It means, among other things, that we don't need to establish cities of refuge.

__________________
Larry Bray
Elder - Reformed Presbyterian Church of Boothwyn, PCA
Boothwyn, PA - http://www.rpcb.org/
Free Online Reformed Seminary - http://www.tnars.net
-----------------------------------------------------
“The Christian must not be of such a complying nature as to cut the coat of his profession according to the fashion of the times…" - William Gurnall

Have you listened to the whole series?

You say he is a Theonomist. I have always thought that too - especially when his old page says he was a Theonomist & Post-Mil etc.

Yet, in this same series the thread is about, specifically Schwertley's part 5, starting in second 24 he says,

Later on, Schwertley goes further, during minutes 26 thru 28, and calls out a member (and others) in the PRC (the denomination I am a part of). He is commenting on Schaff's History of the Christian Church Volume 8 where Schaff is describing Calvin's view which Schwertley says he agrees with. After reading this portion, Schwertley says:

__________________
Chris Mangum
Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte
student, GPTS
.357 Mangum

He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.
~ II Samuel 23:3b

I don't have this book so could you give the readers digest version of how he handles this?

__________________
~Wayne Wylie~
Member, Mid Cities Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Ruling Elder - Inactive
http://www.mcopc.org
Bedford, TX

Job 28:28 - And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

So the 'general equity' that is allowed refers to judicial laws and that which is 'not obliging now' refers to the ceremonial laws? If that were the case, why didn't the Divines just say so? If this is what their words mean they seem to be unnecessarily vague.

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/

Maybe he changed his position between part 1 and 5. Seriously, It makes you wonder why he would post that he is a Theonomist on his website and then deny Theonomy in a sermon.

I dont know of anyone who holds to Natural Law Antinomianism in the PRC. Thats a hefty charge to be giving out.

__________________
Joe
Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte
SC

He has about 300 pages showing that the Reformers, Puritans, and early Americans believed in covenanting with God. I meant to get to it last night. I will try again tonight. He doesn't really deal with the theology of it, leaving the readers to draw their conclusions. However, he does show it was standard practice.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

Does the controversy over whether the WCF allows for theonomy the reason that Morecraft is not a part of the PCA or the OPC? He subscribes to the WCF and is a strong theonomist. (At least from the sermons I have listened to) Is his view of theonomy more than the mainline Presby denoms can handle?

Morecraft required his deacons/elders to be theonomists, among other things. I think he went too far on that one. But yes, Morecraft is more than most mainline presbies can handle.

If true there doesn't seem to be anything about this on their website. All it says is that elders and deacons must subscribe to the WCF.

So, my question is, do theonomists (like Morecraft) believe that the WCF demands a theonomic interpretation? Or do they simply argue that a theonomic interpretation is allowed?

BTW, I love listening to Morecraft preach.

Morecraft probably believes it demands it. I think it merely allows it. Whatever it does, it does not allow modern pluralistic notions of general equity to be read back into it. It also does not allow dispensational notions (often seen in the Reformed world) to be read back into it.

The cities of refuge are not ceremonial laws, they are civil/judicial laws.

Other laws, like putting a fence on your roof, are not literally in force, but the intent of the application is still in force. So that instead of putting a fence around our roof, we follow the same intent of application by putting a fence around our pool.

Dear KMK,

You asked:

One of the keys of interpreting matters such as this is to learn the history and circumstances in which they were written and attempt to understand them in the cultural context they came to light.

As such the medieval social consensus was a Christian consensus, the Reformation was not working toward a humanistic secular State. I'm sure you understand that, as it is self evident, but it is important to state it. If this is interpreted to mean a "non-binding general equity," which is how it is interpreted by many, then on what basis was King Charles I deposed and put to death just a few years later? They certainly did make it obligatory unto him!

Since then, we have nearly 300 years of autonomous humanistic thinking that we have to deal with, that are present in our presuppositions whether we know it or not because of the cultural context in which we live. We must keep in mind the vision of the Magisterial Reformation as bringing to unity all of life under Christ the King, wherein every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father, as Scripture prophecies.

I believe these statements must be understood consistent with the expansive scope of the Covenant as an international law order pursuant to the Great Commission. (Matthew 28:18-20)

We are sent forth unto all the nations to conquer the heart of men, not the State, by means of the Gospel, not the law; yet the law is true, and perfect and holy and provides us with the principles of eternal Justice to teach men how to obey God. If God's law has no sanctions then God has no law, as all law is negative proscribing behavior and assigning a sanction for its violation, in so doing it prescribes the opposite behavior; not belief. Otherwise the blessing and cursings of the Covenant are no longer valid as well, as those who argue for an estoppel by deed must concede.

Hence, the general equity of the law being advanced by means of the Gospel is an equitable estoppel (not obliging under [other body politics]) of the penal sanctions until a body politic willing receives the public confession of faith of God's Law. (Exodus 20:2) An equitable estoppel is an estoppel in pais, or by conduct, not by law. That is to say that Christ is not imposing His Kingdom by force of law, but by Grace through preaching of the Gospel. His conduct is an estoppel in pais of the penal sanctions and are not imposed upon men unwilling to accept them, but adopted by men who have accepted Christ as King, as the law of their King, once He conquers the heart by the Holy Ghost.

Those that argue "not obliging under any now" means that the New Testament is an estoppel by deed must necessarily become antinomian. Is "further than the general equity thereof my require," a fuzzy principle whereby we can't know what is Just or what is not Just, or is it circumstantial and conditional upon the redeeming work of Christ? I believe the latter because Scripture teaches us that God doesn't change and that Christ is the same today, yesterday and forever.

Consider Biblical Law for a moment, the center of social life is the family. God proscribes behavior that is treason against the family and provides sanctions to that degree. In humanistic law orders the center of social life is the State and the State proscribes behavior that is treason against the State and provides sanctions to that degree. While men interpret Biblical Law as being unconscionable with death penalties for that which strikes at the heart of the family, Biblical Law doesn't teach treason against the State.

The intent of the law unto Israel, and unto us, is that man would find his life in the Triune God, not the body politic of either Church or State, but that both would provide man the means to live towards those ends, providing truth in both the ministry of Grace and Justice.

The Scripture requires that we carry forth our personal profession and work toward it's establishment as public confession teaching the nations to obey whatsoever God has commanded. The key word is teaching, not imposing, otherwise we are left to live dialectical lives advancing our faith as nothing more than moralism but never being able to live in terms of it to fulfill our chief end.

Cordially,

Thomas

__________________
Thomas Weddle
Member, Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church
Evansville, Indiana

As will I... but it was God, not Noah, who put the difference between clean and
unclean (which he did BEFORE the flood).

Nevertheless, when the distinction between clean and unclean was made isn't relevant - whether or not it's a pre-Mosaic distinction, the clean/unclean separation was made for the purpose of blood sacrifice
- which is completed - and thus as a law it is fulfilled in full. Furthermore, the distinction was explicitly
disposed of by God by revelation to Peter - so enjoy your shrimp & bacon & your cheeseburgers.

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://semperubi.rtrc.net

"Many men, after a long conversion, see more of the workings of sin in their hearts than ever they did before or at their first conversion. Now, such men have not an increase of sin, but an increase of illumination and light" (Christopher Love)


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Ken -

I'm confused about your remarks above. I don't see Larry saying that ceremonial laws alone are under the
'not obliging now' phrase. Simply put, the 'general equity' article intends that the judicial system of Israel
contains general principles which are clearly to be seen in the judicial laws laid down - and these we are
obligated to uphold in our laws. As Larry said, this means for one that we do not need to establish cities
of refuge. Neither is stoning the only permissible form of capital punishment. Neither are we required to
construct barriers on the edges of our roofs so that people don't hurt themselves (but therein is a principle
of one's liability for injury done to someone else through negligent care of our property) Another principle
respecting 'general equity' that the Law teaches (and should be returned to our laws) is the principle of
restitution.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the revision, with all due respect this is utter nonsense. Downright Clintonesque with the spinning in this post. One need not engage with Romanist apologists to see jesuitry in action. No wonder most FVers came from the ranks of theonomists with this kind of reasoning and revisionism.

__________________
Chris
Member at Grace Community Baptist Church, Mandeville, LA

Beware of a religion without holdfasts. But if I get a grip upon a doctrine they call me a bigot. Let them do so. Bigotry is a hateful thing, and yet that which is now abused as bigotry is a great virtue, and greatly needed in these frivolous times. I have been inclined lately to start a new denomination, and call it "the Church of the Bigoted." Spurgeon