Objections to the Abiding Validity of the Judicial Law

Daniel Ritchie · #1 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 05:00 PM

Brian Schwertley has just given a lecture in defence of Biblical civil law:

SermonAudio.com - Objections to Judicial Law

Pergamum · #2 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 06:08 PM

WCF XIX: IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

Some folks really like to stretch that general equity phrase.

Ivanhoe · #3 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

WCF XIX: IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

Some folks really like to stretch that general equity phrase.

Ok, what does general equity mean, then? And you tell us the answer, not some website which you have "ctrl c + ctrl v". The ball is in your court, with all due respect. At least Ken Gentry (The Standard Bearer) gave an exegetical, historical analysis of the Confession to provide a theonomic answer to it. Critique him if he's wrong but he must be given credit, along with Schwertely and others, for going back to the Confession and seeing what it says. It appears that modern Reformed people read their own 21st century, pluralistic understanding of civil law back into the theocratic puritanism of the 17th century.

Daniel Ritchie · #4 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

WCF XIX: IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

Some folks really like to stretch that general equity phrase.

Pegamum

Again, you need to be more careful and less dogmatic in your assertions. Whatever WCF 19:4 means precisely (I believe it was a compromise statement which allows you to be a Theonomist, but accommodates other viewpoints), it is abundantly clear that the Westminster Divines were a million miles away from your own political philosophy. You want to have it both ways: on the one hand, you complain that historic Calvinists believed in Christendom and persecuted idolaters, but on the other hand, you turn round and try to use the very same people in order to support your view that Biblical civil law is no longer relevant, yet the reason historic Calvinists "persecuted" idolaters was because they believed in the abiding validity of Biblical civil law.

Please read the following works:

Martin A. Foulner, Theonomy and the Westminster Confession

James B. Jordan, Calvinism and "The Judicial Law of Moses"

Kenneth Gentry, "Theonomy and Confession" in The Standard Bearer

John Calvin's Sermons on Deuteronomy and his Commentaries

George Gillespie's Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty

Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, John Gill and Thomas Scott's respective commentaries on the whole Bible in relation to civil law.

My forthcoming book A Conquered Kingdom: Biblical Civil Government, which contains 75-100 pages of Theonomic quotations from the Reformers, Puritans, Covenanters and later Calvinistic theologians (they may not all have used the precise same methodology as modern Theonomists, but the similarity of their conclusions are striking).

NaphtaliPress · #5 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 08:30 PM

I could not find the Gentry online but is his contribution to the Bahnsen Festschrift the same as the review of Foulner's booklet, found here:
http://web.archive.org/web/200303111...v/gentry.shtml ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

WCF XIX: IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

Some folks really like to stretch that general equity phrase.

Ok, what does general equity mean, then? And you tell us the answer, not some website which you have "ctrl c + ctrl v". The ball is in your court, with all due respect. At least Ken Gentry (The Standard Bearer) gave an exegetical, historical analysis of the Confession to provide a theonomic answer to it. Critique him if he's wrong but he must be given credit, along with Schwertely and others, for going back to the Confession and seeing what it says. It appears that modern Reformed people read their own 21st century, pluralistic understanding of civil law back into the theocratic puritanism of the 17th century.

Daniel Ritchie · #6 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 08:32 PM

No Chris, its a much larger article. You will have to fork out in order to get that one

; this might bankrupt Naphtali Press

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

I could not find the Gentry online but is his contribution to the Bahnsen Festschrift the same as the review of Foulner's booklet, found here:
http://web.archive.org/web/200303111...v/gentry.shtml ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

WCF XIX: IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

Some folks really like to stretch that general equity phrase.

Ok, what does general equity mean, then? And you tell us the answer, not some website which you have "ctrl c + ctrl v". The ball is in your court, with all due respect. At least Ken Gentry (The Standard Bearer) gave an exegetical, historical analysis of the Confession to provide a theonomic answer to it. Critique him if he's wrong but he must be given credit, along with Schwertely and others, for going back to the Confession and seeing what it says. It appears that modern Reformed people read their own 21st century, pluralistic understanding of civil law back into the theocratic puritanism of the 17th century.

larryjf · #7 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 09:30 PM

Here is Dr. Gentry's article called "Theonomic Ethics and the Westminster Confession"

There is alot of good stuff in the article.

Daniel Ritchie · #8 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larryjf

Here is Dr. Gentry's article called "Theonomic Ethics and the Westminster Confession"

There is alot of good stuff in the article.

Yes that article is particularly good for showing how the word "equity" was used in the Authorized Version. Needless to say it refers to justice, not church discipline as Pergamum's historical revisionism would have us believe.

NaphtaliPress · #9 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 09:47 PM

It has been posted more than once over the years, but I didn't see in a search of PB that it ever got any response when it was cited. Has anyone on the Gentry side of things dealt with Sherman Isbell's article on general equity?
General Equity: Part I

Daniel Ritchie · #10 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

It has been posted more than once over the years, but I didn't see in a search of PB that it ever got any response when it was cited. Has anyone on the Gentry side of things dealt with Sherman Isbell's article on general equity?
General Equity: Part I

I think Brian Schwertley answers him in this lecture:

SermonAudio.com - Abiding Validity of the Law

That is also valuable for highlighting the weaknesses of those in the Theonomy movement in areas like worship etc. And thus is a good all round exhortation for Theonomist and non-Theonomist alike.

My aim is to see Liturgical Theonomists (Exclusive Psalm-singers), become Civil Theonomists, and vice-versa; thus I am a cross-bread between a Scottish Presbyterian and an American Reconstructionist.

NaphtaliPress · #11 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 10:06 PM

Any more certain source?

Daniel Ritchie · #12 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Any more certain source?

Sorry, don't know of one. Though the more recent "Theonomy and Confession" article by Ken Gentry probably deals with similar stuff.

NaphtaliPress · #13 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 10:10 PM

Do you recall the argument generally he makes (and what time is it there; shouldn't you be in bed?)

Daniel Ritchie · #14 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Do you recall the argument generally he makes (and what time is it there; shouldn't you be in bed?)

I think he concentrates on Ligon Duncan's 3-fold division of the law argument, and what the term equity meant, among other things.

Also, if you check his website, it may be possible to purchase this article on its own without having to by The Standard Bearer.

In the UK it is currently 3:15 am - I should be in bed, but insomnia is keeping me up.

NaphtaliPress · #15 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 10:21 PM

Sorry you are awake still; I have had a few bad nights the last several days but nothing like all out insomnia.

I mysteriously obtained the Gentry article tonight (

); I searched it and he does not even mention Sherman Isbell. I would like to see a head to head on the two arguments.
I'm off to bed now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Do you recall the argument generally he makes (and what time is it there; shouldn't you be in bed?)

I think he concentrates on Ligon Duncan's 3-fold division of the law argument, and what the term equity meant, among other things.

Also, if you check his website, it may be possible to purchase this article on its own without having to by The Standard Bearer.

In the UK it is currently 3:15 am - I should be in bed, but insomnia is keeping me up.

larryjf · #16 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

...I am a cross-bread between a Scottish Presbyterian and an American Reconstructionist.

Cross-breading is out of accord with Theonomy - Deut 22:9,11

Ivanhoe · #17 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

In the UK it is currently 3:15 am - I should be in bed, but insomnia is keeping me up.

Psalm 3: I laid me down and slept. I awoke, for the LORD sustained me.

LAYMAN JOE · #18 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 10:28 PM

Daniel,
Do you belive Mr. Schwertley is a Theonomist ?

Daniel Ritchie · #19 (**permalink**) 12-17-2007, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAYMAN JOE

Daniel,
Do you belive Mr. Schwertley is a Theonomist ?

He is a Theonomist, but is unhappy with things in the Theonomy movement. I think he goes a bit far in his criticism of the movement (the same things could be said of Protestantism, Presbyterianism, and Calvinism).