What is a Theodidactician?

Status
Not open for further replies.

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
I see this being bandied about as an alternative to Theonomy while avoiding the conceptual difficulties with intrusion type ethical systems. I am curious:

1. Define the term. Give biblical support.
2. Show how it applies in modern situations.
3. Outline its penal sanctions wtihout being arbitrary or saying "the civil magistrate should follow his good judgment" (not saying that is necessary to the position, I just hear it a lot and think it is a fatal concession to tyrants).
 
Consider William Ames (Conscience 4:4:12):

"that law, Lev. 24:15, 16, although it bind not Christians as it is a law, yet as it is a doctrine coming from God, it doth belong to the direction of Christians in cases of the like nature."

The virtue of the OT judicial law is not in the fact that it is a legal code, but a source of inspired and infallible instruction for the Christian. The apostle says as much in his discussion on muzzling the ox in 1 Cor. 9.

Now a Christian magistrate would be foolish to ignore the Scriptures, including the OT legal code, as a source of instruction in how to govern a nation prudently under God. But he is not bound to the legal code itself. The Westminster Confession speaks of wholesome laws of each commonwealth, and thus allows a degree of liberty to legislators.

The WCF also speaks of the "magistrate." Magisterial authority is by definition an authority of superiority. Regrettably, some theonomists speak as if his authority is merely ministerial, and as if his actions are bound to the regulative principle like ecclesiastical office-bearers.
 
For the most part, that sounds really good and we are probably in much agreement. I would definitely take that over pluralism or intrusionism any day. I do have a few questions:
The Westminster Confession speaks of wholesome laws of each commonwealth, and thus allows a degree of liberty to legislators.

My question is (and I myself do not have this fully worked out) how do we tell which laws are "wholesome?" Other than that, I am very much intriguied by what you have to say.

Thank you, Reverend.
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
My question is (and I myself do not have this fully worked out) how do we tell which laws are "wholesome?" Other than that, I am very much intriguied by what you have to say.

How do we decide if any action is wholesome? Does it accord with the divine will (deontology) and does it serve the end for which we are made (teleology)?

There is one lawgiver with power to destroy and save. He has given that power temporally and civilly to magistrates. The magistrate should acknowledge God as supreme governor, and His Word as the final arbiter of good and evil. Hence, insofar as a law accords with His Word it might be regarded as wholesome deontologically.

Moreover, civil magistracy serves a particular purpose. It must keep order in society, for example. So where a law fulfils that purpose it can be regarded as wholesome teleologically.
 
Originally posted by armourbearer
Consider William Ames (Conscience 4:4:12):

"that law, Lev. 24:15, 16, although it bind not Christians as it is a law, yet as it is a doctrine coming from God, it doth belong to the direction of Christians in cases of the like nature."

The virtue of the OT judicial law is not in the fact that it is a legal code, but a source of inspired and infallible instruction for the Christian. The apostle says as much in his discussion on muzzling the ox in 1 Cor. 9.

Now a Christian magistrate would be foolish to ignore the Scriptures, including the OT legal code, as a source of instruction in how to govern a nation prudently under God. But he is not bound to the legal code itself. The Westminster Confession speaks of wholesome laws of each commonwealth, and thus allows a degree of liberty to legislators.

The WCF also speaks of the "magistrate." Magisterial authority is by definition an authority of superiority. Regrettably, some theonomists speak as if his authority is merely ministerial, and as if his actions are bound to the regulative principle like ecclesiastical office-bearers.

:ditto: Well said, Rev. Winzer. :up:

I also like what Gouge says about the judicials:

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
William Gouge on Heb. 7.12:

Sec. 69. Of the judicial law of the Jews.

Besides the ceremonial law, the Jews had a judicial law, proper and peculiar to that polity. This law concerned especially their civil estate. Many branches of that law appertained to the Jewish priesthood; as, the particular laws about the cities of refuge, whither such as slew any unawares fled, and there abode till the death of the high priest, Num. xxxv.25. And laws about lepers, which the priest was to judge, Lev. xiv.3. And sundy other cases which the priest was to judge of, Deut. xvii.9. So also the laws of distinguishing tribes, Num. xxxvi.7; of reserving inheritances to special tribes and families, of selling them to the next of kin, Ruth iv.4; of raising seed to a brother that died without issue, Gen. xxxviii.8, 9; of all manner of freedoms at the year of jubilee, Lev. xxv.13, etc.

There were other branches of the judicial law which rested upon common equity, and were means of keeping the moral law: as putting to death idolaters and such as enticed others thereunto; and witches, and wilful murderers, and other notorious malefactors. So likewise laws against incest and incestuous marriages; laws of reverencing and obeying superiors and governors, and of dealing justly in borrowing, restoring, buying, selling, and all manner of contracts, Exod. xxii.20; Deut. xiii.9; Exod. xx.18; Num. xxxv.30; Lev. xx.11, etc., 32, 35.

The former sort were abolished together with the priesthood.

The latter sort remain as good directions to order even Christian politics accordingly.

1. By these kinds of laws the wisdom of God was manifested in observing what was fit for the particular kind and condition of people; and in giving them answerable laws, and yet not tying all nations and states thereunto.

2. That liberty which God affordeth to others to have laws most agreeable to their own country, so as they be not contrary to equity and piety, bindeth them more obediently to submit themselves to their own wholesome laws, and to keep peace, unity, and amity among themselves.
 
The WCF also speaks of the "magistrate." Magisterial authority is by definition an authority of superiority. Regrettably, some theonomists speak as if his authority is merely ministerial, and as if his actions are bound to the regulative principle like ecclesiastical office-bearers.

I've never seen this point articulated in this way, but I agree completely. I've always been puzzled by the point of view of some who seem to (essentially) require the government to provide chapter and verse for any law or policy they enact.
 
Does it accord with the divine will (deontology) and does it serve the end for which we are made (teleology)?

That sort of mirror's Bahnsen's course on different ethical perspectives. I am not saying that yall are saying the same things, but I surely appreciate your approach to the matter. There is much to commend it and if I were to accept an alternative to theonomy at the moment (I'm not) this is the best thing I have seen so far.
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I also like what Gouge says about the judicials:

I just pasted it in a footnote under WCF 19. Thankyou, Andrew.
 
Originally posted by satz
I've never seen this point articulated in this way, but I agree completely. I've always been puzzled by the point of view of some who seem to (essentially) require the government to provide chapter and verse for any law or policy they enact.

Mark,

Next time I am up visiting Sydney Uni, it would be great to meet up with you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top