Btw, a code cannot be "just" and only limited to one people. That is cultural relativism. As Norman Geisler states,

Norman Geisler states, defending and defining moral absolutes,

1. An objective moral duty--a duty for all persons
2. An eternal obligation--a duty for all times.
3. a universal obligation--a duty for all places

( Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 501)

The alternative to moral absolutes is cultural relativism.

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

This brings up an interesting point: no theonomic Christian society has ever existed and I doubt one ever will. The code was time-bound as it was never intended to be permanent. People would (and do) try to come up with all sorts of typologies to make Moses fit industrial society. It would be like the writing of the Talmud all over again. And since the state has no teaching authority, textual disputes would be inherently irreconcilable.

__________________
Chris Stamper
Park Cities PCA
(Dallas, TX)

Nice! The prison system as is solves no problems long term. It is gulag and barbaric and frankly....creates worse criminals..

__________________
~etexas~

The laws of Puritan Board only apply to one people (us) and are not a universal code of human rights. Yet that is not relativism.

Likewise, the common law is only for one set of people (we English-speaking folk). Yet our magistrates made a good faith effort to make decisions that reflected the moral law ordained by God. They were not relativists for not telling the Belgians how to live.

I want to live in a constitutional republic based on Anglo-American legal traditions. The English Puritans did too. Why is this bad?

Prisons should sequester violent and anti-social criminals from society. I agree that the American's prison are barbaric, but I don't see that as an argument against prisons themselves.

Could you elaborate? What standard are you using that judges indentured servitude for the reason Jacob mentioned as 'cruelty'? You are accusing God of cruelty, are you not?

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/

This is exactly my concern about Theonomy. Why hasn't it been used before? Do theonomists consider our founding fathers to be theonomists?

All I am saying is this...suppose some 19 year old steals a set of tires....ok..yes it is criminal and sinful. But at the same time it BREAKS my heart this kid will probably be victimized in a way for 5 years and that this "justice" is no justice at all.....the punishment would not meet the crime.

RJ Rushdoony wrote several books defending the Founding Fathers.

They are more like regulations than laws. Disanalogous.

But what moral principle(s) is the common-law grounded in?

Relevance?????

There's no meaningful distinction between regulations and laws. Sinful men must apply the moral law equitably to their time and situation, whether in government or voluntary associations.

But what moral principle(s) is the common-law grounded in?[/quote]

The moral law. Moses is a model of justice, but not a blueprint. He doesn't tell us how to run a police department.

Relevance?????[/quote]

Establishing theonomy would force the reinvention of jurisrudence, as all decisions must be based on Moses. You might keep the institutions, but the law itself would be up for grabs. Lawyers, being ornery critters, would come up with more and more bizzare interpretations. Since the Mosaic law is not portable, we would be tied down to abstractions, whether than the functioning equity we have.

To borrow a Van Tillian phrase, this is a paradox. Rushdoony claimed that the old republic was based on the Ten Commandments. Then came theonomy, which didn't mesh with the previous party line. The transition was never clearly explained. I'm supposed to believe that the constitutional system is merely procedural -- and that all we need do is stir in Moses and shake well to create a Christian society.

I think the Egyptians were very scrupulous about shaving, but I don't know what significance they ascribed to it.

__________________
Chris
Member at Grace Community Baptist Church, Mandeville, LA

Beware of a religion without holdfasts. But if I get a grip upon a doctrine they call me a bigot. Let them do so. Bigotry is a hateful thing, and yet that which is now abused as bigotry is a great virtue, and greatly needed in these frivolous times. I have been inclined lately to start a new denomination, and call it "the Church of the Bigoted." Spurgeon

This sounds interesting.

Are you saying that the only purpose of this law was to separate Israel from the Gentiles? If so then it separated them in the manner of their appearance. You say that God's people today should be seperated from the world in appearance also. Is that the 'principle' that remains the same? That our appearance should be different than the world?

Or are you trying to draw an analogy between Israel 'looking' different and the Church 'behaving' differently? If so, I've never understood this analogy because Israel was required to behave differently than the world as well.

The bottom line is, I don't see where the Bible teaches that the law of the beard was simply to make Israel look different than the Gentiles.

Whether Rush was consistent in it is a different question (and I fully grant you might have a point there). However, with the notable exception of Gary North, most theonomists did not see themselves at odds with the Founding Fathers. I think of Bahnsen, Demar, Rushdoony, Morecraft, Doug Phillips, Gentry, etc. Now, whether they are indeed consistent is a different question. But they didn't see themselves attacking the Founders'.

So if you asked them the question, "What's wrong with just going back to the Founders'?" They would answer, "Not much. We're on board with you here."

However, here is where I think they have a point: The whole country has drifted into statism and is at odds with teh Founders. That, I think, is the thrust of their critique in American history.

Yes, it actually is relativism. The rules are "binding for us" but we hardly expect all discussion board members across the WWW to be held accountable to our "rules." In fact, we'd probably say that other members of other discussion boards should follow *those rules* as those rules are "binding for them." Now, this forum may be some form of combinatorial relativism, but even that is stretching.

Anyway, never mind me....

__________________
Regards,

P.M.
PCA
Suffix

Ken,

Please see:

Leviticus 18:1-5, God's people (Israel) were to LOOK and ACT differently from the Gentile pagans around them. That is much of what Moses spends teaching the people in Leviticus 18-20 (Which includes the beard in Leviticus 19:27).

He goes on to say in Leviticus 20:7-8,

We see this in New Testament language in II Corinthians 6:14-7:1,

I believe that we as Christians today can look at Leviticus 18-20 and the principles laid down therein to help us make ethically righteous decisions of separation from the world. If this were not true then II Timothy 3:16-17 would not be true:

Every single verse found in the Bible gives us direction for how to live and make righteous decisions. That doesn't mean it's always easy to discern how to do so. Let me quote Bahnsen in "By This Standard" (p. 7):

But if II Timothy 3 is true (and you and I both believe it is) then that homework must be done. God does not have one standard of justice for one and another standard for another. That doesn't mean that the applications don't change (such as shaving the beard, putting a roof around the top of your house), but the principle remains the same. It is our job to learn and understand that from Scripture.

Some notes of mine from an Ethics course by Bahnsen on this subject:

I don't pretend to be an expert in this field. I don't even pretend to be a theonomist. I just know what I've studied can't be ignored. There are a lot brighter minds on this board than mine that can set me straight, but as of right now this is the best way I can explain Bahnsen's explanation of theonomy.

God Bless!

Psalm 119:160

__________________
Ryan Barnhart - Pastor of OGBC
Husband to a beautiful wife, Father to two beautiful girls
"But by the grace of God I am what I am." I Corinthians 15:10

"I confess to you, that if I can but live and die serving the Lord Jesus, it will make no difference to me whether I am eaten by Cannibals or by worms. And in the Great Day my Resurrection body will rise as fair as yours in the likeness of our risen Redeemer." - John Paton