The Sovereignty of God and Civil Law

timmopussycat · #1 (**permalink**) 08-28-2007, 04:35 PM

From another thread:

Daniel, Theonomy is not the only position that consistently holds that God and His law-word is sovereign in civil law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

No, Theonomy is the only position that consistently holds that God is the only Lawgiver to the state. Other positions - by rejecting Biblical penal sanctions - deny this. All other views deny that God ALONE has the sovereign right to determine what constitutes crime and what constitutes a just penal sanction. Others may tip their hats to the sovereignty of God in civil affairs, but they deny it by their rejection of Biblical law.

One of the things I have found in discussing these matters in the last 7 years is that Theonomists almost invariably misunderstand the historic reformed position at both epistemological and historico-theological levels and attack straw men versions of it. The classical Reformed view does not reject Mosaic civil stipulations: while it recognizes that they have expired as the law code for Israel, a nation state in national covenant with God, it does not draw the false conclusion that those laws are irrelevant for today. Rather, it specifically recognizes that any Mosaic civil stipulation may or may not be valid depending on whether or not general equity will apply in that case. And although he didn't like the way WCF 19:4 expressed the matter, no less a Theonomist than Rushdoony has recognized the issue as legitimate. For Rush has observed that God's:

Quote:

…covenant people are doubly God’s property: first by virtue of His creation; and second, by virtue of his redemption. For this reason, sin is more personal and more than man-centered. It is a theological offense.

Rousas J. Rushdoony, Law and Society, p 28.

From this premise, Rushdoony wonders whether the nature of some offenses changes depending on the type of relationship with God that underlies the situation.

Quote:

Does this mean that in the modern world, Sabbath-breaking is punishable by death or should be? The answer is, very clearly and emphatically no. The modern state is not in covenant with God but is an enemy of God. Sabbath-breaking has no specific penalty of death just as there is no death penalty for adultery (Hos. 4:14), because the nations are not in covenant with God and are therefore under sentence of death. Because of this general and central indictment, the lesser offenses have no place. Covenant offences are one thing, enemy offenses another.

Rousas J. Rushdoony, Law and Society, p. 685.

Notice that Rushdoony recognizes that there are some questions about the applicablility of Mosaic judicials that are resolved at the hermeneutical level. And notice too, that by parity of reasoning Rush's argument (if correct) invalidates and decriminalizes all Mosaic crimes that are offenses against the first table and nullifies all Mosaic penalties for the same. So the real division is not between a simon pure Theonomy that advocates all biblical laws unless amended, but to what extent must hermeneutical considerations be allowed to influence results.

Quote:

And you should not call a quotation a misquotation unless you go on to demonstrate that it is one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

The point of that statement was that the issue is NOT a historical one. Now is not the place to determine whether or not something is a quote or mis-quote as their are other threads in which this may be done.

Given that almost all major Reformers, a majority of the Puritans, and the WCF clearly utilize a different hermeneutic from that of Bahnsen, as documented in How Firm a Foundation, the issue is both epsitemological and historico-theological.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

May I recommend Tim that you devote more of your time to refuting the disastrous ethics of humanism, rather than waging war on those who wish to uphold the holy laws of God. This would be a much more profitable use of your time. If you don't agree with me, then I have to respect you as a brother in the Lord, but things need to be kept in proportion: there are bigger battles to fight.

I agree that there are other, and bigger battles to fight. But those battles have other people fighting them; nobody else AFAIK is challenging Bahnsen's disciples on the internet when they present his view as if it is the Reformed view. If Bahnsen's Theonomy is an error it is more serious than you realize. Here are the consequences:

Although the difference between the reasoning processes of the two groups seems irrelevant when both advocate the adoption of given Mosaic civil laws or punishments, significant problems arise when the different approaches arrive at different conclusions.

Erring in this matter impacts Christian political activity. Lacking an agreement on the correct hermeneutic, Reformed and Evangelical Christians working in politics will have to fight a two-front war; while trying to persuade their electorates to take a righteous position on second table commands, they will have to deny that they have a hidden agenda to institute Mosaic first table crimes and penalties while Theonomists proclaim the contrary, a confusion that will hinder effective Christian political witness.

The theological consequences of choosing the wrong hermeneutic are far more serious. If applying all unamended Mosaic civil laws remains our New Covenant duty, certain consequences inevitably follow. As Bahnsen correctly noted;

Quote:

God's law is weighty with relevance for sanctification. The breaking of the very least stipulation of the law generates God's displeasure ... taking an erroneous teaching position with respect to the details of the law (e.g. that the exhaustive details of God's law no longer bind Christians or this period of history) does the same....The antecedent referent of 'these' in verse 19 is clearly the 'jot and tittle' mentioned in verse 18. Verse 19 teaches… that the smallest part of the law of God is a canon for determining personal standing in the kingdom of heaven.

Yet if Theonomy errs, its advocates are adding an unbiblical element to their teaching of sanctification thus hindering Christian growth in grace. In addition, by misrepresenting God's New Covenant requirements to unbelievers, they will have launched an unnecessary debate between Christians and created a considerable amount of unnecessary opposition to Christian evangelism. Finally they will be liable to God's rebuke (Prov. 30:6) for adding to His word the thesis that obeying and promoting all non-amended OT civil laws is part of Christians’ New Covenant duty when God has not so demanded it.

If Bahnsen has put forward an unbiblical hermeneutic based on a misreading of both Scripture and history that has led to another division among God's people, shouldn't somebody make the effort to stop it?

Daniel Ritchie · #2 (**permalink**) 10-25-2007, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Erring in this matter impacts Christian political activity. Lacking an agreement on the correct hermeneutic, Reformed and Evangelical Christians working in politics will have to fight a two-front war; while trying to persuade their electorates to take a righteous position on second table commands, they will have to deny that they have a hidden agenda to institute Mosaic first table crimes and penalties while Theonomists proclaim the contrary, a confusion that will hinder effective Christian political witness.

Despite claiming to uphold the Reformed view of the judical law, Tim clearly shows his opposition to the Reformers and Puritans as they believed that the civil government was to uphold the first table of the law. Moreover, the framers of the Westminster Standards had to swear a national covenant in order to enter the Assembly.

Quote:

Given that almost all major Reformers, a majority of the Puritans, and the WCF clearly utilize a different hermeneutic from that of Bahnsen, as documented in How Firm a Foundation, the issue is both epsitemological and historico-theological.

This is utter nonsense as the Westminster Confession utilizes Matt. 5:17 as a proof-text for the general equity of the judicial law being binding today. Tim is reading the Reformers and Puritans through post-enlightenment spectacles.

Quote:

Finally they will be liable to God's rebuke (Prov. 30:6) for adding to His word the thesis that obeying and promoting all non-amended OT civil laws is part of Christians’ New Covenant duty when God has not so demanded it.

This totally flies in the face of Christ's words in Matthew 5:17-19, and it is a Dispensational hermenutic as it means God has to say something twice before it can be considered as binding.

Puritan Sailor · #3 (**permalink**) 10-25-2007, 10:27 AM

Daniel, no matter how you try to argue it, the Reformers and Puritans were not Theonomists. They will not fit the mold. Acknowledge the innovation of Rushdoony and Bahnsen and deal with it.

ChristianTrader · #4 (**permalink**) 10-25-2007, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

Daniel, no matter how you try to argue it, the Reformers and Puritans were not Theonomists. They will not fit the mold. Acknowledge the innovation of Rushdoony and Bahnsen and deal with it.

I concur with your sentiment. I however think that the easiest way to get Theonomists to agree that the Reformers and Puritans were not of the same mind (lots of overlap but not the same), is to have various opposition groups, step up to the mike and say, "We reject the Reformed view on the authority and responsibility of the civil magistrate. Through our exegesis of history and etc,, we believe that the Reformed view leads to unnecessary wars and various other negative consequences."

CT

timmopussycat · #5 (**permalink**) 10-25-2007, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Erring in this matter impacts Christian political activity. Lacking an agreement on the correct hermeneutic, Reformed and Evangelical Christians working in politics will have to fight a two-front war; while trying to persuade their electorates to take a righteous position on second table commands, they will have to deny that they have a hidden agenda to institute Mosaic first table crimes and penalties while Theonomists proclaim the contrary, a confusion that will hinder effective Christian political witness.

Despite claiming to uphold the Reformed view of the judical law, Tim clearly shows his opposition to the Reformers and Puritans as they believed that the civil government was to uphold the first table of the law. Moreover, the framers of the Westminster Standards had to swear a national covenant in order to enter the Assembly.

Tim-Although the Divines had to swear national covenant before they entered the assembly and although many of them shared with Bahnsen the belief that particular Mosaic judicials remained required today, they did not derive their conclusions by the same means Bahnsen did. The difference in heremeneutic became more critical when Rushdoony pointed out a problem needing to be addressed in a fuller way. Does the differeing covenant status of nations today affect the equity of particular punishments? Finally, my comment about contemporary reformed rejecting first table punishments is not necessarily my own view but an objective description of the majority reformed view here in North America today. I am not necessarily against Mosaic civil punishments for 1st table offenses, provided that the hermeneutic used to justify them to the electorate demonstrates that they remain equitable under the present circumstances. Bahnsen's hermenutic fails this test, based as it is on unjustifiale mistranslations of key words without consderation of all relevant alternatives, misrepresentations of commentators opinions that make it look if the commentator supports Bahnsen's view when the commmentator denies Bahnsen's conclusion, and sundry points at which Bahnsen unwittingly refutes himself.

Quote:

Given that almost all major Reformers, a majority of the Puritans, and the WCF clearly utilize a different hermeneutic from that of Bahnsen, as documented in How Firm a Foundation, the issue is both epsitemological and historico-theological.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

[This is utter nonsense as the Westminster Confession utilizes Matt. 5:17 as a proof-text for the general equity of the judicial law being binding today. Tim is reading the Reformers and Puritans through post-enlightenment spectacles.

Indeed the WCF does so cite Matt. 5:17. The problem is, as HFAF demonstrates, that Bahnsen and the Divines differ slightly but significantly in how they believe general equity should be applied. Bahnsen does not believe that general equity can be used to overturn an case of applying Mosaic punishments to Mosaic crimes, but it is clear that for Calvin and Divines such as Rutherford, Gillespie and Anthony Burgess (who drafted 19:4): not all Mosaic laws remain valid today.

Quote:

Finally they will be liable to God's rebuke (Prov. 30:6) for adding to His word the thesis that obeying and promoting all non-amended OT civil laws is part of Christians’ New Covenant duty when God has not so demanded it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

This totally flies in the face of Christ's words in Matthew 5:17-19, and it is a Dispensational hermenutic as it means God has to say something twice before it can be considered as binding.

Tim-Not so. For the Sinai covenant was given to Israel not the nations. Unless of course you believe that a repetant Ninevah, after Jonah's visit could have claimed as of right the blessings of the covenant without successfully petitioning God to covenant with them.

It is worth noting that Bahnsen and other Theonomists such as DeWar and North clearly recognized that the Sinai civil stipulations did not automatically pass into the new covenant. In his view they were brought into the New Covenant by Christ in Matt. 5:17-19 and other passages. As HFAF demonstrates, however, none of the passages cited in support of that premise necessarily require it.

Puritan Sailor · #6 (**permalink**) 10-25-2007, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

Daniel, no matter how you try to argue it, the Reformers and Puritans were not Theonomists. They will not fit the mold. Acknowledge the innovation of Rushdoony and Bahnsen and deal with it.

I concur with your sentiment. I however think that the easiest way to get Theonomists to agree that the Reformers and Puritans were not of the same mind (lots of overlap but not the same), is to have various opposition groups, step up to the mike and say, "We reject the Reformed view on the authority and responsibility of the civil magistrate. Through our exegesis of history and etc,, we believe that the Reformed view leads to unnecessary wars and various other negative consequences."

CT

I would agree with the sentiments of theonomists, there is only one standard of justice. But hermenuetically, it can't be the Isrealite theocracy and mosaic covenant. That was for Israel and expired with Israel. It was never intended to be perpetual, but point forward to the new covenant. Only the moral law is binding upon all men. We can't go back to types and shadows. Christ has come. But I've argued this elsewhere on the Board and need not get into again now. I just wanted to clarify that you don't have to be a Theonomist in order to believe the civil magistrate must enforce the entire 10 commandments (though we would certainly disagree as to how that may be enforced), and the Theonomy as we know it today is clearly an innovation, it's new.

ChristianTrader · #7 (**permalink**) 10-25-2007, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

Daniel, no matter how you try to argue it, the Reformers and Puritans were not Theonomists. They will not fit the mold. Acknowledge the innovation of Rushdoony and Bahnsen and deal with it.

I concur with your sentiment. I however think that the easiest way to get Theonomists to agree that the Reformers and Puritans were not of the same mind (lots of overlap but not the same), is to have various opposition groups, step up to the mike and say, "We reject the Reformed view on the authority and responsibility of the civil magistrate. Through our exegesis of history and etc,, we believe that the Reformed view leads to unnecessary wars and various other negative consequences."

CT

I would agree with the sentiments of theonomists, there is only one standard of justice. But hermenuetically, it can't be the Isrealite theocracy and mosaic covenant. That was for Israel and expired with Israel. It was never intended to be perpetual, but point forward to the new covenant. Only the moral law is binding upon all men. We can't go back to types and shadows. Christ has come. But I've argued this elsewhere on the Board and need not get into again now. I just wanted to clarify that you don't have to be a Theonomist in order to believe the civil magistrate must enforce the entire 10 commandments (though we would certainly disagree as to how that may be enforced), and the Theonomy as we know it today is clearly an innovation, it's new.

Just give me a national covenant and an established church and I'll just go away. I do not ask for much.

CT

Blueridge Baptist · #8 (**permalink**) 10-25-2007, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

I concur with your sentiment. I however think that the easiest way to get Theonomists to agree that the Reformers and Puritans were not of the same mind (lots of overlap but not the same), is to have various opposition groups, step up to the mike and say, "We reject the Reformed view on the authority and responsibility of the civil magistrate. Through our exegesis of history and etc,, we believe that the Reformed view leads to unnecessary wars and various other negative consequences."

CT

I would agree with the sentiments of theonomists, there is only one standard of justice. But hermenuetically, it can't be the Isrealite theocracy and mosaic covenant. That was for Israel and expired with Israel. It was never intended to be perpetual, but point forward to the new covenant. Only the moral law is binding upon all men. We can't go back to types and shadows. Christ has come. But I've argued this elsewhere on the Board and need not get into again now. I just wanted to clarify that you don't have to be a Theonomist in order to believe the civil magistrate must enforce the entire 10 commandments (though we would certainly disagree as to how that may be enforced), and the Theonomy as we know it today is clearly an innovation, it's new.

Just give me a national covenant and an established church and I'll just go away. I do not ask for much.

CT

I'm with you there brother, as long as I'm not forced to be a paedobaptist!

Bladestunner316 · #9 (**permalink**) 10-25-2007, 04:22 PM

to CT!!

Daniel Ritchie · #10 (**permalink**) 10-25-2007, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

Daniel, no matter how you try to argue it, the Reformers and Puritans were not Theonomists. They will not fit the mold. Acknowledge the innovation of Rushdoony and Bahnsen and deal with it.

I concur with your sentiment. I however think that the easiest way to get Theonomists to agree that the Reformers and Puritans were not of the same mind (lots of overlap but not the same), is to have various opposition groups, step up to the mike and say, "We reject the Reformed view on the authority and responsibility of the civil magistrate. Through our exegesis of history and etc,, we believe that the Reformed view leads to unnecessary wars and various other negative consequences."

CT

I would agree with the sentiments of theonomists, there is only one standard of justice. But hermenuetically, it can't be the Isrealite theocracy and mosaic covenant. That was for Israel and expired with Israel. It was never intended to be perpetual, but point forward to the new covenant. Only the moral law is binding upon all men. We can't go back to types and shadows. Christ has come. But I've argued this elsewhere on the Board and need not get into again now. I just wanted to clarify that you don't have to be a Theonomist in order to believe the civil magistrate must enforce the entire 10 commandments (though we would certainly disagree as to how that may be enforced), and the Theonomy as we know it today is clearly an innovation, it's new.

This confuses the judicial law with the ceremonial law, the civil law had nothing to do with types and shadows, that was the ceremonial law. The civil magistrate is not to enforce the Ten Commandments per se, but only breaches of the Ten Commandments that constitute crimes.

Daniel Ritchie · #11 (**permalink**) 10-25-2007, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Finally, my comment about contemporary reformed rejecting first table punishments is not necessarily my own view but an objective description of the majority reformed view here in North America today.

That is because you Americans were influenced by the enlightenment to amend the Westminster Confession to suit the spirit of the age; of course Tim as a Baptist you don't agree with the WCF, so there is little point criticising Bahnsen for (allegedly) disagreeing with a document you yourself reject. You keep going on about the historical evidence against Theonomy, however it does not seem to occur to you that I have already considered this (and documented it) myself and do not agree with your conclusions, so repeating the same arguments over and over again is not going to work.

Daniel Ritchie · #12 (**permalink**) 10-25-2007, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

Daniel, no matter how you try to argue it, the Reformers and Puritans were not Theonomists. They will not fit the mold. Acknowledge the innovation of Rushdoony and Bahnsen and deal with it.

Even if it was an innovation, it would not move me in the slightest. The fact of the matter is however, that the only people who would accept the Reformers and Puritans into office today would be the Theonomists. I freely admit that the Reformers and Puritans did not agree with modern Theonomists as to the extent which the state needs to be limited (so in that sense they differ) however it is abundantly clear that the New England Puritans implemented the Mosaic judicials, and if they were alive today they would be denied ordination by most modern Reformed churches for their views on the abiding validity of Biblical civil law.

Ivanhoe · #13 (**permalink**) 10-25-2007, 05:39 PM

how does the law about not having sex with a woman in her period point to Christ? How does a law about a husband pleasuring his new wife on their honeymoon point to Christ? Remember, all laws in OT point to Christ.

Ivanhoe · #14 (**permalink**) 10-25-2007, 05:42 PM

Can Intrusion Ethics maintain Moral Absolutes?
Rebuilding the Ruins: Can Intrusion Ethics Maintain Moral Absolutes?

PuritanCovenanter · #15 (**permalink**) 10-25-2007, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

I would agree with the sentiments of theonomists, there is only one standard of justice. But hermenuetically, it can't be the Isrealite theocracy and mosaic covenant. That was for Israel and expired with Israel. It was never intended to be perpetual, but point forward to the new covenant. Only the moral law is binding upon all men. We can't go back to types and shadows. Christ has come. But I've argued this elsewhere on the Board and need not get into again now. I just wanted to clarify that you don't have to be a Theonomist in order to believe the civil magistrate must enforce the entire 10 commandments (though we would certainly disagree as to how that may be enforced), and the Theonomy as we know it today is clearly an innovation, it's new.

Just give me a national covenant and an established church and I'll just go away. I do not ask for much.

CT

I'm with you there brother, as long as I'm not forced to be a paedobaptist!

Or an Episcopal. I am still growing fonder of the Congregational Pluralistic Elder ruled Church. I am not denying the importance Government has played in the church. I am fearful of what Government rule has done to the Church.

PuritanCovenanter · #16 (**permalink**) 10-25-2007, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Can Intrusion Ethics maintain Moral Absolutes?
Rebuilding the Ruins: Can Intrusion Ethics Maintain Moral Absolutes?

This comes from the blog Jacob posted above.

Quote:

Checkmate
~1. Intrusion ethics denies that God's revealed law is applicable to all people. In fact, it most certainly is not. You often hear Klineans remark, "Israel was a type and the law doesn't apply to those outside the covenant with whom it was made (that is Irons' specific argument).
~2. Intrusion ethics by its very definition denies premise 2. If ethics (justice) intrudes, then it most specifically does not apply.
~3. Premise 3 is a corollary to premise 1. If it doesn't apply to all peoples, then it doesn't apply to all places.

It appears then, given the above premises of Intrusion Ethics, why there is no reason to call God's law culturally relative. And if God's law is culturally relative, and if God's law is a reflection of his character, then God is a relativist!

But what about the natural moral law written on the heart? On one level I agree with it. But is it different in substance than the revealed moral law? If it is, and it differs with its commands at the same time in history (which would necessarily be the case since on the Klinean premise 3 it is conceivable that two different legitimate commands would be given at the same time), then we have a logical contradiction. But if both these laws are given by God, and there is a contradiction, then we have contradictory norms within the Godhead. But it is impossible to have contradictory norms within the Godhead. Therefore, God's natural moral law does not contradict the Mosaic law.

UUHHHMMMMM