Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace  SInce I am not 'master' of the WCF, my question appears easy to me, but perhaps it is not.
We read:
To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
I have seen some attempt to use this to show theonomy is correct. My question is what theonomist in their right mind would write it as such? NONE!!!! what has happened is a shift from the power of the words expired and not obliging as the driving force of this phrase, to the gray area of general equity. The gray has become the barometer over the clear. If we did this with all our theological thinking, we would be most miserable. It is as if that last unintelligable phrase is out their to soften the first clear part!!!! It is like using James 2 to prove salvation by works over the overwhelming evidence it is not by works but grace. |
Theonomists interpret "sundy judicial laws" as referring to parts of the judicial law which were circumstantial to the nation of Israel that have "expired together with the state of that people". As these cannot be fully applied today, then only the general equity remains binding. An example is the laws concerning cities of refugee. We are not bound to have cities of refuge in the land of Canaan, but the general equity obliges us to establish such cities in our own nations.
BTW Martin Foulner's book Theonomy and the Westminster Confession has forever settled the question of Theonomy being compatible with the WCF. Despite the fact that it has been in print for 10 years, it has never been fully answered (a dismissal does not count as an answer).