Ok, it is time for me to pull out the big guns. I am going to stop the debate once and for all. I will quote the Confession. Hear, and keep silent.


CHAPTER XX.
Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience.
I. The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law;

Note that we are freed, not from the "law" (whatever that means) but from the curse of the moral law. A number of posts (about 5 or 6 above, excluding the obvious) didn't make that distinction and either looked like a bald form of relativism, or dispensationalism.

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

So up until the Mosaic covenant, man was incapable of justly punishing these things? To the contrary, 'an eye for an eye' was instituted because man punished too much.
Both general and natural revelation frown on evil men ruling. The imago Dei is not so marred. If I'm speaking against God's law then you are speaking against Romans 1 and 2.

__________________
David Cronkhite, Elder
Pasadena United Reformed Church

"I count myself one of the number of those
who write as they learn, and learn as they write."

They had a duty to follow the commands, but just as God knew there was no atonement in the blood of bulls and Goats, there was no perpetual binding of the penal sanctions..

__________________
N. Robert; Trinity Reformed Church RCA, Holland MI

Once in a while you can get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right."

Premise 1 is true

Premise 2 is true


Where did this come from? You made a leap in logic

With each covenant there is more revelation being given. The Mosaic covenant tells us more of God's ways than the Abrahamic covenant. And that's not a theonomic argument, per se. I learned that from Ligon Duncan.


Both general and natural revelation frown on evil men ruling. The imago Dei is not so marred. If I'm speaking against God's law then you are speaking against Romans 1 and 2.[/quote]

In the previous post you said a magistrate's conscience is good enough. I provided counter-examples. Conscience qua conscience is not good enough. As I have demonstrated--and Romans 1 says men suppress the truth--conscience can be seared.

Brian,

You are right.

But I am arguing for the larger picture, in that Christ has come and I do not wish to impose the Mosaic covenant on the civil sphere because it was especially crafted for a purpose that was completed by His coming.

For now, just like exiled Israel, we should marry and give in marriage, plant gardens, build houses, prosper and above all, spread the gospel. It is our task to conform the world to Christ by the preaching of the gospel, not by force of arms which is required under any law system.

Jacob and Brian,
I fear that I am not a worthy opponent in this debate but I am grateful for your help. And I promise to read more and post less.

You have always been very courteous to me on this issue. I really thank you for it. Believe it or not, I have changed on this issue over the past few years (the basic structure is still the same. There are a few arguments I no longer use, etc).

Hi David, fair enough.

I think this is how the discussion should go--exegetically. You come to a different conclusion than theonomists by reading the *scriptures* and not by attacking what you may think are undesirable consequences from enforsing a law-code. I was not arguing for theonomy, I was just pointing out that certain "critiques" of theonomy go to far (as I demonstrated above). As for an exegetical defense of theonomy, I leave to someone else.

Thanks for being charitable in your responses. I hope I was in return.

__________________
^Brian Lanier^
Member: Redeemer Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Santa Maria, CA
Attending: First Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Sunnyvale, CA
http://www.lanier-perspective.blogspot.com

Leap in Grace Jacob.

As an aside, I found one example of penal sanctions. Achan..


Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations; “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” which all concern things which perish with the using; according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.


Colossians 2:14 (American Standard Version)
14 having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out that way, nailing it to the cross;


Galatians 3:19 (American Standard Version)
19 What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; and it was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator.

1) The majority of scholars do not believe that text to be in the autographa.

2) The accusers would cast the stones, and if they were false witnesses, they'd receive the same penalty. Now, was Jesus "smart" here? That is, if she really was "caught in the act" then where was the man? Perhaps they were her lovers, or they didn't like her, or they were testing Jesus?

3) That Jesus said "he who is without sin cast the first stone" does not logically translate to "I am doing away with the death penalty for adultary."

3 a) Is this now a pre-requistite for *all* criminal punishment? If so, then why should we punish *anyone?* We all are not "without sin."

3 b) Is this *only* in the case of adultary? Then why think all the *other* laws are done away with?

3 c) (3a) and (3b) put you on the horns of a dilemma.

4) Since he gave the law originally, are you saying that he "trusted men back then," but not anymore?

5) The what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander argument:

Mark 7:9-13

9 And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' 11 But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, "Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban"' (that is, given to God)— 12then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do."

And so by parity of reasoning, is Jesus then *not* setting aside the death penalty for our disrespectful deliquent children?

Furthermore, I'm don't affirm the theonomic position (ask Brian Lanier). But I do agree that much of the arguments against it are weak.

__________________
Regards,

P.M.
PCA
Suffix

^^what he said. The only reason I get involved is that I learned from Dr Bahnsen's ministry and if anyone is going to critique him--and I do on some areas of philosophy/apologetics--then they need to be balanced, learned critiques.

I don't know. I think it was a sham.
Of course not. I don't think 10 women were ever stoned for adultery in Israel. But that doesn't mean that only 9 women ever committed adultery. I think that thousands of women committed adultery. If I'm correct, this would show the huge margin between the standard and the actual enforcement. The purpose of the law was to condemn those committing it and enforcing it. Which by the way, is the reason they were evicted from the land: the king did not enforce.

There was no stipulation that only sinless people could do the stoning. So where does that leave us? Probably back to the sermon on the mount where even thinking evil in our heart is sin and we are left hopeless before God's standards, which is the purpose of the law in the first place. We cannot keep it neither can we enforce it.
No. It is not a pre-requisite. Jesus is teaching us about perfect law. The law was not made for the righteous,
so He is teaching us, the unrighteous, about ourselves and about Him. We should punish all law breakers because it is good to do so.
No, not only adultery but all ten commandments are finished. Because, while the moral principle behind them remain, the original context of them is completed and therefore null. The principle is carried forward in Christ Who is the incarnation of the law and gives no quarter in the outward keeping of it, but condemns the very thought of sin.
Yes. Christ, I assume, was as usual probing a deeper issue than the proclivities of men and women. Given His mission, I guess He was pointing to the looming reformation that would revolutionize Israel beyond recognition in the new covenant, along with the coming of the kingdom in glory.
I think that He knew what was in man from the beginning.
No. May it never be that Christ would set aside the law. I think Jesus is building an argument as Paul does in Rm 2:13. The standard is terrific, terrible, horrible to me the sinner. But it is not the final word, thank God. What comes after, what is built on it's foundation is that Christ honors father and mother in our place and is subsequently damned.
That I have weak arguments is no mystery.
Thanks for the challenge, I hope my response was worth your time.

David,

Know that when I use the word "weak" I mean that in the *logical* sense. That is, the premises are not strong enough to support the conclusuion. "Weak" just seems a quicker way to say that.

If it was a sham, then that appears to undercut your argument that "Jesus was against the death penalty for adultary." You can't conclude that from a "sham" case.

I don't see the relevance in your comments about adultary. Now doubt we make mistakes. But you even said we should enforce laws and punish criminals here on earth. I'm trying to see how you think Jesus "removed the death penalty for adultary" (and I don't think it was the punishment in *every* case, anyway). No doubt we cannot keep the commandments, perfectly. I don't see why these means we shouldn't punish, say, murderers. How do your comments follow?

(Let me also point out that many states have laws where the wives of men who have committed adultary can *sue* the women who cheated with their husbands! Do you agree with this law? If so, why? If they changed the law to make the penalty death, would you disagree? If so, why?)

I don't understand what it means to say "the ten commandments are finished" but that "the moral principle behind them stays."

Lastly, I don't think you answered my sauce-gander argument. Why do you take the (disputed as to its authenticity) passage about the woman caught in adultary as a *removal* of the death penalty for adulterers but you do not take what Christ said in Mark 7 as affirming that we should put to death rebellious sons or daughters? I think your reasoning may be specious here.

Thanks
Well, I think the reason that case was enscripturated, to invent words, is because it was typical, that is, the norm. How often is it recorded that so and so was stoned for adultery? The law was a sham, so to speak, because it was in the hands of sinful law enforcers. "The Gentiles blaspheme because of you"
That there was a huge gap in the record of stonings vs. the adultery that probably happened speaks volumns about how sinners coped with so alien a concept as God's righteousness. Jesus didn't demand prosecution of the woman because Israel didn't even have a beginning point to make a case against her. Jesus isn't trashing the law, he's trashing the system. Murderers and adulterers should be punished, but true justice demands true judges. The curse doesn't nullify the process but it does curse it.
If they divorce they should have the liberty to sue. Why? Because those women were hostile to a covenant recognized by the community, and thus hostile to the community.
Yes, I would disagree because the penalty would be too severe, outweighing the infraction.
The whole Mosaic covenant is complete, done, fulfilled. However, the commandments are repromulgated not from Sinai, but from the mount where Christ's commentary on the law- "But I say unto you..." is more demanding, more severe, more strict in the interpretation of all that the law demands.
I think what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. The standard does not change. But the law is impotent to save sinners. "What the law could not do...." The law is not set aside, it is turned upon Christ in its full fury. And certainly in the last day death will have its due. Christ spoke cryptically of the 'already and not yet' .
And He was thinking redemptively, not creationally. Afterall that is why He came. I think that is the theme in His rhetoric of Mk 7 and Jn 8.

1) I didn't know what you meant by sham. Now, I offered arguments (a) your text was most probably not in the autographa, (b) they were trying to pull a fast one - Jesus knew better. If she *really was* "caught in the act," then where was the man who she was having relations with? If you ignore (a) for a moment, I think the most plausible reading of the text is *not* that Jesus denied the death penalty for adultary, but that he called them out on their trap.

2) A huge gap is a fallaciosu argument from silence. There's actually hardly any "recoding" of punishments in general. Jesus didn't demand prosecution because she probably wasn't guilty. And, he did demand it. He said that the one without sin (which doesn't mean sinless, as we agreed) *can* cast the first stone. They knew the penalty for false accusations, and so he called their bluff.

3) The law is even if they don't get divorced. Anyway, where do you get the idea that they can sue because they were hostile to the community? Why is that not too severe? Who says?

4) Why do you say the death penalty for adultary is too severe? Are you accusing God - the giver of the law - with injustice? Furthermore, let's remember that adulterers (those who have not trusted in Christ) will go to hell. If all they did was commit that sin they'd spend forever in hell. Why is that not too severe?

5) Why do Klineans sound so NCT? Jesus didn't pit himself against Moses. He pitted himself against the *tradition.* And, futhermore, Mark 7 serves to contradict. There he said, "But you say...But Moses said."

6) I still don't see how you've got around Mark 7. You used Jesus words in John 8 to say that Jesus *did away with* the death penalty for adulterey, but then when he *positively applied* a specific case law to people, you don't take that as him saying that that case law/penology is still in tact. Your position here seems arbitrary. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I know the law is impotent to save. That's not what theonomists are saying. they are saying that in a society we need laws and punishments for transgression of those laws. So, what should those laws and punishments be, and how can we try to acheive objectivity, justice, and non-arbitrairness in our judicial system.

********

At the very least, i think have have presented reasons against you being able to dogmatically assert that "Jesus said the death penatly for adultary was no more," by appealing to Jn. 8. Wouldn't you agree that that case is not as strong as initially out forward?

Jacob,

I don’t think it was my post #120 you referred to as either relativism or dispy, but you did ignore it. Now I am not learned in the theonomic and contra-theonomic arguments, though I do know the Gospel and the Scripture. My familiarity with these issues comes from withstanding certain forms of Messianic Judaism, which posits that all ethnic and proselyte Jews turned Messianic must obey the Mosaic ordinances, those that can still be obeyed.

If you consider me ignorant (which is true to an extent), nonetheless please bear with me, and “be apt to teach, patient” if I err. The WCF says,

19.IV. To them also [the people of Israel], as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

Whatever general equity may be asserting concerning them, it does not obviate the preceding clauses.

How does my argument in post #120 bear on your view of law-keeping? Do you consider what I said there valid?

I see it that we are freed not only from the curse of the moral law, but also from the obligation to keep the ceremonial and judicial laws. I believe the WCF supports both clauses of the previous sentence.

What was it that enabled Jew and Gentile to be reconciled, the enmity between the two slain, but that Christ “abolished in His flesh…the law of commandments contained in ordinances” (Eph 2:15), that is, the ceremonial and judicial. This refers to more than the curse of the law being set aside, for what separated the Jews and the nations were also the aforementioned ordinances. In the body of Christ both peoples found cleansing, justification and acceptance.

In the light of my arguments (please stay with me), how do you assert OT law keeping besides the Moral Law?

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

No, I wasn't saying you were sounding relativistic. I ignored it because I didn't see it dealing with the thread. I have no problem with WCF 19.4. I fully admit that many laws expired and there is no general equity on them.

I do not try to live my life powered by the law. I have never tried to earn my salvation by law-keeping. I believe the ordinances set aside were obviously (though not exclusively) ceremonial. Many non-theonomic commentators on ephesians grant that.

The civil law is a situational application of the underlying principles in the moral law. The moral law is not the ten commandments, but only a summary of the ten commandments. What are the summarizing, but other laws?

So no, I don't go around advocating law-keeping in the sense you are arguing.