What makes someone "Radical 2k"?

[Henry Hall]

If "things in the Judicial law which are unchangeable, and common to all Nations" should be considered conditioned by Gillespie's Proposition 41 (of 111) that

"41. The orthodox churches believe also, and do willingly
acknowledge, that every lawful magistrate, being by God himself
constituted the keeper and defender of both tables of the law,
may and ought first and chiefly to take care of God's glory, and
(according to his place, or in his manner and way) to preserve
religion when pure, and to restore it when decayed and corrupted:
and also to provide a learned and godly ministry, schools also
and synods, as likewise to restrain and punish as well atheists,
blasphemers, heretics and schismatics, as the violaters of justice
and civil peace" and similar statements in Wholesome Severity, so that by such "things" he should be interpreted as meaning "things in the Judicial law which are unchangeable (because moral), and, unlike expired laws peculiar to the State of Israel e.g. the Year of Jubilee law and the Cities of Refuge laws and the boundaries of the tribes laws, are capable of being made common to all Nations," then, yes.

If "things in the Judicial law which are unchangeable, and common to all Nations" is somehow to be interpreted as contrary to WCF 19.4, where "general equity" has been shown by the discussion above to be of a piece with the moral law, and not human application, then, no.

 

[RamistThomist]

If "things in the Judicial law which are unchangeable, and common to all Nations" should be considered conditioned by Gillespie's Proposition 41 (of 111) that

"41. The orthodox churches believe also, and do willingly
acknowledge, that every lawful magistrate, being by God himself
constituted the keeper and defender of both tables of the law,
may and ought first and chiefly to take care of God's glory, and
(according to his place, or in his manner and way) to preserve
religion when pure, and to restore it when decayed and corrupted:
and also to provide a learned and godly ministry, schools also
and synods, as likewise to restrain and punish as well atheists,
blasphemers, heretics and schismatics, as the violaters of justice
and civil peace" and similar statements in Wholesome Severity, so that by such "things" he should be interpreted as meaning "things in the Judicial law which are unchangeable (because moral), and, unlike expired laws peculiar to the State of Israel e.g. the Year of Jubilee law and the Cities of Refuge laws and the boundaries of the tribes laws, are capable of being made common to all Nations," then, yes.

If "things in the Judicial law which are unchangeable, and common to all Nations" is somehow to be interpreted as contrary to WCF 19.4, where "general equity" has been shown by the discussion above to be of a piece with the moral law, and not human application, then, no.

I don't think things *in* the judicial law = the judicial law en toto. But if that's what you think it means, okay. Paul said not to wrangle about the law, so that's probably all I have to say. I do a pretty good job of picking up bird nests on the ground, but I don't worry about it any further than what the general equity requires.

 

[jwright82]

If "things in the Judicial law which are unchangeable, and common to all Nations" should be considered conditioned by Gillespie's Proposition 41 (of 111) that

"41. The orthodox churches believe also, and do willingly
acknowledge, that every lawful magistrate, being by God himself
constituted the keeper and defender of both tables of the law,
may and ought first and chiefly to take care of God's glory, and
(according to his place, or in his manner and way) to preserve
religion when pure, and to restore it when decayed and corrupted:
and also to provide a learned and godly ministry, schools also
and synods, as likewise to restrain and punish as well atheists,
blasphemers, heretics and schismatics, as the violaters of justice
and civil peace" and similar statements in Wholesome Severity, so that by such "things" he should be interpreted as meaning "things in the Judicial law which are unchangeable (because moral), and, unlike expired laws peculiar to the State of Israel e.g. the Year of Jubilee law and the Cities of Refuge laws and the boundaries of the tribes laws, are capable of being made common to all Nations," then, yes.

If "things in the Judicial law which are unchangeable, and common to all Nations" is somehow to be interpreted as contrary to WCF 19.4, where "general equity" has been shown by the discussion above to be of a piece with the moral law, and not human application, then, no.

What do you think "general equity" means for the revised American WCF?

 

[Henry Hall]

I don't think things *in* the judicial law = the judicial law en toto. But if that's what you think it means, okay. Paul said not to wrangle about the law, so that's probably all I have to say. I do a pretty good job of picking up bird nests on the ground, but I don't worry about it any further than what the general equity requires.

Why do you think I think it means that? This is like when you thought I was saying that there was absolutely no exception to having to work 6 days a week for absolutely everyone, absolutely every week.
smh

 

[Henry Hall]

the revised American WCF

Hard to say, Jamey. The revised American WCF is not completely consistent within itself. To some extent it reflects the moral law.

 

[RamistThomist]

Why do you think I think it means that? This is like when you thought I was saying that there was absolutely no exception to having to work 6 days a week for absolutely everyone, absolutely every week.
smh

I have no idea what you are talking about. I might have said that. I don't remember it. I post on topics besides theonomy, so it's harder for me to remember various discussions.

 

[jwright82]

Hard to say, Jamey. The revised American WCF is not completely consistent within itself. To some extent it reflects the moral law.

So I'm assuming, please correct me if I'm wrong, the the change was not good and had no good reason for being done? And those of us who hold to that change are equally wrong as well?

 

[Henry Hall]

The changes were not good. They didn't result from godly study of the Scriptures. That means that those who think the changes were good are in error. Which is not the same thing as saying that officers in denominations that use the American *WCF* should take exception.

I don't know what this has to do with the general equity clause.

 

[VictorBravo]

I don't know what this has to do with the general equity clause.

I'm not following your discussion of the general equity clause. I thought it was pretty straightforward.

An example of Israel's judicial code not being literally applied today, but being applied in general equity:

"Deu 22:8 When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence."

It is very rare for someone to build a battlement on a roof our our houses in Eastern Washington. So we literally violate this command.

But we do have a building code that focuses on safety. It specifies things like rails on stairs, how high a window can be above the ground before precautions must be applied, etc.

So our law does follow general equity.

 

[RamistThomist]

But we do have a building code that focuses on safety. It specifies things like rails on stairs, how high a window can be above the ground before precautions must be applied, etc.

And that illustrates my claim that general equity isn't static. It is by definition dynamic.

 

[Henry Hall]

I'm not following your discussion of the general equity clause. I thought it was pretty straightforward.

An example of Israel's judicial code not being literally applied today, but being applied in general equity:

"Deu 22:8 When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence."

It is very rare for someone to build a battlement on a roof our our houses in Eastern Washington. So we literally violate this command.

But we do have a building code that focuses on safety. It specifies things like rails on stairs, how high a window can be above the ground before precautions must be applied, etc.

So our law does follow general equity.

Victor, the disagreement lies in the use of moral case laws like the one in your example, and like the law having to do with bestiality, and like the law having to do with the *penalty* for bestiality. I agree with your take on the case law (and the general equity of it), because I believe that moral case laws, as moral, are binding.

Others believe that such laws are either not moral (untenable), or moral, but not binding (untenable), and say that "natural law" should be used instead. Some identify this "natural law" (which in one case was claimed to be a "human application") with the general equity of *WCF* 19.4.

Using their method for ethics, they come to many of the same conclusions about laws like the Eastern Washington safety laws, but disagree on others.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Why do you think I think it means that? This is like when you thought I was saying that there was absolutely no exception to having to work 6 days a week for absolutely everyone, absolutely every week.
smh

To be fair, it may have been me rather than Jacob who thought that this conclusion was the logical outworking of the argument you were making on that occasion. I realise now it was not your intention to argue thus, but the way you framed the argument on said occasion led me to believe that it was the logical conclusion of the position you were defending.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I might have said that. I don't remember it. I post on topics besides theonomy, so it's harder for me to remember various discussions.

Henry is alluding to the thread on Thanksgiving and the Fourth Commandment. And, again to be fair, he does post on various topics as well.

 

[jwright82]

Victor, the disagreement lies in the use of moral case laws like the one in your example, and like the law having to do with bestiality, and like the law having to do with the *penalty* for bestiality. I agree with your take on the case law (and the general equity of it), because I believe that moral case laws, as moral, are binding.

Others believe that such laws are either not moral (untenable), or moral, but not binding (untenable), and say that "natural law" should be used instead. Some identify this "natural law" (which in one case was claimed to be a "human application") with the general equity of *WCF* 19.4.

Using their method for ethics, they come to many of the same conclusions about laws like the Eastern Washington safety laws, but disagree on others.

Ok some problems, natural law is binding on all humans. It also reflects the moral law, which is equally binding. If it's the method of analyzing natural than say that. Based on natural law all know they must worship the one true God, but they don't. So keeping this thread on point, you equate R2K with not wanting the state to acknowledge that? I'm not R2k because I don't think it is morally wrong to install the first table of law in a society. I think the inevitable evil that would be done to get there is wrong but it's possible. You participated in that discussion so we dont have to rehash it here, the point I'm making is R2k believe it is immoral to do that. I only think it's impractical to the point of requiring evil to get there.
That said the bestiality thing is moot because all states and, I believe, western societies have laws against it. If you're a Theonomist and believe the only proper punishment is what the Mosaic law demands, fine but lay your theonomy cards down so at least we know where you're coming from. If it's American society's failure to punish them in a way you think is ppropriate, than fine but looking back at the law from a scholarly perspective why did society go the way it went? I'm also gleaning that an R2K person doesn't hold to theonomy. That's the majority of the Reformed world, if I'm incorrect about anything please correct me.

 

[Henry Hall]

Ok some problems, natural law is binding on all humans. It also reflects the moral law, which is equally binding.

Glad you believe that.

If it's the method of analyzing natural than say that.

Ok...I was trying to limit my comments to @VictorBravo 's concerns.
But the method's difficulty is revealed when it is asked, "Can the unbeliever on his unbelieving presuppositions know the content (ethical) of natural law?"

Based on natural law all know they must worship the one true God

They know it inasmuch as they presuppose the Christian God (but *that* they have suppressed in unrighteousness). They became futile in their thoughts. How would such a person develop a righteous ethical system?

R2k believe it is immoral to do that.

I would say that their R2K-ness means that they wouldn't see the obligation to recognize and submit to Christ as King of the nations. (Unlike, say, Calvin.)

That said the bestiality thing is moot because all states and, I believe, western societies have laws against it.

...which (if true, but I don't think it is) is why I added the moral case law about the *penalty* for bestiality.
Or adultery.

If you're a Theonomist and believe the only proper punishment is what the Mosaic law demands, fine but lay your theonomy cards down so at least we know where you're coming from.

Theonomy? *Theos*-*nomos*? God's Law? Yes. But I said as much when I said the the moral case laws have abiding validity.
In the good sense of the word, as Schwertley would say, not the (1st-table denying) kooky sense.

If it's American society's failure to punish them in a way you think is ppropriate, than fine but looking back at the law from a scholarly perspective why did society go the way it went?

Society abandoned God's Law.

I'm also gleaning that an R2K person doesn't hold to theonomy.

That might be the understatement of the year.

 

[RamistThomist]

Glad you believe that.

We don't have to agree with natural law, but the Reformers understood it to be moral law.

Hieronymus Zanchius (Operum, Tom. iv. lib. i. c. 11), Maintains at large, and by several arguments, that we Christians have nothing to do with the moral precepts, as they were given to the Israelites by Moses; but only in so far as they agree with the law of nature, common to all nations, and confirmed by Christ, whom we acknowledge to be our king.

WITSIUS, Economy of the Covenants, 2.179.

 

[Henry Hall]

Unfortunately, r2Ker VanDrunen: "“As a point of clarification, I note that the question of the Christian’s continuing obligation toward the norms and institutions of the Mosaic law must be handled differently from the way I address their obligation toward the natural law, even though the Mosaic and natural laws are both proto-logical laws with so many similarities. Without question the Mosaic law remains relevant for Christians (see 2 Tim. 3:16-17, e.g.). But while the natural is directly binding upon human beings as human beings living in this world, the Mosaic law was directly binding upon people as OT Israelites. Christians today remain human beings living in this world, and hence the natural law remains straightforwardly binding upon them. Christians today, however, are not OT Israelites, and thus the Mosaic law does not obligate them straightforwardly, but must always be interpreted through the grid of new covenant reality” (p. 419, footnote 5).

Pfffffffft. There goes the moral content of the Mosaic law.

That was why I was glad Jamey has the view that he does. The strongest thing DVD can say here about the relationship of "Mosaic" law (he doesn't distinguish between the ethical and positive content in Moses) and natural law is that "the Mosaic and natural laws are both proto-logical laws with so many similarities." That was his disclaimer to the contrast he was drawing between the two.

 

[jwright82]

Glad you believe that.


Ok...I was trying to limit my comments to @VictorBravo 's concerns.
But the method's difficulty is revealed when it is asked, "Can the unbeliever on his unbelieving presuppositions know the content (ethical) of natural law?"


They know it inasmuch as they presuppose the Christian God (but *that* they have suppressed in unrighteousness). They became futile in their thoughts. How would such a person develop a righteous ethical system?


I would say that their R2K-ness means that they wouldn't see the obligation to recognize and submit to Christ as King of the nations. (Unlike, say, Calvin.)


...which (if true, but I don't think it is) is why I added the moral case law about the *penalty* for bestiality.
Or adultery.


Theonomy? *Theos*-*nomos*? God's Law? Yes. But I said as much when I said the the moral case laws have abiding validity.
In the good sense of the word, as Schwertley would say, not the (1st-table denying) kooky sense.


Society abandoned God's Law.


That might be the understatement of the year.

Ok, well I don't think you understand pressupossitonalism, to say that unless the unbeliever presupposes God's law in a positive sense, that is begins with it like a premise of an argument, they can't have a foundation for morality, or any morality it seems (despite evidence to the contrary). Great but they are moral unless Paul is lying in Romans. An apologetical argument is not the same thing as having morality, it is only for persuasion.
By theonomy I mean it seems that you're saying unless we prescribe the Mosaic penalties for a crime we are wrong? But why, and you offered no scholarly answer merely asserted, did society go the way it went? Your best argument is "yes society punishes bestiality (which shows a moral recognition) but I don't like the punishment, therefore society is immoral". If that's not what you're saying than please correct me.

So to sum it up:
1. you misunderstand pressupossitonalism
2. your own opinions of punishments are clouding your judgements, that is unless they punish people the way you think they should they are immoral (despite the fact that they do punish these people, which seems to disprove the whole immoral thing)
3. you sound like a Theonomist, without admitting it. So it's hard to pinpoint where you're coming from
I'm just trying to keep the conversation moving. If your beef is with Dr. Vandrunen, than take it up with him. And you haven't disproven my method for natural law, only presented an untenable position both in the face of common sense/facts and Van Til himself (and the apostle Paul).

 

[jwright82]

Unfortunately, r2Ker VanDrunen: "“As a point of clarification, I note that the question of the Christian’s continuing obligation toward the norms and institutions of the Mosaic law must be handled differently from the way I address their obligation toward the natural law, even though the Mosaic and natural laws are both proto-logical laws with so many similarities. Without question the Mosaic law remains relevant for Christians (see 2 Tim. 3:16-17, e.g.). But while the natural is directly binding upon human beings as human beings living in this world, the Mosaic law was directly binding upon people as OT Israelites. Christians today remain human beings living in this world, and hence the natural law remains straightforwardly binding upon them. Christians today, however, are not OT Israelites, and thus the Mosaic law does not obligate them straightforwardly, but must always be interpreted through the grid of new covenant reality” (p. 419, footnote 5).

Pfffffffft. There goes the moral content of the Mosaic law.

That was why I was glad Jamey has the view that he does. The strongest thing DVD can say here about the relationship of "Mosaic" law (he doesn't distinguish between the ethical and positive content in Moses) and natural law is that "the Mosaic and natural laws are both proto-logical laws with so many similarities." That was his disclaimer to the contrast he was drawing between the two.

Again you're equating any other view than theonomy as "not having the moral law" even though in your quote Dr. Vandrunen affirms the law "through the grid of the new covenant". You just don't like the way he's doing it, because it's not theonomy.

 

[RamistThomist]

Pfffffffft. There goes the moral content of the Mosaic law.

I love your humble and reverent tone. That really adds to the discussion, especially since we are discussing Teaching Elders of good standing in the church.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Time for this one to rest. Folks review the board rules for discussion. Or the general principle at least, let all things be done unto edification.