I'm new to PB, and this is my first thread I'm starting. I began responding to the thread by KMK on "Help Im slipping into Theonomy" but I couldn't keep up with all the posts. I don't know how you guys do it, I tried to in the beginning, but then it's like a landslide of posts, and if you are going to respond to everything, you have to write a book for every post. Then people start posting articles, and going down 100 rabbit trails etc. Kind of hard to steer the discussion straight. Might be easier sitting down over a pipe and beer.
Nonetheless, I'll attempt to strike at what I see to be a major issue between theonomists and non theonomists (especially Klineans). Please try not to steer this post off in 100 different directions or post 5-10 page ariticles, because it's not helpful, and everyone ends up just talking past one another and not really getting to the heart of issues.
With that being said, here is firstly my view, and secondly a question.
It seems to me that at the heart of the theonomy debate is the relationship between the case law and the decalogue. Also a major issue (and closely related) is the relationship between the mosaic law and natural revelation, specifically from Rom 1-3.
My belief is that the case law is a natural extension of the decalogue. God first gives the decalogue, but then the question remains as to how we are to keep the decalogue. He says "thou shalt not murder" but exactly what does that mean for issues of self defense, warfare, capital punishment, etc. Exactly what constitues lawful self defense, and when does self defense itself turn into murder? These are all questions that arise from the decalogue. Therefore God further clarifies the decalogue with the specific applications of the decalogue, given in the case laws.
The case laws, therefore, are seen as a definition of the ten commandments, they define for us, in applicatory form, of how the decalogue is to be understood. The reason why the relationship between the two is so important is that there are many today who want to keep the decalogue, but not the case laws. This simply makes no sense. You cannot do away with the definition and keep that which is defined. If you change the defintion, you have in fact changed what is defined. Therefore if anyone says that they keep the decalogue but not the case laws, they have in fact reinvented the decalogue. When we submit to the decalogue, we must in turn submit to the interpretation of the decalogue which God provides.
Closely related to this issue is the relation of special revelation and general revelation in the ethical field. Exactly what is the relationship between the moral principles God has revealed in nature/conscience and those which he has revealed in the Mosaic covenant? The klinean/natural law position teaches that natural law can basically be equated with the decalogue. Of course this would bring us once again to the above discussion. Because if the case law is an exposition/definition of the decalogue, then acording to the natural law theory, it would follow that the case law is an exposition/definition of natural law as well. Of course they don't want to go this far, but if my reasoning is sound, it logically follows. This seems to me to be unavoidable, even Dr. R. Scott Clark writes as follows in his aricle "Calvin and Natural Law" posted on his blog on 12/26/06
As I read Rom 1-3, Paul teaches that the difference between natural law and the Mosaic code is not one of content, but a distinction in the method of revelation. The gentiles have the law (singular) revealed to them in nature, so they are without excuse. The Jews have the same law revealed not only nature but in explicit forms in the oracles of God, so they are even further from an excuse. Paul sums up his argument in 3:19 when he says that whatever the law (singular) says, it says to those who are under it, so that every mouth (both Jew and Gentile) will be silent, and the whole world be held accountable. There is not two laws, one revealed in nature and another in the Mosaic covenant. There is one law, which is revealed in both nature and the mosaic covenant.
So here is my question/challenge to those who disagree. Can you show that the case law is not a defintion/application of the decalogue? If so, what is the relationship between the two? Please don't go into a diatribe on the theocratic state, but specifically what is the relationship between the 10 commandments and the case law.
Also, if you believe that natural revelation and special revelation teach a different ethic can you prove your position from Rom 1-3? If not, then why would you prefer to use natural revelation which is distorted by sinful men, to the clear and objective oracles of God, revealed in Scripture?
I pray that this discussion will be helpfull.
Nonetheless, I'll attempt to strike at what I see to be a major issue between theonomists and non theonomists (especially Klineans). Please try not to steer this post off in 100 different directions or post 5-10 page ariticles, because it's not helpful, and everyone ends up just talking past one another and not really getting to the heart of issues.
With that being said, here is firstly my view, and secondly a question.
It seems to me that at the heart of the theonomy debate is the relationship between the case law and the decalogue. Also a major issue (and closely related) is the relationship between the mosaic law and natural revelation, specifically from Rom 1-3.
My belief is that the case law is a natural extension of the decalogue. God first gives the decalogue, but then the question remains as to how we are to keep the decalogue. He says "thou shalt not murder" but exactly what does that mean for issues of self defense, warfare, capital punishment, etc. Exactly what constitues lawful self defense, and when does self defense itself turn into murder? These are all questions that arise from the decalogue. Therefore God further clarifies the decalogue with the specific applications of the decalogue, given in the case laws.
The case laws, therefore, are seen as a definition of the ten commandments, they define for us, in applicatory form, of how the decalogue is to be understood. The reason why the relationship between the two is so important is that there are many today who want to keep the decalogue, but not the case laws. This simply makes no sense. You cannot do away with the definition and keep that which is defined. If you change the defintion, you have in fact changed what is defined. Therefore if anyone says that they keep the decalogue but not the case laws, they have in fact reinvented the decalogue. When we submit to the decalogue, we must in turn submit to the interpretation of the decalogue which God provides.
Closely related to this issue is the relation of special revelation and general revelation in the ethical field. Exactly what is the relationship between the moral principles God has revealed in nature/conscience and those which he has revealed in the Mosaic covenant? The klinean/natural law position teaches that natural law can basically be equated with the decalogue. Of course this would bring us once again to the above discussion. Because if the case law is an exposition/definition of the decalogue, then acording to the natural law theory, it would follow that the case law is an exposition/definition of natural law as well. Of course they don't want to go this far, but if my reasoning is sound, it logically follows. This seems to me to be unavoidable, even Dr. R. Scott Clark writes as follows in his aricle "Calvin and Natural Law" posted on his blog on 12/26/06
He admits that the Mosaic civil code is the logical application of natural law, because he equates natural law with the decalogue. If this is the case, then the only difference between him and a theonomist is that he wants to come up with the same applications of the decalogue, but he wants to try to do it all from natural revelation, unless a dispute arises and he is forced to turn to the case law/civil code. I know, he won't want to say that, but it seems that he has come close to admiting as much in the above quote.We don't need to invoke the Mosaic civil code, except perhaps, as a concrete example of the application of natural law
As I read Rom 1-3, Paul teaches that the difference between natural law and the Mosaic code is not one of content, but a distinction in the method of revelation. The gentiles have the law (singular) revealed to them in nature, so they are without excuse. The Jews have the same law revealed not only nature but in explicit forms in the oracles of God, so they are even further from an excuse. Paul sums up his argument in 3:19 when he says that whatever the law (singular) says, it says to those who are under it, so that every mouth (both Jew and Gentile) will be silent, and the whole world be held accountable. There is not two laws, one revealed in nature and another in the Mosaic covenant. There is one law, which is revealed in both nature and the mosaic covenant.
So here is my question/challenge to those who disagree. Can you show that the case law is not a defintion/application of the decalogue? If so, what is the relationship between the two? Please don't go into a diatribe on the theocratic state, but specifically what is the relationship between the 10 commandments and the case law.
Also, if you believe that natural revelation and special revelation teach a different ethic can you prove your position from Rom 1-3? If not, then why would you prefer to use natural revelation which is distorted by sinful men, to the clear and objective oracles of God, revealed in Scripture?
I pray that this discussion will be helpfull.
Last edited: