Objections to the Abiding Validity of the Judicial Law - Page 6

ChristianTrader · #**201** (**permalink**) 01-09-2008, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Tim,
Concerning Idolatry, it is well within the rights of the civil magistrate to suppress it as far as it goes to the peace of the society. For example, you could not allow temples to be built to the false God of Islam etc. and expect it to have no effect on the running of a Christian society. Up to and including the death penalty should be no problem, for a crime that is clearly considered to be worse than Murder (Soul Destruction). One is to fear the second death way more than the first one.

CT

Missed this first time. This justification for this Mosaic punishment is not Theonomic in Bahnsen's sense but is reasoning from general equity in the Westminster sense.

So you were saying that you would agree with idolatry being punished with up to the death penalty on Westminsterian grounds but not what you believe to be Theonomic grounds?

CT

timmopussycat · #**202** (**permalink**) 01-09-2008, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Tim,
Concerning Idolatry, it is well within the rights of the civil magistrate to suppress it as far as it goes to the peace of the society. For example, you could not allow temples to be built to the false God of Islam etc. and expect it to have no effect on the running of a Christian society. Up to and including the death penalty should be no problem, for a crime that is clearly considered to be worse than Murder (Soul Destruction). One is to fear the second death way more than the first one.

CT

Missed this first time. This justification for this Mosaic punishment is not Theonomic in Bahnsen's sense but is reasoning from general equity in the Westminster sense.

So you were saying that you would agree with idolatry being punished with up to the death penalty on Westminsterian grounds but not what you believe to be Theonomic grounds?

CT

My point is that in arguing this way you and any Bahnsenian who follows you have abandoned what is distinctive in Bahnsen's position for the Calvin/Westminster approach.

Now Bahnsen himself might argue this way, but were I discussing matters with him, I would point out that he would also have an additional reason to hold such a view: his misexegesis of Matt. 5:17,18 meant that he was bound for good or ill to the premise that the only laws ruled inapplicable by general equity were those where we had implicit or explict Scriptural warrant to alter them and no such warrant applies in this case. So, I would conclude, the ultimate controlling reason for holding the continuity of the death penalty for adultery is that the Lawgiver has not explicitly or implicitly amended it and he would have to say yes, or sacrifice his exegesis of Matt. 5:17,18, something he was not willing to do.

Now I might agree with idolatry being punished with death on the above C/W reasoning if two possible objections to it were satisfactorily refuted. (I won't start that hare here except to say I think a biblical death penalty brought about under biblical safeguards is more just than the humanistic alternatives. Moreover, I have not seen such refutations yet.) But while I could have a profitable debate on the matter with another Calvin/Westminster type, I would not have one with Bahnsen were he present: since neither objection can show implicit or explicit Divine amendment of the death penalty statute scriptures, they are, on his Theonomic premises, inadmissable.

Ivanhoe · #**203** (**permalink**) 01-09-2008, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Missed this first time. This justification for this Mosaic punishment is not Theonomic in Bahnsen's sense but is reasoning from general equity in the Westminster sense.

So you were saying that you would agree with idolatry being punished with up to the death penalty on Westminsterian grounds but not what you believe to be Theonomic grounds?

CT

My point is that in arguing this way you and any Bahnsenian who follows you have abandoned what is distinctive in Bahnsen's position for the Calvin/Westminster approach.

Now Bahnsen himself might argue this way, but were I discussing matters with him, I would point out that he would also have an additional reason to hold such a view: his misexegesis of Matt. 5:17,18 meant that he was bound for good or ill to the premise that the only laws ruled inapplicable by general equity were those where we had implicit or explict Scriptural warrant to alter them and no such warrant applies in this case. So, I would conclude, the ultimate controlling reason for holding the continuity of the death penalty for adultery is that the Lawgiver has not explicitly or implicitly amended it and he would have to say yes, or sacrifice his exegesis of Matt. 5:17,18, something he was not willing to do.

Now I might agree with idolatry being punished with death on the above C/W reasoning if two possible objections to it were satisfactorily refuted. (I won't start that hare here except to say I think a biblical death penalty brought about under biblical safeguards is more just than the humanistic alternatives. Moreover, I have not seen such refutations yet.) But while I could have a profitable debate on the matter with another Calvin/Westminster type, I would not have one with Bahnsen were he present: since neither objection can show implicit or explicit Divine amendment of the death penalty statute scriptures, they are, on his Theonomic premises, inadmissable.

So your answer is "yes" to Hermonta's question?

Daniel Ritchie · #**204** (**permalink**) 01-09-2008, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

So you were saying that you would agree with idolatry being punished with up to the death penalty on Westminsterian grounds but not what you believe to be Theonomic grounds?

CT

My point is that in arguing this way you and any Bahnsenian who follows you have abandoned what is distinctive in Bahnsen's position for the Calvin/Westminster approach.

Now Bahnsen himself might argue this way, but were I discussing matters with him, I would point out that he would also have an additional reason to hold such a view: his misexegesis of Matt. 5:17,18 meant that he was bound for good or ill to the premise that the only laws ruled inapplicable by general equity were those where we had implicit or explict Scriptural warrant to alter them and no such warrant applies in this case. So, I would conclude, the ultimate controlling reason for holding the continuity of the death penalty for adultery is that the Lawgiver has not explicitly or implicitly amended it and he would have to say yes, or sacrifice his exegesis of Matt. 5:17,18, something he was not willing to do.

Now I might agree with idolatry being punished with death on the above C/W reasoning if two possible objections to it were satisfactorily refuted. (I won't start that hare here except to say I think a biblical death penalty brought about under biblical safeguards is more just than the humanistic alternatives. Moreover, I have not seen such refutations yet.) But while I could have a profitable debate on the matter with another Calvin/Westminster type, I would not have one with Bahnsen were he present: since neither objection can show implicit or explicit Divine amendment of the death penalty statute scriptures, they are, on his Theonomic premises, inadmissable.

So your answer is "yes" to Hermonta's question?

It is such a dreadful idea isn't it, that only God has the right to amend his holy law?

Daniel Ritchie · #**205** (**permalink**) 01-09-2008, 07:12 PM

Oh look I have found a Westminster Divine that agrees with this "terrible" hermenuetic. His name is George Gillespie, perhaps the most learned theologian of the Covenanted Reformation:

Quote:

Once God did record His will for punishing those sins by such and such punishments. He who will hold that the Christian magistrate is not bound to inflict such punishments for such sins, is bound to prove that those former laws of God are abolished, and show some Scripture for it

Daniel Ritchie · #**206** (**permalink**) 01-09-2008, 07:49 PM

For the man who says that Biblical penology can only be applied if we decide that the penalty has "general equity" in it amounts to nothing more than Arminianism in Christian Ethics (not theological Arminianism). For him the judicial laws are not laws but only "suggestions" or "good advice" and only if men will accept them of their free will.

The reason we know that the penal sanctions are of general equity is because they were a model to the Gentile nations (Deut. 4:5-8), and since they have not been abrogated then they must be continually valid. Any other approach allows man to sovereignly pick and choose which parts of the Bible he is going to obey.

timmopussycat · #**207** (**permalink**) 01-09-2008, 08:35 PM

[quote=Daniel Ritchie;343139]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

My point is that in arguing this way you and any Bahnsenian who follows you have abandoned what is distinctive in Bahnsen's position for the Calvin/Westminster approach.

Now Bahnsen himself might argue this way, but were I discussing matters with him, I would point out that he would also have an additional reason to hold such a view: his misexegesis of Matt. 5:17,18 meant that he was bound for good or ill to the premise that the only laws ruled inapplicable by general equity were those where we had implicit or explict Scriptural warrant to alter them and no such warrant applies in this case. So, I would conclude, the ultimate controlling reason for holding the continuity of the death penalty for adultery is that the Lawgiver has not explicitly or implicitly amended it and he would have to say yes, or sacrifice his exegesis of Matt. 5:17,18, something he was not willing to do.

Now I might agree with idolatry being punished with death on the above C/W reasoning if two possible objections to it were satisfactorily refuted. (I won't start that hare here except to say I think a biblical death penalty brought about under biblical safeguards is more just than the humanistic alternatives. Moreover, I have not seen such refutations yet.) But while I could have a profitable debate on the matter with another Calvin/Westminster type, I would not have one with Bahnsen were he present: since neither objection can show implicit or explicit Divine amendment of the death penalty statute scriptures, they are, on his Theonomic premises, inadmissable.

So your answer is "yes" to Hermonta's question?

No, my answer is maybe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

It is such a dreadful idea isn't it, that only God has the right to amend his holy law?

No it isn't, but I want to be certain that God wants particular stipulations of it extended beyond the context in which they were originally given and that justifications for such extensions are exegetically and theologically sound. Bahnsen's is neither.
And if you don't want me "insulting" Bahsnen's memory, don't engage in ad hominem attacks like that.

Amazing Grace · #**208** (**permalink**) 01-09-2008, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

My point is that in arguing this way you and any Bahnsenian who follows you have abandoned what is distinctive in Bahnsen's position for the Calvin/Westminster approach.

Now Bahnsen himself might argue this way, but were I discussing matters with him, I would point out that he would also have an additional reason to hold such a view: his misexegesis of Matt. 5:17,18 meant that he was bound for good or ill to the premise that the only laws ruled inapplicable by general equity were those where we had implicit or explict Scriptural warrant to alter them and no such warrant applies in this case. So, I would conclude, the ultimate controlling reason for holding the continuity of the death penalty for adultery is that the Lawgiver has not explicitly or implicitly amended it and he would have to say yes, or sacrifice his exegesis of Matt. 5:17,18, something he was not willing to do.

Now I might agree with idolatry being punished with death on the above C/W reasoning if two possible objections to it were satisfactorily refuted. (I won't start that hare here except to say I think a biblical death penalty brought about under biblical safeguards is more just than the humanistic alternatives. Moreover, I have not seen such refutations yet.) But while I could have a profitable debate on the matter with another Calvin/Westminster type, I would not have one with Bahnsen were he present: since neither objection can show implicit or explicit Divine amendment of the death penalty statute scriptures, they are, on his Theonomic premises, inadmissable.

So your answer is "yes" to Hermonta's question?

It is such a dreadful idea isn't it, that only God has the right to amend his holy law?

Besides the fact that He did, I need some questions answered that may further my understanding of Law.

1) What is the difference between Moral, Civil, judicial, ceremonial Law and case law ,are there 'subcategories' within each of these divisions within the theonomic understanding.

2) Why does Rabbi Greg and his disciples use a twofold distinction of moral and ceremonial, and 'invent' or 'postulate' all non ceremonial law with the moral law? Would this not allow one to 'postulate' that since the moral law summed up in the two stones enduring validity into the NC, bring with it the non ceremonial law since the 2 have now been blended together?

3) What is the "mosaic Civil Legislation" as talked about by them? And how can this Law division be combined with the moral law?

I have asked a local Jew once again this question. There is absolutely no Hebrew understanding of ceremonial law vs civil Law in Torah. To them to call one Moral and the others not Moral would make them immoral.

4) Lastly, 19;4 "He [God] gave to them [the people of Israel] also, as a body politick, sundry judicial laws which expired together with the state of that people [Israel], not obliging any other [nation-state] now, further than the general equity thereof may require."

How can anyone with any amount of common sense give the force of this statement to hinge on 'general equity?' The force is most assuredly on expired, and not obliging. To Banhsen et al, the words general equity are there to almost soften and discount expired and not obliging.

5) The NT has no division between moral and civil law. I see old vs new, and nothing else.

6) Does bahnsen believe that it is the duty to keep the civil law as part of the moral law(10 words) that he speaks of since his exegesis of Matt 5;17 makes 'fulfilled' mean 'confirmed?'

Amazing Grace · #**209** (**permalink**) 01-09-2008, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

For the man who says that Biblical penology can only be applied if we decide that the penalty has "general equity" in it amounts to nothing more than Arminianism in Christian Ethics (not theological Arminianism). For him the judicial laws are not laws but only "suggestions" or "good advice" and only if men will accept them of their free will.

The reason we know that the penal sanctions are of general equity is because they were a model to the Gentile nations (Deut. 4:5-8), and since they have not been abrogated then they must be continually valid. Any other approach allows man to sovereignly pick and choose which parts of the Bible he is going to obey.

WHo is this "we" you speak of Daniel? This last stament is very untrue and inflammatory. This unhealthy appetite for Law you have and how you wantr to legislate it on NC believers is troublesome to scripture.

timmopussycat · #**210** (**permalink**) 01-09-2008, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Oh look I have found a Westminster Divine that agrees with this "terrible" hermenuetic. His name is George Gillespie, perhaps the most learned theologian of the Covenanted Reformation:

Quote:

Once God did record His will for punishing those sins by such and such punishments. He who will hold that the Christian magistrate is not bound to inflict such punishments for such sins, is bound to prove that those former laws of God are abolished, and show some Scripture for it

Oh Daniel, if you'd only taken up my offer to read "How Firm a Foundation" you would have discovered that Gillespie is at best inconsistent with Theonomy and at worst not a Theonomist at all. For he allows a magistrate to "forbear" punishment when it is due for reasons unsupported by Scripture and with no implicit Scriptural justification either. For Gillespie, with neither explicit nor implicit support for doing so, grants to the magistrate "that kind of toleration whereby the Magistrate when it is in the power of his hand to punish and extirpate, yet having to do with such of whom there is good hope either of reducing them by convincing their judgments, or of uniting them to the Church by a safe accommodation of differences, he grants them a supersedeas [forbearance]; or though there be no such ground of hope concerning them, yet while he might crush them with the foot of power, in Christian piety and moderation, he forbears so far as may not be destructive to the peace and right government of the Church, using his coercive power with such a mixture of mercy as creates no mischief to the rest of the Church.
I speak not only of bearing with those who are weak in faith (Rom. 15:1), but of sparing even those who have perverted the faith, so far as the word of God and rules of Christian moderation would have severity tempered with mercy: that is (as has been said) so far as is not destructive to the Church's peace, nor shakes the foundations of the established form of church government, and no further…" (Gillespie, George "Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty," London, 1644, now online at Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty, by George Gillespie. 30 August 2004)

Since one's hermeneutics controlls one's outcomes, how did the Theonomic hermeneutic supposedly held by Gillespie permit him to reach such a contra-Theonomic outcome?
If you deny that the outcome is Theonomic please square it with Bahnsen's thesis 4.

Amazing Grace · #**211** (**permalink**) 01-09-2008, 08:51 PM

WHat is the HFAF i hear you speaking of Timcat?

timmopussycat · #**212** (**permalink**) 01-10-2008, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

WHat is the HFAF i hear you speaking of Timcat?

My book How Firm A Foundation now in pre-publication review.

Barnpreacher · #**213** (**permalink**) 01-10-2008, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

For the man who says that Biblical penology can only be applied if we decide that the penalty has "general equity" in it amounts to nothing more than Arminianism in Christian Ethics (not theological Arminianism). For him the judicial laws are not laws but only "suggestions" or "good advice" and only if men will accept them of their free will.

The reason we know that the penal sanctions are of general equity is because they were a model to the Gentile nations (Deut. 4:5-8), and since they have not been abrogated then they must be continually valid. Any other approach allows man to sovereignly pick and choose which parts of the Bible he is going to obey.

WHo is this "we" you speak of Daniel? This last stament is very untrue and inflammatory. This unhealthy appetite for Law you have and how you wantr to legislate it on NC believers is troublesome to scripture.

Brother,

Do you have an answer as to why the law of God would be the standard by which the heathen nations were judged in the OT, but this is no longer the case under the NC?

Leviticus 18:24-27 is along the same lines of what Daniel is saying as well.

PuritanCovenanter · #**214** (**permalink**) 01-10-2008, 01:09 AM

Okay... I am closing the thread for a breather.

Well, the Mods have determined that this thread is done.

On to other things.