To pick a nit...Fred, I had to look up exemplary at dictionary.com and got this definition:

exemplary

1. Serving as a pattern; deserving to be proposed for imitation; commendable; as, an exemplary person; exemplary conduct.

2. Serving as a warning; monitory; as, exemplary justice, punishment, or damages.

3. Illustrating as the proof of a thing. --Fuller.

Were you using it from def.1 or 3 or am I rabbit trailing? If the judicial/case laws are exemplary as a pattern for imitation then wouldn't that mean that we should look to them?

I know I'm dealing with one word of what your statement was rather than the thrust of it...

__________________
Chris Rhoades -33
Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church (PCA) Nashville, TN-Under Care

Vera theologia non theoretica, sed practica est; Finis siquidem eius agere est hoc est vitam vivere deiformem. - Martin Bucer
""True theology is not theoretical, but practical. The end of it is living, that is to live a godly life."

I mean it in the sense of #3, or as Dictionary.com states:

Notice that Calvin treats Exodus 20-Deuteronomy as a harmony. The judicial laws are examples of how the Decalogue could be applied, illustrations of its principles.

__________________
Fredrick T. Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

Good point Fred. That really seems to be the major difference in the debate (at least among reformed folk). The moral law should be the foundation of all our laws, no matter what culture we are apart of, so that each nation can work out the applications of the moral law to their particular situations. The OT judicial laws may help us see how laws may be applied to the situation and time. and I really think the differences here aren't that great. The Reconstructionist, by saying we are to follow the "general equity" of the judicial laws rather than the letter of the law, has really just put themselves back into the position of the "t" theonomist, in effect putting their foundation for law back on the moral law instead of the judicial law.

[Edited on 26-10-2004 by puritansailor]

__________________
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.

Yes, Patrick. I could be wrong, but I am thinking that the difference between the Theonomist/reconstructionist and the Westminsterian theonomist is that the former applies the "general equity" clause to the ordinances found in Exodus 21ff., whereas the latter applies the "general equity" clause to the Decalogue.

If the moral law alone is binding for today, than bestiality is no longer a sin under the New Covenant.



[Edited on 27-10-2004 by Ianterrell]

?? This is prohibited by the Seventh Commandment.

__________________
Andrew Myers
Husband of Jessica, Father of Jackson, Katie and Samuel
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church of Northern Virginia
Warrenton, VA USA
Editor, The Matthew Poole Project

"Let your Morning Thoughts, and your last Evening Thoughts, be what shall become of you to all Eternity." -- Matthew Poole

WCF 19:4 "To them also, as a body politic, He geve sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any other no further than the general equity thereof may require."

To understand the intent of the Assembly lets consider the words of its most influential member,

George Gillespie, Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Chrisitian Liberty:
(http://naphtali.com/severity.htm)

__________________
*Peter Gray* Elkins Park RPCNA

"Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief. " Mk 9:24
"The greatest thing we can desire, next to the glory of God, is our own salvation; and the sweetest thing we can desire is the assurance of our salvation. In this life we cannot get higher than to be assured of that which in the next life is to be enjoyed. All saints shall enjoy a heaven when they leave this earth; some saints enjoy a heaven while they are here on earth." Joseph Caryl

How does the Seventh Commandment as stated in the Holy Scriptures forbid bestiality?

That's exactly what theonomists (Bahnsen, myself) believe. The general precepts or what you call "prescriptive" (the decalogue) are illustrated through the judicial or case laws. The application of the judicial or case laws changes but the substance (general equity) of the Law still remains in effect. Eg. fencing your roof- in the ancient Jewish culture they spent alot of time on their roofs, so to protect people from falling they had to build a fence around it. No longer so in our culture, however, the substance or general equity of the law remains: we must be exercise reasonable care in preventing damages from our property. And so the application today might be that we have to check our car's breaks. A tape I would recommend if you can find it is "Social Ethics and the Westminster Conf. of Faith", Dr. Greg Bahnsen.

Q. 138. What are the duties required in the seventh commandment?

A. The duties required in the seventh commandment are, chastity in body, mind, affections,{767} words,{768} and behavior;{769} and the preservation of it in ourselves and others;{770} watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses;{771} temperance,{772} keeping of chaste company,{773} modesty in apparel;{774} marriage by those that have not the gift of continency,{775} conjugal love,{776} and cohabitation;{777} diligent labor in our callings;{778} shunning all occasions of uncleanness, and resisting temptations thereunto.{779}

Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required,{780} are, adultery, fornication,{781} rape, incest,{782} sodomy, and all unnatural lusts;{783} all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections;{784} all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto;{785} wanton looks,{786} impudent or light behaviour, immodest apparel;{787} prohibiting of lawful,{788} and dispensing with unlawful marriages;{789} allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them;{790} entangling vows of single life,{791} undue delay of marriage,{792} having more wives or husbands than one at the same time;{793} unjust divorce,{794} or desertion;{795} idleness, gluttony, drunkenness,{796} unchaste company;{797} lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays;{798} and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.{799}

By the way, if an ordinance of Israel does not have its basis in the moral law (the Decalogue) it is not a proper and binding law at all. There is a reason that there are TEN commandments.

[Edited on 10/27/2004 by fredtgreco]

Exactly. Fred's post concerning the Larger Catechism's exposition of the Seventh Commandment is right on target. The Ten Commandments are exceeding broad in their application. The moral law of God cuts through all of the deviations of man and tells us what is required and what is forbidden (by direct statements and by good and necessary inference).

Fred,

You said that laws not based on the decalogue are not proper and binding laws. Are ceremonial laws then not laws in the proper sense?

Not in an eternal and binding sense, no. They were only for a time, and are completely fulfilled in Christ. The moral law binds man forever - from the Garden to eternity in the new heavens and new earth (inclusive).

Peter,

The source you quoted is Naphtali Press. I am acquainted with this source since I used to be a member of the Rowlett, Texas church. Chris Coldwell argues that George Gillespie is the author of A Wholesome Severity, but that is not an undisputed fact. That book was published anonomously. A noted theologian in my present denomination, Dr. William Young, disputes the authorship of this book. See his article which addresses this subject:

http://www.presbyterianreformed.org/...l?articlesID=2

Ok I'm with you so far.

Note some of the proofs: Lev 20:15,16; Lev 18:1 to 21; Deut 23:17; Lev 19:29 All judicial laws. The divines could say that all these sins were a violation of the 7th commandment b/c they interpreted it through the OT case law.

"By the way, if an ordinance of Israel does not have its basis in the moral law (the Decalogue) it is not a proper and binding law at all."

Agreed. But dont they all?

[Edited on 27-10-2004 by Peter]

Andrew:

You said,
He doesn't know me, but I have a work by him that I prize very highly. How is he doing? For me it answered once and for all the question of Presumptive Regeneration. Unfortunately, I think I come out on the other side as he.

There have been a lot of posts since my last entry. I've read them all, and there is a lot to say.

First, Patrick's summation is hitting the nail right on the head. This is exactly the case, I believe.

I think that Fred's wording in his last post is not as it should be, but his intention is also very correct, as I see it. It is not that the ceremonial laws are disconnected to the moral law, the Decalogue. It is that these applicatons of the law can be and have been finished by fulfillment, and therefore only their example remains to help explain the actual thing they were merely a sign of. Whereas the moral law is more firmly grounded by its application, the ceremonial laws are completed with their application. The former's necessity is underlined, while the latter's necessity is abrogated, in the applications of them. That is why Hebrews asks why it is necessary for the priest to go in year after year to make atonement, suggesting that atonement was never really reached through the sacrifices of the ceremonial laws.

The next thing to note is that is US jurisprudence the entire old testamant does suffice as precedent, as case law precedent, in cases before the courts. The entire Bible, Old and New Testaments alike, are used to swear an oath of truth, and so is also considered a book of law before the courts. To make a claim as to the force of the case laws is not out of line with the standard understanding of the traditional Reformed setting, either the Continental or the Presbyterian.

One should underline, and then re-underline what Fred said earlier, that one is constantly on the defense against the charge of antinomianism simply because one does not identify with Theonomy. There is no question concerning the theonomic principles of Reformed confessionalism; God's laws have always been important. Nor is it a question of the applicability of OT case laws in modern society. It seems that we are at one here, seeing that we can glean from the OT the general equity of the application of the Decalogue, and not succomb to situational ethics. The Reformed are all theonomic is the sense talked about here. But we need to be careful that even antinomians would call themselves theonomic, because they won't say that they are outside of God's laws, but just that they are not under the OT laws, and that is so because of the NT law of Christ. They are wrong, mind you, but they will still think of themselves that way. So anyone and everyone is in one sense theonomic, even the atheist. But that is not what we mean in this discussion. The Reformed need not defend their firm stand upon the law, and the WCF is very clear on that.

The question of the difference between Theonomy and the standard Reformed grace/law theology is elsewhere. For the most part those who identify with Theonomy, but are really in the theonomy camp, ought to make these distinctions. This thread is a good example of people arguing against themselves when they are agreed.

Let us put it in an Augustinianism: Reconstructionism is the same as Theonomy; Theonomy is the same as Reconstructionism.

In the sense that Reconstructionism is an agenda to set up an earthly one-thousand-year reign of Christ, it is absolutely different than an agenda to revitalize the Christian ethic of the churches. No one here is arguing for the former, and I don't think anyone objects to the latter. The difficulty is that the issue which is being represented is always cloudy at best. By making the distinction of and upper case "T" Theonomy, and a lower case "t" theonomy we are showing that there is a distinction to be made. When those who hold to the five-pillar variety of Reconstructionism separate the Theonomic Ethic into a separate category, they are not being sincere, for that is not what they mean by that tenet. Their idea of Dominion Theology is that the entire NT is geared to reset the OT regime of God's people for Christ's return. This is not even Reformed, much less a Reformed view, as I stated earlier (also cf Belgic Conf. art. 29. ) They can't mean the same thing as an Amillenial theonomist. So we need to keep these two views of theonomy very separate. Those who say they hold to Theonomy ought to recognize that this identifies them with Reconstructionists, and not Reformed theology.

I'm sorry if I sound so dogmatic about it. I don't mean to. But I am very concerned about this aspect of it, of imposing upon each other the doctrines of man. It is good that we have differences, so that we can sharpen each other, but it is not good to divide, to take sides, and to be unbendable, when we are talking, not about the plain Biblical principles, but about differences of opinion on matters secondary to the doctrines of the Bible, namely those things called adiaphora, matters of personal conscience.

I don't have time to edit; gotta go. I'll be back in about five hours.

Here's Patrick's post I was referring to above:
(emphasis mine)


[Edited on 27-10-2004 by JohnV]

__________________
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

John,

Dr. Young has had some major health problems this year. He is in his 80s and was moved to a nursing home within the last few months. He has lived a long life in the service of Christ and his earthly service may be drawing to a close.

Is he not one of the original OPC men yet? I know that he was on some important GA's.

Yes, that's right. He, along with John Murray, wrote the 1947 OPC minority report on exclusive psalmody. John Murray founded the Presbyterian Reformed Church in 1965, and it was in 1976 that Dr. Young joined the PRC.

The following is from the PRC website:


Source: http://www.presbyterianreformed.org/ourhistory.phtml

I asked a university student/friend who was taking a philosophy course for the best sources too read up on axioms, and I was given two works: Roy Clouser's book, No Neutral Ground (or something like that) and an essay by Dr. William Young. The former was just a rehash of Dooyweerdianism, and not really worth the time, but the essay by Dr. Young was priceless, just the thing I was looking for.

From there I got interested in another essay by him on Presumptive Regeneration. Earlier I said that I came down on the other side as he, but that's not really true, since what he was speaking against was Kuyperian PR, which resembles Clouser's view in his book. It's just that he said something in that work that stopped me in my tracks, and got me thinking. I did not just follow my opinions, but followed through on the necessary logic of it, and came down solidly on what I had only had a notion of before, namely a good and proper PR.

But, we're way off topic. If you see him, Andrew, let him know that I wish to pay my respects to him, please.

[Edited on 27-10-2004 by JohnV]