Rich, That's correct. When discussing "common" morality with an unbeliever we should be able to give an account of what is good without having recourse to biblical authority. If, however, it becomes a discussion as to ultimate authority and worldviews then we must insist that it is right because God says it is right -- at which point we direct them to holy writ.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

That sounds good to me. I like the boldfaced part.

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

Good stuff.

__________________
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 is true, but, the mosaic code was not made with all creatures, only Israel. Gen. 9 was a global covenant provision.

__________________
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.

Genesis 9 only provides the death penalty for murder. That's not very clear--hold the natural law argument at the moment. By Genesis 9 reasoning, how shall we handle rape, kidnapping, not voting for Bush 2004, etc.?

The moral law written on the heart. Gen. 9 institutes the magistrate's sword within the context of the command to "be fruitful and multiple" (note vs. 1 and 7). The provision, though specifically given for murder, has application to what ever would hinder obedience to the God-given command to "be fruitful and multiply... " as well as crimes defacing the image of God in man. The covenant is not made in a moral vacuum. The people knew in general what God required of them and God held them accountable for their sin (i.e the flood).

__________________
Anne Severson
Wife of Patrick Severson
Member of Hope Presbyterian Church (OPC) Grayslake, IL
Associate Member of St. Paul Presbyterian Church (PCA) Jackson, MS
Currently living in Clinton, MS

Oops, sorry this is me not my wife. Didn't realize she was signed in...

I should probably qualify my position a bit. I am not arguing that every law should transfer. I am saying that there is much wisdom in much of the biblical laws. Consider the laws on restitution. In our modern secular society, the victim pays twice. Once when he is stolen from, and a second time when he has to support the thief in our prison systems.

I was about to compliment your wife on such a detailed response!

Agreed. Though I do think restitution could be derived by implication from the 8th commandment. But what should the restitution be in a modern society? Or in a society without money (i.e. barter sytem)? Though the Mosaic codes teach the idea of restitution, I'm not so sure they can give us the rule or proportion in cultures outside OT Israel.

The bible says twofold and fourfold. So I think it could work with either barter of modern economics. Instead of "goats," we would substitute "lawnmowers," or cars, or whatever.

If someone robbed you of a value worth 10,000 dollars, he would have to repay you--which would probably mean working as an indentured servant--anywhere from 20K to 40K.

Give me the indentured servitude system and I can solve most of the economic problems. This would simultaneously get rid of both unemployment, prison crimes, and reduce many other crimes.

Let's put ourselves in the criminals' shoes. If you stole 1,000 dollars from someone, what do you think would be a more "fair" punishment: going to prison for 5 years where you run the risk of being gang-raped and learn how to be a better criminal, or to work off double what you stole?

[quote=Spear Dane;289512]Tim-Can you give me an exact reference for this lecture (I couldn't find it at CMF) or cite his remark.

Tim-If the death penalty is assigned for a given crime and no lesser punishment is assigned to that crime then what warrant do we have to change it? Bahnsen seems to argue that unless we have explicit or implicit warrant in the NT to change an OT stipulation that stipulation must be left in place today. I don't see anything in the Bible that allows us to mitigate the punishment given for adulterers caught in the act. Num 5:12-29 leaves punishment up to God: since no human eye observed the offence, no human could carry out the punishment.

Tim-Actually the reformed faith derives a clear normative ethic from the Scriptures, the way in which it does so however differs from Bahnsen's Theonomy. If you want to institute a biblical civil law, simply demonstrate by good and necessary consequence that its general equity remains just under the relationships obtaining in New Covenant era states.
The reason Bahnsen failed to derive a clear normative ethic from Scripture is that he thought he found in Scripture something that Scripture does not say.

Tim- There are two questions here; which Mosaic stipulations are applicable today and how do we justify our answer to the first question. Even though G&R take positions on the contemporary applicability of some civil laws that are questioned by some reformed today (the first question), it is a misnomer to say that they are closer to Bahnsen than to all other contemporary streams in Reformed thought on the second question since G&R demonstrate by contradicting Bahnsen's hermeneutic in their practice that they did NOT believe in Bahnsen's answer to the second question.


Tim-I do not attempt, and I have yet to encounter a critic of Bahnsen who does attempt to justify the law of nations as a non-arbitrary civil code.
We justify the moral law as God's standard for this covenant era and general equity reasoning as the means of appying it to judge contemporary civil laws.

Tim

__________________
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

I am surprised that you object to this. Many Reformed ethicists (Harold OJ Brown, for one) do not believe that the death penalty is always mandatory in such cases.
I don't know who you are really objecting to, since I am not a 100% Bahnsenian theonomist. Anyway, for those who would like to go that line, Ken Gentry has done extensive work on that. I will not quote him since I don't see myself holding that position, but I do think he very compently makes his case.

If you feel such a burden to refute Foulner, email him or write a book. I have made it clear that I have no interest defending him since I have nothing hanging in that line of argument. That being said, using Rutherford/Knox/Gillespie/Ussher as the benchmark--read Meredith Kline, Will Barker, and then Bahnsen and see who is closer to the divines in judicial calvinism.
That was my point.

Tim-On Bahnsen's clearly stated premises, as opposed to hints, I don't see how he could follow Brown's belief that the death penalty is not always mandatory in adultery cases outside of the exception in Numbers 5.


Tim-Gentry's contributions to the Theonomy debate are not as strong as you think they are. He is one of the many Theonomists who missed the distinction between advocating for contemporary application of individual Mosaic judicials and the hermeneutical axiom one uses to justify the application: for example, despite citing Theonomy: A Reformed Critique's prefatory remark that the issue "is one of fundamental hermeneutical perspective" in a footnote to his "Theonomy and Confession" in The Standard Bearer, p. 164, n.14, Gentry did not address Sinclair Ferguson's observation that "whatever similarities may arise because of the Confession's qualifying clause it would be absurd to suggest that the [differing] principles [between Theonomy and the Confession] are identical." (Ferguson. “Assembly," p. 327), which is the thesis of Ferguson's paper.


Tim-I have written the book. And I think you know where you can find it online. And I don't think Kline or Barker are representative of the Reformed tradition at this point.


Tim-Actually if one goes by the clear statements in Bahnsen's Theonomy in Christian ethics and other works, it is fair to read him as insisting that all Mosaic stipulations must be followed in full detail unless implicitly or explicitly modified by the lawgiver. That's why I am extremely interested in finding the lecture on Institutes you mentioned to see exactly what he says where you say he hinted that followed Calvin in the belief that not all Mosaic laws are needed to be instituted in New Covenant states.

Is it not true that prior to Exodus and the Mosaic Covenant that people knew the two greatest commandments which make up the moral law (Love God, Love Others)? They clearly broke those commandments, and when they did they were punished for them. Clearly those mistakes (sins) or on the otherhand the truth of the two commandments were passed down/taught to each's children.

__________________
Rev. Andrew J. Barnes
Husband of Dena
Pastor of Tchula Presbyterian Church

Tim, what is that "hermeneutical axiom" and "hermeneutical perspective" that you're talking about?

__________________
JohnV :detective:

John Vandervliet
Ontario, Canada
member of: Canadian Reformed Church
"In coming to understand anything we are rejecting the facts as they are for us in favour of the facts as they are" C.S Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism

Yes, but not just the two greatest commandments, statutes and laws too:

Gen 26:5 "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."

__________________
R.Vic Bottomly
Providence Reformed Baptist Church, Tacoma, WA

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

Perhaps he has a reason. I haven't had time to check TICE.



Did Gentry say they were indentical? I know Bahnsen didn't.




My apologies on the book reference, then. RE Kline and Barker: If you talk to a Klinean they will insist they are the standard view in Reformed social ethics. As to Barker, the whole tenor of the book seemed more an attack against conservative politics than it did theonomy.

Ok. Perhaps he said that. I am not a Bahnsenian theonomist and differ with Bahnsen on that point. I got the lecture reference wrong, btw. It wasn't the Calvin reference. It was in his lecture "Theonomy's Response to its Critics." I don't know which one, though. It was a long time ago.

Tim-In the Theonomy debate, a hermeneutical axiom is a principle that justifies which Mosaic civil laws apply today. Bahnsen's expressed hermeneutical axiom appears to be that all Mosaic civil stipulations must apply in the new covenant unless they are amended (either explictly or implicitly) by the Lawgiver.
On the other hand the Reformed have historically argued that a Mosaic civil stipulation would only be relevant today if its general equity so required as per WCF 19:4.
Some have tried to argue that these two approaches have no significant differences but Sinclair Ferguson has shown that the differences are real and significant in "An Assembly of Theonomists" in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique.