into a lot of detail in the outworking of the ethic. In fact, it recommends that the hard effort of working out the ethic be done in detail now that he has laid down the groundwork in a modern work.
Anyway, it just occurred to me that maybe you like to listen to audio. A good place to start would be here: http://www.cmfnow.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=207 . The set entitled “Theonomic Approach to Ethics I” is a good intro and the one called “Has Westminster Found a Critique of Theonomy Yet?” is really good in that it gives you a look from the latter part of Dr. Bahnsen’s life of the history of the theonomy debate and its status some 20ish years after he wrote the book.
However, these and many more are included in the TCE book on that site. It has a CD with PDF’s of all his theonomy books and 20 audio mp3’s. I think it makes the price of the book pale in comparison.
Cheers. Enjoy your worship tomorrow on the Lord’s day,
Kazoo
February 24, 2009 at 8:55 am |
Excellent point. There’s a big difference between love your neighbor, give him the shirt off your back, and submit to his government, vs. kill your neighbor, live in his house, and participate in the Kingdom of God on earth (i.e. common grace vs. suspension of common grace).
February 24, 2009 at 9:44 am |
Kazooless,
Glad to hear your wife is feeling better. My wife’s “morning sickness” has been bad the last few months and even that inconvenience changes the family dynamic, so I can only imagine having her completely out of action. And thanks for that audio link, I’ll check it out.
I brought up Cain and Able, not in an attempt to prove an anti-Theonomy view, but only to show that I believe God’s immutability is related more to His essence and not necessarily to His actions.
Regarding Paul, I have read the Corinthians argument/response before but I was wondering why the Christian community didn’t turn Paul over to Rome to be tried for murder? If upholding the Law of Moses was still important to NT Christians and to Paul, and if all states are bound to uphold that Law, I would think that Paul would at least attempt to willingly submit to the judgment that he then deserved under that Law. Just a thought…
BTW, do you have a link or reference to a through Theonomic exegesis of Rom 13?
In Christ,
Gabe
March 11, 2009 at 3:44 pm |
Gabe,
Once again, I think it is Bahnsen’s magnum opus that you really need to read. He deals with it quite adeptly in there.
Looking around the Internet, I found a couple of things that might interest you:
Excerpt from TiCE: http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article.php?ArticleID=2717
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue05/be_0002.htm
Also, TiCE makes it clear why Paul didn’t say to hand the guy over to the state. The duties of the church and the duties of the state should not be conflated. There are many requirements for the state to hold a person accountable for a crime, such as two witnesses. This protects the people from tyranny and sways toward innocent until proven guilty. Also, it is not a good way of reasoning to argue a precedent from the lack of something. It’s an argument from silence and therefore fallacious.
Cheers,
kazoo
March 13, 2009 at 10:37 pm |
Yes, looks like I’m going to have to buy it. Which is good, I’d like to have it. No luck at the libraries…
So if I commit an unwitnessed murder I can’t be executed under Mosaic Law, even if I confess?
I don’t think it is an argument from silence. We have accounts of Christian behavior documented in the Word of God. Does that documented behavior support the continuance of Mosaic Law in the NT Christian community or does it support a new principal which has now been revealed in the NC. The doctrine of the NC, in conjunction with documented behavior of Christians applying those principals supports a view that Mosaic Law is no longer binding and in fact is a yoke that should not be worn. So, while I wouldn’t “hang my hat” on the lack of Theonomic behavior exhibited in the NT scriptures, I do believe the evidence of such a lack (and in fact what amounts to be opposite behavior, i.e. forgiveness and fellowship) does help to support the converse argument.
August 14, 2009 at 12:10 am |
Nice Page. I’m encouraged that your wrestling with the Scriptures and theologians. Keep fighting the good fight of faith.