Quote:
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
My position is not that one may not refer to Israel's judicial laws and then model our laws similarly -- they are good laws and a model to us, certainly; rather, it is the binding or obliging of those judicial laws that has lost its force in the expiration of the body politick known as Israel. We are not under Israeli law. Christian commonwealths may apply the light of Christian prudence when framing their laws, which may and should involve some reference to the old judicial laws but is no more binding that the Hebrew form of government is on us today.
|
They are binding unless we have specific instructions telling us otherwise in the New Testament. And I'm still seeing less and less merit in the attempts to show that such instructions exist. If they are not obligatory and binding, what standard is? I have finally come to realize that there really is no neutrality, and most governments that claim to have a neutral moral system are in fact very religious, it's just that "humanism" is more subtle and less-easily-recognized as religious.
Quote:
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Gary North does claim that John Calvin was a theonomist in his article entitled "Was Calvin a Theonomist?" I reference Calvin not because he was infallible but because he had occasion to quash the theonomic movement when writing the Institutes and his quote that I have cited should be strong evidence that at least one major and very influential Reformer was not onboard with Rushdoony and his camp. The thing I am not sure about is who in Calvin's age was advocating theonomy? The thing I am sure about is Calvin's Institutes does not support the modern theonomic perspective on the binding nature of the judicial laws of Moses.
|
Interesting. I haven't read much North yet, only a few articles. In that article of his, does he ever mention the quotation by Calvin that you gave above regarding the Mosaic law being the foundation for societies?