I hate when these arguments get so fractured and emotional, but I'll try to keep up for one more post. In response to the above, VH just supplied a quote by Gouge describing exactly what I argued.
Idolatry was not just a civil affair in Israel, nor are matters regarding public worship, which the priest oversaw. If you messed with the ceremonial, you got civil penalties. If you messed with civil, you got ceremonial penalties. We can distinguish them but can't divorce them.

For believers, the final judgment did take place. Christ suffered our final judgment on the cross. Hence, the penalties are fulfilled in him. We have a new administration of the covenant of grace, one better than Moses. If you are going to argue that the old covenant penalties continue, then you must also argue that Christ's fulfillment was only ceremonial and not judicial.

That will severely hamper your evangelism if you kill them first. Perhaps there was a little more going on in history with the Reformers and Puritans??? I've articulated nothing more than what has been historical understood in the Confession, one covenant of grace, different administrations/dispensations.

As I noted above, if Christ suffered the final judgment for sinners on the cross, you would have to admit that the type has been fulfilled by the antitype correct? You would have to agree that the administration of the servant Moses has been replaced by the administration of the Son, Jesus Christ, correct? The author of the Hebrews places the old covenant penal sanctions in the same category as the old covenant blood of bulls and goats. Both have been fulfilled by the new covenant, both a greater sacrifice and a greater judgment.

If you reject this basic teaching of Hebrews, then look what you have done to the cross. What did Christ accomplish on the cross? Is my verdict of justification grounded in a complete propitiation by Christ? Did Christ suffer my final sentence of wrath for me? Was his death only ceremonial, or was it judicial too? That, my brother, is a crucial question for you to ponder very seriously. You are on the verge on the Federal Vision if Christ's work was not the final judicial verdict for those who believe. Don't let your noble and righteous quest for social justice short change the cross. Until you wrestle with this question, there really is nothing further to talk about in this debate.

Tell me brother, who administered the Mosaic sanctions? Prophets, Preists, and Kings, all which were replaced by Christ. So yes, it would be immoral for you to adminster those old covenant penal sanctions because you do not have that God given authority. The American magistrate was not present at Sinai.

Pedagogical doesn't mean, not applicable. It means it functions as a guide. It gives us illustrations of how the moral law works in social situations, and so provides a magistrate with some guidance about how to rule justly. That is how I understand general equity.

Here, brother is where you mistake. The moral law was given in creation, in the garden, then later inscribed in stone.

I never said you didn't read the NT. Your exagerations are not helpful to this discussion. I asked you to show me one instance where the apostles instructed magistrates to go to the judicial laws. Just because Paul said magistrates have authority to punish evil doers doesn't mean that they must use the judicial laws. Again, all I asked you to do is show me one instance where they advocated using the old covenant in that way. They had plenty of interactions with magistrates. The provide several exhortations about magistrates. They talk about the old covenant in several places. Show me one place where they interpet the old covenant penalties the way Theonomists do.

You still hav to ask the more fundamental question. Figure out first, how your hermenuetic will not compromise the cross of Christ, then we can go from there. I never said there is no universal standard of justice to turn to. Quite the contrary. I have only argued that you can't ground your social ethics in the expired administration of the Mosaic covenant. My whole contention in this debate is to put our shared concern for political/social ethics upon a right hermenuetical approach to Scripture. You have not yet dealt with the text of Hebrews, nor considered the implications of your hermenuetic to what Christ accomplished on the cross for his people. Until you get the covenant of grace right, you aren't ready to tackle your common grace political questions.

I'll have to take a break for a few days. Too much to do. I hope you will take the time to sit back and think about this before you respond.

__________________
Patrick
OPC
MDiv, RTS Jackson.

"He does well, that discourses of Christ; but he does infinitely better, that by experimental knowledge, feeds and lives on Christ." Thomas Brooks.

I am no longer a theonomist in the full Bahnsenian sense of the word (my ethic is sort of a revamped Aquinas "graced nature" view of John Milbank). However, this is a textbook example of the argument from silence fallacy. It doesn't mean your overall position is wrong. It just means that this argument is bad and you need to use other ones.

Using this method of argument, I can prove that St Paul did not believe in the virgin birth.

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

All this talk of theonomy MUST be grounded in Scripture, which means that if a Biblical example of a change of an OT law into something else in the NT due to general equity can be shown, then this would guide our discussion as to how God views the law.

Just such an example is found in I COrinthians 5:1-13:

In the OT this couple would have received the death penalty. In the NT, Paul tells the church to excommunicate them.


This then should be our model of general equity. The death penalty in Paul's example has, in the context of the church, turned into excommunication. When theonomist types start talking about killing homos (and then responding..well, I think they need to be killed, as I have heard them respond) we can give them Paul's concrete example in I COr. to inform their opinions.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

Please read this fine link at how Paul viewed the OT law:

Third*Millennium*Ministries



Here's is the most pertinent selection:

Both theonomists and other reformed scholars believe that the moral law continues into the present age and the ceremonial law has been abrogated by the coming of Christ, since He has fulfilled those aspects of the law in His priestly ministry. The point of discussion is over how the judicial law should be applied to the present age. It is important to realize that the Mosaic law "was accommodated to the people of God in their particular redemptive-historical setting" (Pratt 1990, 345). The Jews lived in the land of Israel and many of the penal sanctions (as well as the moral and ceremonial laws) were contextualized to that situation. For instance, "Prohibitions against stealing in the Old Testament included respect for a fellow Israelite's permanent land inheritance (1 Kings 21:1-19)" (Pratt 1990, 345). However, the Christian has no inheritance in the land of Israel. Our inheritance is the New Heavens and New Earth (Hebrews 4:8-11). The coming of Christ and the consequent disenfranchisement of the Kingdom of God so affected history that the proper application of the Mosaic law within the church must account for these situational changes.

John Frame has noted that the New Testament church "fulfills the Old Testament theocracy" (Barker 1990, 95). In applying the Old Testament laws to the church, Paul did not apply them exactly as they were applied in the Old Testament. For instance, In 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, Paul addresses a situation where a man is living with his father's wife. According to Old Testament law, the man and the woman should receive capital punishment (Leviticus 20:10). However, this was not recommended by Paul. Rather, the proper punishment of this crime for Paul is excommunication (vv. 2, 13). Furthermore, Paul's statement in verse 13 is a quotation of a formula found in Mosaic penal sanctions (Deut. 17:7, 12; 12:19; 19:21, 21:21; 22:21, 24: 24:7).

Dennis Johnson has noted that "in the Deuteronomy contexts this formula, whenever it appears, refers to the execution of those deeds 'worthy of death': idolatry, contempt for judges, false witness, persistent rebellion towards parents, adultery, and kidnapping" (Barker 1990, 181). These crimes were to be punished by purging the offender from the covenant community through his execution. Johnson continues, "Paul applies the same terminology to the new covenant community's judging/purging act of excommunication-- a judgment that is both more severe (since it is 'handing this man over to Satan,' an anticipation of the final judgment), and more gracious (since it envisions a saving outcome to the temporal exercise of church discipline, which may bring about repentance that will lead to rescue from eternal judgment)" (Barker 1990, 181-182). Therefore, it may be safely said that the proper application of those capital offenses of the Mosaic law are properly applied in the church today as excommunication. 3. Conclusion In 1 Timothy 1:8 Paul claims that "we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully." Theonomists take this to mean that the law should be applied largely as it was in the Old Testament, without using it as a means of salvation and taking into account the explicit statements in the New Testament where certain laws have been abrogated. However, it appears that Paul's statements concerning the end of the law are somewhat more inclusive than this. The law, in its ministry of condemnation (2 Cor. 3:9), has been abolished and has replaced with the "ministry of righteousness" by the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:9-11). The law has been written on our hearts by the Holy Spirit. As we walk in the Spirit, we fulfill the law. This does not mean that the Mosaic law no longer applies to the Christian as a rule of life. Rather, it means that the law can no longer condemn us (Rom. 8:1) because Christ has satisfied the demands of the law in His life and paid for our sins on the cross, and He has sent us the Holy Spirit, by whom we are empowered to fulfill the law (Rom 8:2-4).

Furthermore, Theonomy fails to take into account the situational changes brought about by the coming of Christ in the application of the Mosaic law to the church. The Mosaic law was accommodated to the Israelites living in the theocracy of Israel. The church is the fulfillment of the Old Testament theocracy. Yet as a result of the coming of Christ, the Kingdom of God has been disenfranchised to include both Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:14-16). This situational change in the Kingdom of God necessitates a change in the way the law is applied to lives of believers.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

Disanalogous. Paul was talking to the church, not the civil magistrate. Using your logic we should "just forgive rapists and serial killers."

It does not logically follow that a change in one law on one level necessarily means a change in all laws on all level. Again, as I have pointed earlier, the non-theonomists (and I have my own bones with theonomy) continues to make logical leaps.

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

Strictly speaking, that's how John Frame views the law, not Paul. Anyway, I have no bones with Frame. He is a self-admitted 80% Theonomist, anti natural law theologian, and publically advocates the dominance of Scripture in the Civil sphere. So against theonomy you are advocating a form of theonomy. I am cool with that.

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

Spear Dane:

Your assertion is given without evidence. I could just as easily respond with "Well....that's what YOU say! "



But, yes, you are correct, all reformed Christians believe in some form of little t theonomy. Whether it is 80% or whatever I am not sure who gets to determine these percentages.

I would call the type of theonomy that advocates the killing of "infidels" to be 200% theonomy, and thus gross error which advocates murder. I like Paul's use of the law just fine and will stick to him.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

It's not the crux of my argument, only a supporting point. And as you can see in my quote, I broadened the appeal to more than just Paul. Any apostolic witness will do (thus negating the virgin birth fallacy). If Theonomy is so central an ethical assumption of the apostles, surely it would be reflected in at least one place in all their numerous ethical exhorations to the churches and their expositions of the old covenant.

__________________
Patrick
OPC
MDiv, RTS Jackson.

"He does well, that discourses of Christ; but he does infinitely better, that by experimental knowledge, feeds and lives on Christ." Thomas Brooks.

If infant baptism were so central to the apostolic teaching, surely they would have been more clear.

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

Theonomists do not advocate that. You failed to make the distinction between inward unbelief and public idolatry. No one advocates prosecuting unbelief. Spend an afternoon reading up on what theonomists believe before you make comments like that.

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

Logic is the casualty of this debate. I am done. I have read Aquinas and find him more robust than either side (Klinean or whatever).

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

I wish someone would touch on I Corinthians and how Paul applies the law.

This is our clear example of how we should apply the law.



Or, we can follow Jesus' attitude on the law:

In the Gospels, Luke 12, a man approached Jesus wanting His help in a case over a disputed inheritance (i.e. the civil law). Jesus basically says, "That's not my concern..."


Many theonomists, however, see the whole of the Bible through "law lenses." Jesus and the Apostles, however, were concerned with the church and only applied OT laws to inside the church. Death equalled excommunication...that is Paul's example on how to apply general equity.

Again, I assert strongly that one of the most awful sins in history is the persecution and punishment by the reformed of those who have disagreed with them.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

So, would these reformed guys be theonomists? If so, then theonomy has been the reformed position and you have undercut the last 90 posts! If these guys are not theonomists then your argument has no relevance to the position because:

1) Theonomists don't persecute just anyone who disagrees with them.
2) Theonomy doesn't teach what you maintain.

Again, I will say this politely: you need to drop the straw men and actually read up on what theonomists teach. At least I have taken the time (and I am not a theonomist like they are) to see what they actually do say.

Or we can write our own horror stories on what we fear they may say just because that is sensationalism and would likely poison the well in our favor. That's more fun.

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

1.) Usually, Reformed people were on the receiving end of it all. We had no Inquisition, Star Chamber, Jesuits, or such a thing, The Huguenots asked for toleration and were butchered (or run off to America) by the French. The Dutch Calvinists tolerated Catholics and were eventually overpowered b y them.

2.) Puritan and Covenanter Presbyterians were not theonomists. They wanted an established church. In Scotland, the Free Kirk still does, as do the Reformed Presbyterians outside North America, That's not the same thing. Virtually all theonomists reject church establishments, which has never made sense to me.

__________________
Chris Stamper
Park Cities PCA
(Dallas, TX)

I thought you were reading Aquinas?


You fail to deal with Paul here in I Cor. 5. What do you see Paul teaching here?


I have quoted a summary of what I believe. What exactly do you believe? You claim that no-one understands the theonomists or Bahnsen? Do you? Give me you position paper.


I can quote many of the historical abuses towards doctrinal deviants done by Presbyterians in the name of preserving a Godly society. Some of this involves torture and death. Some of the victims were Baptists and Quakers.

Killing in the name of God is always atrocious. Do you really want me to begin quoting these abuses?


A more useful approach woudl be for you to state what you beleive theonomy is, instead of firing off 1 line rebuttals such as "Read all the pertinent material and then get back to me..." or "you say so.."


Again, here is how Paul applies the OT law:


John Frame has noted that the New Testament church "fulfills the Old Testament theocracy" (Barker 1990, 95). In applying the Old Testament laws to the church, Paul did not apply them exactly as they were applied in the Old Testament. For instance, In 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, Paul addresses a situation where a man is living with his father's wife. According to Old Testament law, the man and the woman should receive capital punishment (Leviticus 20:10). However, this was not recommended by Paul. Rather, the proper punishment of this crime for Paul is excommunication (vv. 2, 13). Furthermore, Paul's statement in verse 13 is a quotation of a formula found in Mosaic penal sanctions (Deut. 17:7, 12; 12:19; 19:21, 21:21; 22:21, 24: 24:7).

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

Blasphemy: An indignity offered to God by words or writing; reproachful, contemptuous or irreverent words uttered impiously against Jehovah.

Idolatry: The worship of idols, images, or any thing made by hands, or which is not God. (Webster 1828)

If blasphemy and idolatry were crimes, all sorts of groups would be enemies of the state: Roman Catholics, EOs, Mormons, JWs, televangelists, heavy metal rock bands, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, observant Jews, New Agers, Unitarians, Marxists, Masons, Rosicrucians, most college fraternities, orthodox Darwinists, The Psychic Friends Network, Scientology, D&D players, faith healers, acupuncturists, trekkies, fanboys, you get the idea.

__________________
Chris Stamper
Park Cities PCA
(Dallas, TX)

1.) Moses thought the ethnic cleansing of the Canaanites was a good idea. The destruction of Susa the citadel in Esther led to the establishment of Purum. There's also the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, none of which are represented at the United Nations today.

2.) Since the magistrate carries a sword to punish criminals, all capital punishment is "killing in the name of God."

I think you want to say that the church ought to promote universal religious toleration.

__________________
Chris Stamper
Park Cities PCA
(Dallas, TX)

Really? Milbank's view is essentially Anglo-Catholic socialism behind a wall of postmodernist verbiage. Naturally, he does not affirm Biblical authority. The doctrine of the "gift" denies our basic ideas of liberty, capital, private property, vocation, stewardship and thrift.

This "graced nature" stuff seems to contradict what we know about the fall, that nature is radically corrupted by original sin. For example, bears think you are food. Southern California bursts into flames every year at t