Don't theonomists allow that the *laws* have/can change, not be applicable, expire with the nation of Israel, etc.?

Haven't, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, the more sophisticated theonomists argued that the *principles* shoudl still be opperative today?

Moral principles are different than moral facts.

For instance, the Indian peoples should accept the *facts* that people don't reincarnate into cows. Thus they shouldn't think that it is *immoral* to eat cows.

But(!), the *principle* that one shouldn't eat grandma is still a valid and binding principle.

If the *facts* were such that grandma came back as a cow, then the Hindu is right -- we *shouldn't* eat the cow. This is because of the *principle* that underwrites the moral status of the action.

So, there is no moral disagreement between us and the Hindu. We *both* agree that one shouldn't eat their grandmother. At least I hope we agree! If not, I guess that would be at least a convo for another thread (or, possibly we would have to report you to your elders:-)

The Hindu and us disagree not with the principle but with the facts of the matter.

The *laws* are what they are because, among other things, the *facts* of the day required such. Particular laws on law books are almost never principles themselves; though they rest on principles.

So with the theonomist, disagreement at the level of fact isn't enough to show that there is a basic and fundamental disagreement between the two camps. Just as disagreement between the Hinu and I is not enough to show that we disagree at the basic moral level. That is, we could both holkd the *same* ethic, yet we could differ on how it is *applied.*

It seems to me, then, that *simply* to show that you should *apply* the principles of the Bible differently isn't sufficient to undercut the theonomist.

I say the above as someone personally agnostic about the issue right now. That is, this isn't a post from a theonomist, defending theonomy. In fact, I'm so agnostic about it that I think that even some forms of Natural Law Ethics are consistent with Theonomy.

__________________
Regards,

P.M.
PCA
Suffix

Doesn't it mean that one isn't bound by the *facts* of the *historical situation* that Israel found themseleves in, and thus specified the *concrete laws,* according to moral principles, to fit that specific time and unique situation?

Thus one wouldn't be obligated put fences around roof tops. One wouldn't fail to bring charges against a baseball player for letting his bat fly off (due to improper treatment of the wood) into the crowd hitting a fan in the face all because the Bible only speaks of flying "ax heads."

Surely the *princple* behind the roof top and flying ax law are still in effect, no? Or have those been done away with?

If the *principle* has been done away with, then can we not hold others (or companies) responsible for injuring others due to not following saftey procautions? Say a car manufacturer fails to do something that results in car crashes, death, and injury. Should they be held responsible?

If so, then the *principle* given in the OT is "still binding" yet the *facts* have changed, most naturally, because the historical situation has changed.

Same caveat - this isn't a post from a theonomist.

Wouldn't it seem that they did "just say-so?"

After all, how would you explain the use of two different words used, especially if we aren't going to attribute carelessness to the framers (or, the re-framers) of the confession. For example:

Seems to me that one (the ceremonial) has been *abrogated* while the other (the judicial) has merely *expired.*

There is no "general equity" for the ceremonial, but there is for the other.

Moreover, the judicial laws referred to are the actual particular laws given to that body politic, not the principles which underwrote them.

Most of the difficulty of theonomic discussions arises because of the vague use of terms. Theonomy teaches the abiding validity of *law*. It is inconsistent to assert the abiding validity of law, and then retreat under scrutiny to a position which asserts the abiding validity of *principle*. Law is law, not principle.

As I've noted in the past, much time has been spent on defining the usus loquendi of "general equity." That is good so far as it goes; but the crucial term is "expiration." That has a technical meaning in jurisprudence which cannot in any sense be reconciled with the basic contentions of theonomy. A law is said to have expired when the conditions no longer exist for which it was enacted. The Westminster Confession of Faith states in no uncertain terms that the OT judicials have expired, which means they are no longer applicable as laws to modern nations. Theonomy, OTOH, contends that these laws are very much applicable and as laws ought to govern modern nations. Therein lies the discrepancy.

The time to abandon the old debate about theonomy is well overdue, since most of its original adherents qualified their position to such a degree that the term itself became virtually meaningless. Theonomy is a good term when used in opposition to autonomy, and should be used to distinguish the Christian belief that God's will alone determines what is good and evil from the non Christian belief that morality is relative. It is, however, an inappropriate term in the context of discussing the extent to which OT judicial laws apply to modern states. The stubborn maintenance of this one term dooms all discussions to the quagmire of mutual misunderstanding.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Check and mate. That deserves another addition to the Quotes database.

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
PCA

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

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

That may be true. But the flip side is that one can hear the principle/fact-law distinction and made mention by theonmists in audio and literature. I don't think it's fair to say that they "retreated" to the "principle" distinction. Especially when that seems to have been a part from the start (minus any careless language). Thus Bahnsen could write: "...[O]ne nowhere reads [in the Bible] about God's law that his moral stipulations share the same kind of historical variation [as the specific commands]. ... Christian ethics, the standard by which we judge all other opinions, should be that the laws moral pervisions are correct" (Bahnsen, The Theonomic Reformed Approach to Law and Gospel, in Five Views on Law and Gospel, p.109, emphasis supplied.). I am afraid, Matthew, that you are not being charitable here. People are finite, fallen, and just plain human, so I expect them to make mistakes, not be perfect, etc. If someone qualifies, amends, or makes more clear his position, you must let them do that. You can't hold them to a position that is not theirs, or is only theirs due to them not saying what they meant. The proof that this is an eminently plausible way to proceed is to get up from reading my words, go to your restroom, look in the mirror, and ask yourself if you've ever not put things as clearly as you would have liked. What you call a "retreat" I call a "qualification." This reminds me of what ole Bertie Russell once wisely quipped about how language can be employed: "I am firm. You are obstinate. He is a pig-headed fool."

And I think the qualifications I listed actually show that this isn't a critique, at all. Yes, the *laws* that he gave *that body politic* have "expired." I think Bahnsen would agree. In fact, I know he did. So I'm at a loss to see how this is meant to be a criticism of theonomy. I can see how it is if one wants to be uncharitable, but I don't think that you do. Thus you'd have to re-work your critique.

Maybe it should be abandoned. Maybe it is a false theory. As I said, I'm agnostic about it. But the debate surely shouldn't be abandoned do to the faulty criticisms applied above.

Indeed, Matthew, one could say that the debate over the Divine Command Theory of ethics, which you appeal to in your post, is well overdue. One could say that your broad brushing of non-Christians isn't helpful to our cause. All non-Christians aren't relativists. And, I am an optimist. I don't think all discussions must be doomed to misunderstanding. A good dose of contemporary analytic philosophy, the desire to see your opponent in the best light - so you can give the best critique, and the employment of the mind God has given us, should go a long way in helping resolve misunderstandings. But, as long as people debate more with their heart than head, I agree, the misunderstandings will always remain. I don't say any of this as an attack on Matthew. And, I don't say any of this as a theonomist.

One should be as charitable as the facts permit to Bahnsen and other Theonomists, but one must note that Bahnsen in particular created a couple of problems for the idea that his Theonomy distinguished between principle, fact and law.
First, his exegesis of Matt. 5:18 if correct established once and for all that no change whatsoever is legitimate until the end of the church age. Christ couched His statement in absolute terms and, contra Bahnsen, there is nothing in the immediate context that allows us to conclude that Christ here utters a general statement which He expected to admit of qualification.
Second, when Bahnsen reduces his Theonomy to axioms the distinction disappears and "the abiding validity of the law in exhaustive detail" is what remains. For example he wrote:

(Greg Bahnsen, "The Theonomic Position" in God and Politics, Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government ed. Gary Scott Smith, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. 1989,
pp. 40, 41.)


Bahnsen would also hold that although the Mosaic judicials expired in the sense of their validity for the body politic to which they were given, he also holds that all of them would remain valid by "general equity" (as he understands the term) unless amended by God for any jurisdiction today.
Non-Theonomists define general equity somewhat differently than Theonomists do.

For non-Theonomists (theonomists), ge is the abiding rules of justice (the decalogue and good and necessary reasoning from it) which determine whether or not a given Mosaic stipulation will remain valid in the differeing age from which the stipulation was given. Bahnsen would deny that general equity reasoning from the decalogue could be so used. For him the only grounds on which a law could be amended are a) explicit Scriptural statement and b) good and necessary consequence of Scriptural statements that a particular stipulation is no longer in effect.

AMEN!!! Matthew, may I add the above comments to my book? You have just said exactly what I have been trying to get some Theonomists to see for years now.

__________________
In Christ's love and service

Mr. Tim Cunningham, Dip. CS (Regent College)
Member, First Baptist Church
Vancouver, BC

------------
"The Reformation was a time when men went blind, staggering drunk because they had discovered, in the dusty basement of late medievalism, a whole cellar of 1500-year-old, 200 proof grace—a bottle after bottle of pure distillate of Scripture, one sip of which would convince anyone that God saves us single-handedly. The word of the gospel—after all these centuries of trying to lift yourself into heaven by worrying about the perfection of your own bootstraps—suddenly turned out to be a flat announcement that the saved were home-free before they started. Grace was to be drunk neat: no water, no ice, and certainly no ginger ale." – Robert Farrar Capon

Yes, please feel free to use it for God's glory.

Please go back and re-read the post again. The point is that theonomy has been so qualified by its advocates as to no longer be theonomy. If it is not judicial law as law which is applicable to modern States then the theonomist has retreated to a position which is not theoNOMIC. TheoDIDACTIC, perhaps; but not theoNOMIC. When the theonomist accepts the idea of "adaptability" to modern situations he has ceased championng the fundamental theonomic tenet that these laws are eternal and unchageable. At that point it is time to abandon the term altogether in order for the discussion to proceed to the next level. Blessings!

What about modifiying biblical law in biblical times to new situations in biblical times? For example, we all know if a man is chopping wood and the axehead flies off and kills a fellow, he can flee to refuge, etc. What if, not an axehead, but a sickle blade (or whatever they used) flew off and killed a fellow? Would the same principle still apply, or is this not biblical law whatsoever?

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

First, Christ himself made an *exception* to adultery laws. Thus it is wrong to say that he doesn't admit of qualification.

And, to be charitable, as you say you desire, one should also note that in TEC, which you site, he claims that his position doesn't rest on his exegesis on Matt. 5.

Furthermore, the corpus should be consulted. So, you need to read/listen to all he has to say on the subject, right? He makes my point in many places. I cited one. Here's another: "But then neither does theonomic ethics hold that such a theocracy is a kind of revealed prerequisite for the moral validity of the Mosaic laws" (Bahnsen, NOS, 114). Or, "[The puritans] correctly held that we are not bound today to keep these [Old Testament] judicial laws as they are worded, but only required to keep their underlying moral principles" (Bahnsen, BTS, 137-38). I have therefore refuted the notion that Bahnsen didn't employ the particular law and fact vs. underlying principle distinction. In response to the charges of "retreating" to this position, there is a ready answer: "Since the publication of TEC there have come along the way a fuller explanation and consistent refinement of the thesis, but this is usually not deemed as a fault, but a virtue" (Bahnsen, NOS, p.27).

And Bahnsen can say that even the principle which underwrites the smallest law is still valid. Therefore that principle should be applied today. It would be ridiculous to assume that Bahnsen meant that one still needs to put fences around roof tops. If you grant me that it would be ridiculous to assume that, then you tacitly grant me my premise: Bahnsen distinguished between historical law and underwriting principle.


Here is what Bahnsen takes to be GE:

"However, the confession is careful to remind us that "the general equity"
of this illustrations - that is, the underlying moral principle - is still "required" of us" (emphasis supplied). (Note that this justifies my specific law/principle distinction I've made.)

Wasn't Sherman Isbell's article touted here?

Isbell states, "The Confession uses the term general equity to identify the element in the judicial laws which is of enduring obligation. The meaning of this term is evident from the chapter in which it appears. There is an equity or righteousness which on four other occasions in this chapter is said to still oblige, amidst all the changes in redemptive history. That equity is the moral law,"

Now, it is true that Bahnsen doesn't take the Decalogue to *exhaust* the moral law of God as expressed in certain principles either explicitly or implicitly instantiated in the Bible, he claims that they *summarize* them. Is he wrong? "The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments" (LC 98). And John Murray, "[T]he summary does not obliterate or abrogate the expansion of which it is a summary" (Principles of Conduct, p. 192).

So, there is a *basic* agreement, even if some *factual* disagreement is present. This is not sufficient to show that there are two *different* ethics. Just as in my illustration above about eating cows. When we disagree with the Hindu, we *are not* disagreeing in our *ethic.* We *both* agree that it is immoral to eat grandma. So, the disagreement here isn't enough to show a difference in ethic.


Right. And the problem here is that you sound like a theonomist. You are saying that man needs to look to God's revelation to determine the moral precepts men are obliged to follow today. If you say that *the Bible* tells you that X law isn't applicable today, then you agree with Bahnsen.

Indeed, didn't you quote Bahnsen above thusly:

In all of its minute detail, (every jot and tittle) the law of God down to its least significant provision should be reckoned to have an abiding validity- until and unless the Lawgiver reveals otherwise. (Greg Bahnsen, "The Theonomic Position" in God and Politics, Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government ed. Gary Scott Smith, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. 1989,
pp. 40, 41.)

?

Thus Bahnsen would *agree* with you that if the Bible tells us that X law isn't applicable today, then it isn't applicable today.

So I'd say that, at the very least, a critique of a position that is consistent with that position, isn't much of a critique. I take this to be a plausible assumption, for obvious reasons.


If you do, just remember that Bahnsen covered this charge of "qualifying" in NOS (among other places) pgs. 19-29.

Also, if you want to make demonstrably false claims that all non-Christian ethics are relativistic, then you can include the quote. I don't think that will bode well for your book, though. Usually, stating falsehoods isn't good for establishing reliability or intellectual honesty.

I'd also make sure you really want to affirm a DCT theory of ethics. This is implied in the post

Peace.

Matthew,

With all due respect, I did read the post. I suggest re-reading mine. You are being pedantic in your interpretation of Bahnsen. Basically, your critique looks like this, to me: "I have a certain conception of theonomy, and I have to put it in that box for my argument to work, so I *will* put it in that box, and then my arguments work."

I'd also suggest familiarizing yourself with certain qualification and definitions of terms that ethicists employ.

Anyway, if my post didn't help you or function to allow you look at the situation differently, then there's not much I can say by way of response. I'm sure both of us telling the other to re-read the other's post isn't the best use of our, or the other's, time.

Perhaps other readers/lurkers found either one of our posts helpful, though.

Matthew,

Are you saying that if Bahnsen had not defined his system as Theonomy but instead Theodidacy, then all would in fact be well? Should not the argument be over the content of the position defended vs. the particular name that it was called?

Also since Theonomists have "accepted" the idea of adaptability to modern situations from the beginning, I am missing the point of the critique.

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC