Will ruberad, echo, gabe and others continue to sharpen his iron?

I am looking at a lifetime of sharpening Kazooless’ iron. There’s just so many rough edges I gotta keep working at!

I love it.

I am sorry I didn’t finish this. I have always had the intention to but life just keeps getting in the way. Now, if I have any time to devote to study, I am spending it preparing for a Sunday school class I will teach in the January quarter.

The next leg I need to post is going to require a little more from me than just gleaning already gleaned quotes. So, I haven’t killed it, but it will still probably be a long while. Sorry my man.

kazoo

Now we wait see 10 months later for the next season to begin.

In all seriousness, I have like others been really impressed with the patient, even irenic nature of debate here. I do most heartily look forward to more, and hope that the Spirit may encourage and refresh you all to take it up again. Soli Deo Gloria!

My quoting of Calvin along with all the others here is to help us all to understand the language and the intent of our forefathers when it comes to God’s law. The theonomist got their ethical framework from these very men. There is very little in them, including Calvin, that differs from a modern day theonomist. I don’t mean this sarcastically or in a demeaning way, but Rube seems to have finally learned what the basic principle of theonomy is without even realizing it! Equity = Justice = Moral. Simple as that.

Take another look at all these quotes and especially the terms and phrases I underlined. Equity, substance, “general principal,” etc. This is the hermeneutic of the theonomist as it plainly was in many or our reformed forefathers. This is why I’ve always pointed out that Bahnsen said his thesis was just the groundwork and there was a lot of hard work to do. What part of the case law was moral and what was ceremonial or judicial? That is where there can be much disagreement without hard study and exegesis.

kazoo

kazoo

“Let’s keep the moral part” is the Theonomists’ position. Some might disagree with Calvin about the civil penalty, and others might not. That is actually the case in the Theonomist camp.

kazoo

You say:

you will find that he is not advocating “equity” in the Theonomists’ sense (i.e. “equivalent to Moses”), but in the broader sense of equity=justice.

I now think I understand why all these years you have argued the way you do. The Theonomists’ sense is NOT “equivalent to Moses.” You’ve obviously been misunderstanding this all this time! In actuality, the Theonimists’ sense is actually “equity=justice.” Just look at my second sentence in this post,introducing these quotes: “Take note especially of the tems “equity, equitable, and judicial.”” I was roughly equating these terms, and always have in my writings.

Anyway, a more general response is to come.

kazoo

The judicial law, however, which God prescribed to His ancient people, is only so far abrogated as that which charity dictates should remain

And yet again! This quote establishes, rather than denies, abrogation. Calvin is saying, “yeah, we know the lending laws are abrogated, but let’s not go overboard. There’s still a law of charity (a moral law, a law to love your neighbor) that should prevent Christians from exploiting their neighbors”

The two other cases ought not to be classed with ancient shadows, but are adapted to every age. The sabbath being abrogated, there is still room among us, first, to assemble on stated days for the hearing of the Word, the breaking of the mystical bread, and public prayer; and, secondly, to give our servants and labourers relaxation from labour. It cannot be doubted that the Lord provided for both in the commandment of the Sabbath.

I.e. the first purpose (the one with the death penalty attached) “ought to be classed with ancient shadows”. Calvin is explicitly NOT saying that the penology of the fourth commandment is equally applicable to us as to the Jews. What you are quoting is Calvin talking about “even though we understand that the civil penalty is abrogated, let’s still keep the moral part” (that’s not a real quote, just my paraphrase of Calvin’s intent).

Don’t make me break out my pile of Calvin quotes about the abrogation of the Sabbath…

Equity [justice], as it is natural, cannot be the same in all, and therefore ought to be proposed by all laws, according to the nature of the thing enacted. As constitutions have some circumstances on which they partly depend, there is nothing to prevent their diversity, provided they all alike aim at equity as their end. Now, as it is evident that the law of God which we call moral, is nothing else than the testimony of natural law, and of that conscience which God has engraven on the minds of men, the whole of this equity of which we now speak is prescribed in it. Hence it alone ought to be the aim, the rule, and the end of all laws. Wherever laws are formed after this rule, directed to this aim, and restricted to this end, there is no reason why they should be disapproved by us, however much they may differ from the Jewish law, or from each other

Calvin then goes on to list specific allowable deviations from Mosaic penology for theft, adultery, and murder, and concludes:

How malignant were it, and invidious of the public good, to be offended at this diversity, which is admirably adapted to retain the observance of the divine law. The allegation, that insult is offered to the law of God enacted by Moses, where it is abrogated, and other new laws are preferred to it, is most absurd. Others are not preferred when they are more approved, not absolutely, but from regard to time and place, and the condition of the people, or when those things are abrogated which were never enacted for us. The Lord did not deliver it by the hand of Moses to be promulgated in all countries, and to be everywhere enforced