Theonomy: Eschatological or Ethical?? - Page 2

Backwoods Presbyterian · #41 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 11:02 AM

Timmo Post #39,

However your last quotation of yourself implies that someone has never read anything by Bahnsen. Ignorance is not an excuse for misrepresentation. Only a cursory reading of T.I.C.E. shows Bahnsen does not believe that all Mosaic civil crimes and punishments should be applied today.

Daniel Ritchie · #42 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Daniel's statement is true as far as it goes but it overlooks a significant practical problem. Followers of what Bahnsen called "the ethical perspective of Christian Reconstruction" have yet to provide the rest of us with a list of which civil laws are peculiar to Israel and which are universal. Lacking such a list, we can't know exactly what Bahnsen's version of Theonomy is and is not.

Bahnsen argued that we could know that certain laws no longer applied by whether they were amended by subsequent revelation (the NT). Such amendments could take the form of either plain statements or good and necessary consequence deductions from plain statements. There are no plain statements amending any OT civil laws in the NT so we are left with laws identified as peculiar by GNC deductions. Although I have seen attempts to show that we may infer from certain texts that some civil stipulations were peculiar to Israel, I have yet to see anyone demonstate that such inferences are good and necessary consequence deductions of those statements.

Until and unless some follower of Bahnsen can provide such a demonstration, onlookers can only conclude that, in practice, Bahnsen's version of theonomy entails the promotion, institution and application of all Mosaic civil crimes and punishents into our civil codes today, together with their application by general equity to analogous situations.

Distinguishing between which judicial laws are binding and which are not is a difficult question. Simply looking for a list is simplistic.

When I use the term "judicial law" I am using it in the broader sense as referring to all social and civil laws, not just criminal punishments.

I did not say that distinguishing between judicial laws that bind today and those that don't was an easy thing to do. I said it was a necessary thing to do. Because, until such a list is provided:

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

...onlookers can only conclude that, in practice, Bahnsen's version of theonomy entails the promotion, institution and application of all Mosaic civil crimes and punishments into our civil codes today, together with their application by general equity to analogous situations.

An individual may provide such a list, but he cannot speak for everyone else who holds the basic tenants of Theonomic teaching, for the simple reason that not everyone will be in full agreement.

timmopussycat · #43 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Moreover when Calvin says that the punishments are variable, he is writing in relation to the radical Anabaptist charge that a nation is not legitimate unless it holds to the WHOLE political system of Moses. Theonomy teaches no such thing. This is not to say that Calvin himself denied that the penalties should be implemented, he is only refuting the Anabaptist nonsense that their non-implementation justified rebellion.

Given that at least 3 other men, (Andreas Calstadt, Wolfgang Stein and Jacob Strauss) all of whom repudiated Anabaptism's justification for rebellion, had been urging their states to adopt ALL Mosaic laws for years before Calvin wrote, and given that Calvin does not address his critique to the Anabaptist justication for rebellion, his comment cannot be seen not as limited to an attack on the Anabaptist justification for rebellion but against the idea that all Mosaic stipulations were necessary, however instituted,.

Well you can listen to Brian Schwertley for more, to go into Calvin's view in depth here would not only be

but is not really a debate suitable for internet chatrooms but for articles in theological journals etc. And even if he is referring to more than Anabaptists - I point which might be granted - that still does not have any bearing on the basic point in question, since I do not believe that the whole political system of Moses is to be adopted today.

Neither was Calvin attacking such the idea that the entire Mosaic political system needs to be adopted today. He was attacking the idea that all Mosaic civil laws and punishments are required today.

Daniel Ritchie · #44 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Given that at least 3 other men, (Andreas Calstadt, Wolfgang Stein and Jacob Strauss) all of whom repudiated Anabaptism's justification for rebellion, had been urging their states to adopt ALL Mosaic laws for years before Calvin wrote, and given that Calvin does not address his critique to the Anabaptist justication for rebellion, his comment cannot be seen not as limited to an attack on the Anabaptist justification for rebellion but against the idea that all Mosaic stipulations were necessary, however instituted,.

Well you can listen to Brian Schwertley for more, to go into Calvin's view in depth here would not only be

but is not really a debate suitable for internet chatrooms but for articles in theological journals etc. And even if he is referring to more than Anabaptists - I point which might be granted - that still does not have any bearing on the basic point in question, since I do not believe that the whole political system of Moses is to be adopted today.

Neither was Calvin attacking such the idea that the entire Mosaic political system needs to be adopted today. He was attacking the idea that all Mosaic civil laws and punishments are required today.

Since I don't believe that all Mosaic civil laws should be applied today - in order for a nation to be duly constituted - I am not losing any sleep.

timmopussycat · #45 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Timmo Post #39,

However your last quotation of yourself implies that someone has never read anything by Bahnsen. Ignorance is not an excuse for misrepresentation. Only a cursory reading of T.I.C.E. shows Bahnsen does not believe that all Mosaic civil crimes and punishments should be applied today.

I am aware that Bahnsen made the general claim that not all civil laws and punishments will apply today. What I have not seen is where he gives a specific example of a civil law he believes should be abrogated or a civil punishment where he recommends changing the degree of punishment that the criminal receives. I have been asking Theonomists for at least five years to provide such an example and if you can do so, I would be very grateful.

(Note: I am also aware that Bahnsen does not buy the necessity of stoning as the required method for execution, but other methods of execution do not change the degree of punishment the criminal receives - which is the point at issue. I should also say that anything connected with Sabbath laws won't do as the counterargument can be made that they are properly ceremonial and not civil).

timmopussycat · #46 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Distinguishing between which judicial laws are binding and which are not is a difficult question. Simply looking for a list is simplistic.

When I use the term "judicial law" I am using it in the broader sense as referring to all social and civil laws, not just criminal punishments.

I did not say that distinguishing between judicial laws that bind today and those that don't was an easy thing to do. I said it was a necessary thing to do. Because, until such a list is provided:

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

...onlookers can only conclude that, in practice, Bahnsen's version of theonomy entails the promotion, institution and application of all Mosaic civil crimes and punishments into our civil codes today, together with their application by general equity to analogous situations.

An individual may provide such a list, but he cannot speak for everyone else who holds the basic tenants of Theonomic teaching, for the simple reason that not everyone will be in full agreement.

I recognize that providing such a list might lead to disagreements, but the problem can't just be ignored. If a number of Bahnsen's followers put forth their lists the resultant debate might yield at least a core of "stipulations peculiar to Israel" upon which all are agreed. Which will be a significant first step in resolving the "Theonomy debate".

Backwoods Presbyterian · #47 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Timmo Post #39,

However your last quotation of yourself implies that someone has never read anything by Bahnsen. Ignorance is not an excuse for misrepresentation. Only a cursory reading of T.I.C.E. shows Bahnsen does not believe that all Mosaic civil crimes and punishments should be applied today.

I am aware that Bahnsen made the general claim that not all civil laws and punishments will apply today. What I have not seen is where he gives a specific example of a civil law he believes should be abrogated or a civil punishment where he recommends changing the degree of punishment that the criminal receives. I have been asking Theonomists for at least five years to provide such an example and if you can do so, I would be very grateful.

(Note: I am also aware that Bahnsen does not buy the necessity of stoning as the required method for execution, but other methods of execution do not change the degree of punishment the criminal receives - which is the point at issue.)

I have not read Bahnsen extensively (as I just recently read T.I.C.E., my first foray into theonomic studies) so I cannot give you scripture and verse so to speak per Bahnsen. However, as I am sure you know, most theonomists believe that if the NT abrogates a civil law then that law is no longer applicable in the new covenant. So take a quick look at your NT and you'll have your answer.

timmopussycat · #48 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Timmo Post #39,

However your last quotation of yourself implies that someone has never read anything by Bahnsen. Ignorance is not an excuse for misrepresentation. Only a cursory reading of T.I.C.E. shows Bahnsen does not believe that all Mosaic civil crimes and punishments should be applied today.

I am aware that Bahnsen made the general claim that not all civil laws and punishments will apply today. What I have not seen is where he gives a specific example of a civil law he believes should be abrogated or a civil punishment where he recommends changing the degree of punishment that the criminal receives. I have been asking Theonomists for at least five years to provide such an example and if you can do so, I would be very grateful.

(Note: I am also aware that Bahnsen does not buy the necessity of stoning as the required method for execution, but other methods of execution do not change the degree of punishment the criminal receives - which is the point at issue.)

I have not read Bahnsen extensively (as I just recently read T.I.C.E., my first foray into theonomic studies) so I cannot give you scripture and verse so to speak per Bahnsen. However, as I am sure you know, most theonomists believe that if the NT abrogates a civil law then that law is no longer applicable in the new covenant. So take a quick look at your NT and you'll have your answer.

As I wrote in post 36:

Quote:

Bahnsen argued that we could know that certain laws no longer applied by whether they were amended by subsequent revelation (the NT). Such amendments could take the form of either plain statements or good and necessary consequence deductions from plain statements. There are no plain statements amending any OT civil laws in the NT so we are left with laws identified as peculiar by GNC deductions. Although I have seen attempts to show that we may infer from certain texts that some civil stipulations were peculiar to Israel, I have yet to see anyone demonstate that such inferences are good and necessary consequence deductions of those statements.

On your stated premises then, I look at my NT and I see that it
1) does not directly teach the changing of any Mosaic civil stipulation, and
2) As far as I can presently see, the NT does not provide any statements from which we may conclude, as a good and necessary consequence, that a Mosaic civil stipulation or stipulations has or have been changed.

Until someone provides a list of civil stipulations shown changed in the NT era by GNC deductions from the NT, the only conclusion to which one can come is that Bahnsen's version of theonomy, in practice if not in theory, does not change any Mosaic civil stipulation.

Backwoods Presbyterian · #49 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 11:52 AM

Here is a quote from Bahnsen from his critique of M.G. Kline's review of T.I.C.E.:

Quote:

Contrary to Kline (172,174), I do not contend that the civil magistrate is to enforce all of the Mosaic laws (see Theonomy, pp. 381-382, 388, 399, 436, 493; N.B. "not every sin is a crime"). Nor do I say, as Kline alleges, that the ceremonial law is exempt from the Mosaic law's remaining normativity (175); I say that in a sense it has not been repealed but confirmed (see Theonomy, pp. 48-49, 81-82, 207, 209, 210, 212, 215, 492). Kline is also mistaken to claim that I "equate" the priestly-cultic sphere of Israel with "the church of the new covenant age" (176). Nothing like that will be found in my book for the simple reason that I do not think they can be strictly equated. Still an analogy holds (e.g., Heb. 13:15; I Cor. 9:13-14), and a contrast between religious cult and civil government can be seen in both Old Testament Israel and the modern world -- without equating the Old Testament priestly-cultic sphere with the New Testament church! Kline's suggestion as to the significance of my use of the expression "Older Testament" (viz., that it infers that the form of the kingdom has not changed from Old Testament to New Testament) is purely speculative (181-182); by that expression I simply wanted to stress the unity of the one covenant of grace throughout Scripture. When Kline says that I am reluctant to accept the New Testament teaching that the typological pre-messianic form of the holy kingdom is now obsolete, wanting the state structure of the kingdom to be virtually the same in all ages (181-182), he is engaging in pure fabrication. I say nothing of the sort in my book. I am more than willing to call the older covenant "obsolete" (pp. 209, 213), completely "past" (p. 194), and not to be returned to (p. 134; cf. pp. 16, 189-194). And I have no jealousy whatsoever for the state-kingdom structure of the Old Testament. Kline also misrepresents, through obscurity in his rehearsal of it, my view of the church's relation to the kingdom in the New Testament (millennial) age (180). Related to this, when I speak of Christ's "moral rule" -- in contrast to the premillennialist's notion that Christ will be physically present and use military rule -- Kline alters this to a "general moral sway" in the hearts of the elect (180, 181), thereby putting an unnecessarily derogatory construction on my statement. Finally, Kline unsuccessfully attempts to portray me as unfair to himself, claiming that I speak of laws being validated through change -- even though I criticize him for speaking of revision which fulfills a law (173). But the comparison is ruined by misrepresentation. I do not speak of change in a law as validation; rather, I say that ceremonial laws once and for all kept by Christ are thereby fulfilled and made inoperative (not revised). Kline is criticized for slippery semantics precisely because he calls "revision" the fulfillment of a law.

Daniel Ritchie · #50 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

I did not say that distinguishing between judicial laws that bind today and those that don't was an easy thing to do. I said it was a necessary thing to do. Because, until such a list is provided:

An individual may provide such a list, but he cannot speak for everyone else who holds the basic tenants of Theonomic teaching, for the simple reason that not everyone will be in full agreement.

I recognize that providing such a list might lead to disagreements, but the problem can't just be ignored. If a number of Bahnsen's followers put forth their lists the resultant debate might yield at least a core of "stipulations peculiar to Israel" upon which all are agreed. Which will be a significant first step in resolving the "Theonomy debate".

I agree with your basic point, but since all are not agreed it is easier said than done.

sastark · #51 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

On your stated premises then, I look at my NT and I see that it
1) does not directly teach the changing of any Mosaic civil stipulation, and
2) As far as I can presently see, the NT does not provide any statements from which we may conclude, as a good and necessary consequence, that a Mosaic civil stipulation or stipulations has or have been changed.

Until someone provides a list of civil stipulations shown changed in the NT era by GNC deductions from the NT, the only conclusion to which one can come is that Bahnsen's version of theonomy, in practice if not in theory, does not change any Mosaic civil stipulation.

So, if I understand you correctly, your argument runs thusly:

1. Only those Mosaic laws changed in the NT are not to be enforced today.
2. The NT does not change any of the Mosaic laws.
3. Therefore, we should not enforce any of the Mosaic laws today (ie, you reject theonomy).

What am I missing here?

timmopussycat · #52 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 01:36 PM

[quote=Backwoods Presbyterian;412827]Here is a quote from Bahnsen from his critique of M.G. Kline's review of T.I.C.E.:

Quote:

Contrary to Kline (172,174), I do not contend that the civil magistrate is to enforce all of the Mosaic laws (see Theonomy, pp. 381-382, 388, 399, 436, 493; N.B. "not every sin is a crime").

snipping the rest as not relevant to the point raised.

Notice that Bahnsen says "all of the Mosaic laws" he does not say "all of the Mosaic civil laws". The difference may be significant. I don't have the first or second edition of Theonomy on hand and I suspect that the pagination may be different in the third, for I can't find Bahnsen arguing that the magistrate must not now enforce any of the civil laws on the pages cited. When I wrote the origninal draft of what became my book I was working from the second edition where ISTR the pagination may have been identical and found that none of the seventy pages in TICE that Bahnsen mentions elswhere as proving that he did not hold the entire law inviolate referred to the civil laws.

timmopussycat · #53 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sastark

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

On your stated premises then, I look at my NT and I see that it
1) does not directly teach the changing of any Mosaic civil stipulation, and
2) As far as I can presently see, the NT does not provide any statements from which we may conclude, as a good and necessary consequence, that a Mosaic civil stipulation or stipulations has or have been changed.

Until someone provides a list of civil stipulations shown changed in the NT era by GNC deductions from the NT, the only conclusion to which one can come is that Bahnsen's version of theonomy, in practice if not in theory, does not change any Mosaic civil stipulation.

So, if I understand you correctly, your argument runs thusly:

1. Only those Mosaic laws changed in the NT are not to be enforced today.
2. The NT does not change any of the Mosaic laws.
3. Therefore, we should not enforce any of the Mosaic laws today (ie, you reject theonomy).

What am I missing here?

My argument is this:
1. The "ethical perspective of Christian Reconstruction" (popularized under the name Theonomy) says: only those Mosaic civil laws changed in the NT are not to be enforced today.
2. Observed fact: the NT does not change any of the Mosaic civil stipulations by direct statement.
3. Followers of "the ethical perspective of CR" have yet to provide a list of Mosaic civil stipulations they regard as being abrogated by GNC deductions from NT statements, which is Bahnsen's other ground for regarding a Mosaic stipulation as "amended by the Lawgiver".
4. Therefore, until followers of "the ethical perspective of CR" supply the list mentioned in point 3, "the ethical perspective of CR" must necessarily be regarded as teaching in practice what Bahnsen denies in theory, to wit: that all Mosaic civil laws apply today.

If Bahnsen's followers are really serious about convincing the rest of us of the rightness of their position, I suggest that the best thing they could do would be to supply sample lists mentioned in point 3. Until they do, they leave Bahnsen's Theonomy wide open to the charge that despite what Bahnsen says, his version of theonomy is really about instituting all Mosaic civil stipulations.

sastark · #54 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

My argument is this:
1. The "ethical perspective of Christian Reconstruction" (popularized under the name Theonomy) says: only those Mosaic civil laws changed in the NT are not to be enforced today.
2. Observed fact: the NT does not change any of the Mosaic civil stipulations by direct statement.
3. Followers of "the ethical perspective of CR" have yet to provide a list of Mosaic civil stipulations they regard as being abrogated by GNC deductions from NT statements, which is Bahnsen's other ground for regarding a Mosaic stipulation as "amended by the Lawgiver".
4. Therefore, until followers of "the ethical perspective of CR" supply the list mentioned in point 3, "the ethical perspective of CR" must necessarily be regarded as teaching in practice what Bahnsen denies in theory, to wit: that all Mosaic civil laws apply today.

If Bahnsen's followers are really serious about convincing the rest of us of the rightness of their position, I suggest that the best thing they could do would be to supply sample lists mentioned in point 3. Until they do, they leave Bahnsen's Theonomy wide open to the charge that despite what Bahnsen says, his version of theonomy is really about instituting all Mosaic civil stipulations.

It seems to me that your objection to theonomy is not theonomy itself, but the lack of a list as described in your point 3 (at least, that has been your argument thus far).

If what is holding you back from agreeing that the Mosaic law has not been superseded is the lack of a list detailing what has and what has not been changed in the NT, then isn't the safer route to agree with theonomy and continue to enforce the Mosaic laws as they are stipulated in the OT and not changed in the NT until such a list can be produced rather than say until a list is produced, I will not agree that any of the Mosaic law ought to be enforced today?

CalvinandHodges · #55 (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 02:29 PM

Hi Daniel:

I never said that Bahnsen teaches the "literal" application of the judicial laws. Please read my post carefully. Bahnsen teaches that all of the underlying principles of the Mosaic judicial laws are still binding upon governments today. The only distinction he makes is that of language and culture (please read the Bahnsen quotes I provided above carefully). That is, we use "cars" instead of "ox carts" and "pools" instead of "housetops."

I don't need to listen to what Brian Schwertly says about Calvin's use of the judicial laws - I can read them very plainly in the Institutes:

Quote:

I would have preferred to pass over this matter in utter silence if I were not aware that here many dangerously go astray. For thre are some who deny that a commonwealth is duly framed which neglects the political system of Moses, and is ruled by the common laws of nations. Let other men consider how perilous and seditious this notion is; it will be enough for me to have proved it fals and foolish, IV.XX.14ff

If opportunity serves, then I will listen to Mr. Schwertly's sermon, but time does not allow me to do so right now.

The difference between the Reformed view of Calvin, Turretin and the Westminster Confession, and the Theonomic view of Bahnsen are found in the simple term "necessity." The Reformed say that it is "not necessary" for all of the principles of the Mosaic judicial law (and their literal penal sanctions) to be implemented in society for it to be considered "Christian" or "just." Turretin (quoted above) pointed out that, in certain cultures, the Roman laws fit better than the Mosaic judicials. Calvin agrees:

Quote:

God's law forbids stealing (The 8th Command in the Decalogue). The penalties meted out to thieves in the Jewish state are to be seen in Exodus [Ex. 22:1-4] (the penal sanctions of the Mosaic judicials). The very ancient laws of other nations punished teft with double restitution; the laws which followed these distinguished between theft, manifes and not manifest. Some proceeded to bahishment, others to flogging, others finally to capital punishment (that is, for theft). False testimony(the 9th Commandment) was unished by damages similar and equal to injury among the Jews [Deut. 19:18-21] - (the Mosaic judicials) ; elsewhere, only by deep disgrace; in some nations, by hanging; in others, by the cross (death). All codes equally avenge murder with blood, but with different kinds of death. Against adulterers some nations levy severer, others lighter punishments. Yet we see how, with such diversity, all laws tend to the same end. For, together with one voice, they pronounce punishment against those crimes which God's eternal laws (the 10 Commands) has condemned, namely, murder, theft, adultery, and false witness. But they do not agree on the manner of punishment. Nor is this either necessary or expedient,Institutes, IV.XX.16ff (parenthesis mine)

The Reformed say that the 10 Commands are the standard of justice for any nation. As long as crimes against the 10 Commands are punished, then the justice of God is being showcased:

Quote:

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; but having taken the Jewish nation under his special care, patronage, and guardianship, he was pleased to be specially its legislator, and as became a wise legislator, he had special regard to it in enacting laws, Institutes, IV.XX.16.

The Reformed teach that the judicial law can be consulted with, but it is not binding and obligatory for a government to impose its principles upon society. Martin Foulner's book simply shows that there is a level of degree within the Reformed view - some hold a more stricter use of the judicials in society, and some less. Even George Gillespie (often touted as a "Theonomist" of the Bahnsen sense) wrote:

Quote:

I ask, where is that Christian state which was, or is, or ought to be, moulded according to this pattern? Must ministers have vote in parliament? Must there be civil lawyers? Must all criminal and capital judgments be according to the judi