Quote:
Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress  Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie Actually Sinclair Ferguson has been refuted by Martin Foulner's Theonomy and the Westminster Confession an annotated sourcebook of 60 pages of Theonomic quotes from early Reformed authors. Moroever, if you read the footnotes of the original Westminster Standards you will find that the penology of the Older Testament is quoted as part of the unchanging moral law of God.
| I really don't think Martin has done any such thing. I believe the main point that Ferguson makes stands, that there is some practical agreement in outcome, but a difference in how Puritan and Theonomist arrive at those applications in practice. Ferguson's position is theoretical theonomy is not the teaching of the Confession. But such is the work for journal articles not chat forums. But I did want to put in my two cents.  |
I would agree that modern Theonomic ethics is not explicitly taught in the Westminster Standards - as the Puritans did not believe in the distinction between crime and sin that modern Theonomists do. And so I would not argue that one needs to be a modern Theonomist to subscribe to the Westminster Standards.
The Puritans and modern Theonomists differ in semantics for one very important reason: they live in totally different historical circumstances.
The Reformers and Puritans lived in times when fanatical extremists wished to enforce the ENTIRE judicial law of Moses (which is a position Theonomy repudiates). Therefore, when I see a couple of quotes trotted out by Rutherford against Theonomy I shake my head at such blatant misrepresentation of Theonomic ethics. For instance, Rutherford does not believe that the death penalty for Sabbath violation is to be applied today, as one would have to become a debtor to the
whole judicial law. However, Theonomy does not teach that one must uphold the entire judicial law. And it should be noted that both R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North employ similar arguments to Rutherford. Furthermore, it is common to see the quotes from some Reformers and Puritans who did not believe in restitution for theft; this was done because they did not believe that restitution could be applied outside Israel - which is Theonomic methodology, even though it is contrary to the conclusions reached by nearly all modern Theonomists.
Hence, the purpose of the Reformers and Puritans in their writings was to distinguish between which parts of the judicial law were binding and which were not in order to refute the extremists. Modern Theonomists, on the other hand, are not in the same historical situation. Instead, we live in days when Biblical standards of justice are cast down in the streets - even by those who claim to be Reformed. Therefore, in such a context, we emphasise the continuity between the Older and New Testaments rather than the discontinuity.
The failure to take on board differing historical contexts in which differing theological writers at different periods often causes much confusion. That is why certain scholars argue that John Calvin believed in universal atonement, because they take a statement which he makes prior to the Arminian controversy - that Calvinists living after the Arminian controversy would not use - and assume that Calvin is teaching something later Calvinists would disagree with. Thus a text, without a context, becomes a pretext.