They are binding unless we have specific instructions telling us otherwise in the New Testament. And I'm still seeing less and less merit in the attempts to show that such instructions exist. If they are not obligatory and binding, what standard is? I have finally come to realize that there really is no neutrality, and most governments that claim to have a neutral moral system are in fact very religious, it's just that "humanism" is more subtle and less-easily-recognized as religious.

Interesting. I haven't read much North yet, only a few articles. In that article of his, does he ever mention the quotation by Calvin that you gave above regarding the Mosaic law being the foundation for societies?

__________________
Chris


A passion to know and reflect Christ by living and demonstrating the truth and richness of the historic Reformed faith

Visit My Website Here

Christopher Blum
Member of Trinity Presbyterian Church of Northern Kentucky (PCA) in Burlington, KY

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

I haven't yet read his comments but I will. And is not answering the question of how God intends His law--which is an expression of Himself--to be applied a question of understanding who He is? I may simply have terms mixed up here, but I would assert at the very least that it is a doctrinal question in addition to an ethical question.

John, I think I understand what you're saying. At this point, all I'm addressing though is the doctrinal question of whether or not the specific principles seen in the Old Testament judicial laws are binding for our society today. I'm simply considering that claim as a doctrine at this point, regardless of some of the other doctrinal baggage that may often be associated with it.

Chris,

Unfortunately, Ferguson's comments come from a book that is no longer in print titled "Theonomy: A Reformed Critique". It is a book written with the contributions of a number of Profs at WTS PA back in 1990. A friend of mine had a old copy that I read. If you find it let me know. I want my own copy!

I would agree that the Moral Law is an expression of God's very character, but does that apply to the judicial laws? Even Bahnsen argues that it is the principles of the law that matter not the specific laws that would apply to a past time and place.

But how would you answer my comment regarding the covenanted nature of Israel versus the non-covenanted nature of nations today. Plus is a nation required to enforce the 1st table of the law as per the judicial laws of Israel?

__________________
~Wayne Wylie~
Member, Mid Cities Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Ruling Elder - Inactive
http://www.mcopc.org
Bedford, TX

Job 28:28 - And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

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

I've heard a lot about that book. I'll let you know if I ever see a copy available online or elsewhere.

Well, the reason I'm inclined to answer "yes" to your first question is that, as I discussed above, it seems that the place of the judicial laws was to interpret the moral laws of the Decalogue, similar to our judicial and legislative branches above. And I've never disagreed with your second sentence, as the time- and place-specific aspects of the case laws are what Theonomists take to be "expired." But it is the specific principles illustrated by each of those laws are what I'm inclined to say are "theological" in nature, since there is no reason to think they do not reflect the character of God - such as the fencing and the oxen in the field examples.

Something may eventually be pointed out to me that would cause me to change my perspective, but at the moment I would be inclined to say that the observation in your first question--that national Israel was and is the only covenantal nation--is precisely why the specific, detailed applications of the case laws in their particular society expired with the nation, while the "general equity" of the principles illustrated by those case laws remain applicable and binding for every nation. And as to your second question, if you're referring to the first four commandments, at this point I'd be inclined to say yes.

I'm enjoying discussing this with you and everyone else.

Why not? We are requiring publik schools to teach children to break the first table of the Decalouge.

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

North bases it on Calvin's sermon's on deuteronomy available here: http://snipurl.com/a50r and for free here: http://www.freebooks.com/docs/2212_47e.htm

It seems that Calvin was not your stereotypical anti theonomist. He seemed to be almost like a precursor to what we have today. Like Van Til had precursors before him who were not as complete and consistent, but you could of course see much overlap.

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

Have you read, Theonomy: An Informed Response? Many theonomists usually point to this book as being the reason, Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, is no longer in print, The theonomist book is available at amazon here: http://snipurl.com/a50z

The judicial law is also an expression of his character (I do not know how something God does could be something other than an expression of his character). The question is whether or not it was an expression of his character only for a particular period of time to a specific group of people, with his character being expressed judicially in another way, today.

CT

Geez! I go out of town for a couple of days and look at the # of posts. Just a couple of quick off the cuff comments after a quick read. I do want to take more time to address things more fully.

I think I bring this up at least once in every theonomy thread. When discussing theonomy and theonomists use those terms. When discussing the five pillar Theonomist don't call them Theonomist but Christian Reconstructionist or CR for short. It gets especially confusing when people are called theonomists or Theonomists. It's too easy to read a thread quickly and miss the capitalization. Not to mention it is not fair to the theonomist to load the term with 4 other doctrines that people don't like and say that Theonomy is bad. That's why there is the term Christian Reconstruction. Read the recons. They differentiate and so should we.

This thread inititially started out about what is theonomy. Theonomy is God's law. Theonomy is not presuppositional apologetics, eschatology etc. That is CR. John V did a wonderful job with the truth table. The only problem if you reread the thread is that it was the non-theonomists that bring up Christian Reconstruction. I desire to discusss theonomy and the application of the OT law etc. without dovetailing into CR everytime and the personalities of the people involved. We are able to do that on all of the other topics on this board - discuss the doctrine qua doctrine - except when it comes to theonomy. For some reason theonomy leads to a ton of different rabbit trails that people spend time on clearing up misconceptions. It's hard enough trying to wade through all of the issues much less bringing in all of the other topics.

One point that is being discussed is the fact that Israel was a covenanted nation and God's chosen people. What has not been brought up yet is the relation of the law that God gave to Israel and other nations. Bahnsen in all of his books labored to show that the other nations were to be held to the same standard. It was to be wisdom to them to follow Israel's just laws. I'll dig up the verses in a bit. So that brings up the question of binding. Just because Israel is no longer a body politick does it really matter? In regards to the laws concerning the land and separation, yes. In regards to judicial laws and penalties if the other countries roundabout were to be judged by them why shouldn't the good 'ol US of A?

I think the division of the law is semantics. I would dare say that anyone who reads Bahnsen and his discussion of the division would agree. It makes a lot of sense. I also understand the utility of the three fold division. I think it gets down to understanding what the thrust of it is and not as much as the way you cut the cake.

Sorry for the meandering, I'm wiped. Also take the first paragraph regarding the labels lightly. I'm seeking clarity and grace on this issue and everyone's indulgence. The law of God is a vastly important topic and should be edifiying. I'm trying to figure out how it fits into the life of the believer as well as society as is everyone else. I just think the water gets muddied the farther off of the law we get and move into other "systems" of thought.

__________________
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."

Chris:

Two things:

First, if you're not presenting Theonomy of the Five-Pillar kind, then you need to define for me what you are talking about. If you are identifying with the Five-Pillar kind, then there is something else we need to talk about, not Theonomy; and if you aren't, then you need to define what you mean by Theonomy.

Second, if your avatar is a picture of yourself, then I note that you are using the analogy of Scripture as to the applicability of judicial laws. Maybe the hair-cutting law was ceremonial, but maybe it was ethnic, But at any rate, I see no specific command in Scripture that it is no longer binding. So if you are saying that every law is binding unless specifically annulled inNT Scripture, then are you saying that the analogy of Scripture method does not apply to the application of judicial laws? Even the one that is cited by Paul, namely the one about muzzling an ox, is taken figuratively, and not literally. Paul uses it as symbolic of its NT meaning. It is a leap to assert that everyone had to unmuzzle his ox again. My father was a professional herdsman, and muzzling some cattle was a necessity, otherwise they would literally eat themselves to death. He should know, he had the best cattle in the county, every farmer's envy, but he was also a strong Calvinist. By muzzling one or two cattle he was not breaking any law, not even God's commands.

I need to see the proof of the concept that all things of the OT are in force unless specifically abrogated in the NT. I think that analogy is sufficient, otherwise the book of Hebrews would be a thousand chapters long.

[Edited on 29-10-2004 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

Indeed, as I said earlier, I'm not concerned with talking about Christian Reconstructionism, but only theonomy. Chris Clarifies the semantics issue well in his above post. To get a good idea of what we mean by theonomy, read this article. While defining theonomy is not in fact the purpose of the article, it does a good job nonetheless.

Here you are misunderstanding what theonomists main thesis is, and how they believe the judicial laws to be applied today. You say, "Even the one that is cited by Paul, namely the one about muzzling an ox, is taken figuratively, and not literally. Paul uses it as symbolic of it NT meaning." Exactly! That is precisely what we are asserting, that the "general equity" of the judicial laws is still binding on all nations, which is the specific principles illustrated by each one, whereas the cultural details are what has "expired." The law about putting a fence on one's roof is a classic example. The purpose of that was to increase the safety of those on your property, and that principle is thus still binding today, whereas having common gatherings on roofs was unique to national Israel, and thus that detail has "expired" along with their national state. But the "general equity" principle of the law makes it binding today for people to be mindful of the safety of people on their property, such as fencing a pool, etc. The same article I referenced earlier in this post does an excellent job clarifying how we see the laws to be applied today in principle.

This is the foundational doctrine behind Covenant Theology. If you don't hold to this principle, that's a totally different discussion - or "a horse of a different color," to use your term. If we do not make it the guiding presumption that Old Testament commands are continually valid unless specifically abrogated in the New Testament, we have no basis for infant baptism. If you disagree with the continued binding nature of the judicial laws, you need to show that they are abrogated in the New Testament, not challenge whether or not that needs to be shown.

[Edited on 29-10-2004 by Me Died Blue]

I noticed earlier in this thread that someone made the point that if Theonomy is false, then beastiality is an acceptible practice in the New Covenant. The response was that it is not permitted because the seventh commandment forbids it. But what I want to know is how you know this. How do you know that "you shall not commit adultery" means "you shall not have sex with animals"? Please try to answer this without appealing to the OT case laws (even though you can't). If the question seems simple or silly to you, then great! It shouldn't be hard for you to respond to this post. (I only say this because I get awfully tired of non-Theonomists responding to this kind of question with, "Well that's just obviously a dumb question...", but thankfully the Puritanboard faithful have been much better debaters than some other people I have talked with.)

Quote:
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
However, the point is, God's provision for the body politick of ancient Israel did expire and does not oblige us today except to the extent that it reflects divine wisdom about criminal offenses and their punishment. The moral law of God is eternal; the judicial law of Israel is not. Wise John Calvin, who clearly believed that judicial laws were meant for specific times and places, wrote "For some deny that a state is well constituted, which neglects the polity of Moses, and is governed by the common laws of nations. The dangerous and seditious nature of this opinion I leave to the examination of others; it will be sufficient for me to have evinced it to be false and foolish." That sums it up for me.

Isn't Calvin addressing the "polity" or form of the Israel Govt. not the judicial laws? In other words we don't need a king and that's ok with him. The general laws are still needed. Where is this quote from? I'd like to see the context to get a better read of what he was saying.

The 7th commandment prohibits ALL sexual conduct outside of a marriage relationship. (And despite novel legal theories to the contrary, we are all aware of what constitutes a bona fide marriage; see Gen. 1+2; Mt. 19, 1 Cor 7, etc.)

Sex with animals falls outside (waaaaaaaaaay outside) the limits of a marriage relationship.

Therefore, beastiality implicitly falls uder the total exclusion policy of the 7th commandment.

That's the argument right there. No appeal to case law, just good and necessary deduction from the moral law.

Now, if we want to go farther, we can point out that under the OT administration, God further gave an explicit prohibition of this grave abomination, and prescribed the civil death penalty upon it. So now you have not merely the obvious deduction from the moral law, but the added weight of this judicial law (though it be expired) that aggravates men's sinful behavior or even debate over God's disapproval of it.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

In By This STandard Bahnsen said that people try get around this by stating that it is under the NT prohibitions on sexual immorality, But all that does is presuppose what many set out to deny: that New Testament ethics are derivative from the Old Testament.

Bruce, I didn't see your post; I need to consider it more.

Chris:

I am of the opinion that we are arguing the same thing, only you would call that Theonomy, and I call it theonomic. If I may, I'd like to give you an example of the same idea that I am presenting, only in a different context.

Many years ago I was in the midst of a battle in the church against Theistic Evolution. (That will tell you which denomination I am talking about. ) On the one side was the argument that science was telling us that the earth was much older than the six-day creation account would lead us to believe. The other side, including prominent theologians and professors of the denominational college and seminary, often argued that the Bible was not to be subjected to scientific investigation. Do you see what they were doing? Though they were on opposite sides of the debate, they were both saying the exactly the same thing, and it hit the very heart of what it was all about. Both sides separated fact from faith, science from theology, making them unrelated. It really didn't matter what side you were on, though they fought each other with gusto: either side landed you square into a denuded Bible. And that is exactly where that denomination is now, even though Theistic Evolution is long past being an issue anymore.

I am saying the same thing here. Sure we need to stand against Dispensational and Liberal views of the OT's place in Reformed Theology. If there is no guilt anymore, because the laws are not upon us anymore, then there is no need for grace. It is not the law that is the real problem here for either one them: it is grace. We can argue about the law with them 'til the cows come home, but even if we convince them, it will not have made any difference. They are despising the extent of grace granted God's people through Christ's atonement.

If we take too lax a view of the law, as Dispy's and Libby's do, or if we take too lobsided a view of the law, as FP-CR's do, it doesn' matter, grace is gone, because it is no longer all there. Grace in part is not the grace of God.

If we take S. Lewis Johnston, for instance, his dispensationalism is selective at best. He won't be at all guilty of laws he thinks he's not under anymore, but will impose guilt on those whom he thinks have countered God's law. (I'm referring to his penchant for Sunday afternoon football with the Dallas Cowboys, and trying to cut the five services a bit to fit that schedule, while preaching from some OT texts as well. ) It's selective. And he's dispy. But he is the arbiter of what is moral and what is not, what requires grace and what does not. It is somewhat an overstatement, to be fair to him, but yet is basically true.

What is the difference if we are Theonomists, but also selective, as Craig points out?

Also, note that I underlined the word 'specfic'. It makes a great difference, because a lot of laws are dealt with generally, some specifically, and some not at all. But we use the analogy of Scripture to say that the general equity of the judicial laws are in place, though their actual legal place have expired. We both agree on this. I am not nullifying the principle you referred to at all. I just noting that we can be just as wrong as the dispy's, even though we are on the opposite side of the fence with them on the matter of the law.

Grace is the intent of the NT. In it we find revealed that it was also the intent of the OT, concealed. The atonement makes a world of difference as to how we view the law.

The crux of the matter is one of the five points of Calvinism: total depravity. Because of this understanding of the Fall, we know that establishing law was not enough; there also had to be a conveyance of it. There had to be established as well an answer to the law so that man had a hope under the law. So the law apart from the ceremonial laws was only condemnation, and therefore no need for the law, but only outright destruction. But the people were not destroyed. So, since there was a law given, there had to be a conveyance of it in the lives of the people, and that was the ceremonial system. It pointed to the one single conveyance that would answer the whole law once and for all, namely Christ.

The judicial laws are the "in between" in this. They are the expression of the moral law upon the people of God under the ceremonial system. With the end of that system, the expression also changed. The law, the intent, the morality remains exactly the same; only the conveyance has changed.

So the Westminster Assembly made precisely the right judgment in saying that the judicial laws were expired, but that the general equity of them has remained fully intact. And the fulfillment of them is, as said in Romans, through faith.

Now, we may try to keep some of the laws, and perhaps even think we are keeping them well. But that only is a denial of the depth of the sin of man. Even a flawless keeping of the law is the grossest of sins yet, since there remains a much deeper keeping of the law that man is unable to reach.

And example, again: I coached a soccer team of 9-11 yr. olds. I had told them each that if they made the mistake of kicking the ball into the centre of the field in the defensive zone, they were finished for the day. That was the rule. It happened that one boy, who was a lathargic player, made the mistake just at a time when he was giving it a pretty good go. I took him off immediately, and talked to him for 15 seconds, telling him that we were playoff bound, and if there was anyone on whom I could count not to make that mistake in the playoffs, it was him. And I sent him right back on the field, his tears not even dry yet. And he excelled throughout the playoffs, being key to our championship.

Grace conquered law. I got from him a much deeper keeping of the law than mere observance could ever gain. And this is similar to God's grace, in how He can show us a much deeper keeping of the law through grace than mere theonomy alone could ever attain. That is a proper Reformed theonomy, one that fits in with the gospel totally and complimentarily.

Clearly, even in the OT, the law was put in place for the conveyance of grace.

So if we are going to understand the OT judicial laws, lets not take them out of the cotext of the whole.

Having said all that, I don't think that we differ at all on this, Chris. I think you maybe would have said it differently. I think that there is a lot of room to disagree on the extent of the 'general equity' without doing any damage to Reformed theology. But there is no room to bring in liberalism or dispensationalism through the back door. And that is exactly what I am fighting in my church, in doing battle with the FP-CR. And that is why I am so carefull as to what is being proposed by the term, "Theonomy", as opposed the theonomic principles in the doctrines of grace.

I have addressed this issue more than once in this thread and Bruce has since responded to this question quite well, but it bears repeating. The Ten Commandments of God are not dependent upon judicial laws for their proper exposition. The Seventh Commandment, although strictly speaking it only addresses adultery, does in fact comprehend a broader requirement to uphold marriage and chastity as well as a broader prohibition against all that deviates from the standard established in Genesis 2. To say otherwise is to turn the Decalogue, which I would argue is the complete and perfection expression of God's moral law, into a Catalogue and makes the Ten Commandments insufficient as they would then require the judicial laws to shed light on them rather than the other way around, which I believe is the Biblical approach to understanding the moral/judicial distinction. We do not need the judicial prohibition against bestiality (instructive as it is) to tell us that this deviation is wrong. The Seventh Commandment, grounded in Genesis 2, is sufficient to teach us what is required and what is forbidden.

__________________
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