# "Revelation of Law in the Scripture" by Patrick Fairbairn



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Apr 14, 2010)

Has a person here on PB read this book? 

I have some questions concerning some things Fairbairn brings up in its pages.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 14, 2010)

I have not, but as one who generally appreciates Fairbairn, I'd be interested in the topic.


----------



## MW (Apr 14, 2010)

What are the questions?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Apr 14, 2010)

The first one is Fairbairn's view on "evolution". 

On pages 20-21 he says this:



> "Even in the account given of the foundation of the world and the natural constitution of things therewith connected, it is obviously with the design of forming a suitable introduction to the place of man in the world, his moral relation to the Creator, and his special distinction as the responsible head of creation upon earth, that the narrative was framed, rather than for the purpose of affording any insight into the merely natural relations and properties of things. The physical, as such, with its manifold gradations, its laws of attraction and repulsion, modes of operation, existing forms and possible transformations,-all this is either unnoticed in Scripture, or indicated only in the rougher outlines. Even the vexed question respecting the origin and distinctions of species in the animal creation is but partially involved here; for, while Scripture undoubtedly represents the existing families of mankind as originating in the formation of one pair by the immediate interposition of God and also represents the production of plants, fishes, land animals, fowls, as coming at successive stages into being and each constituted so as to bring forth after its kind..."
> 
> Fairbairn goes on to further equivocate on dividing animal creation from Man and that while we cannot say Man descended from anything, "Modern Science" must be trusted on the descent of the creatures and the "natural world".



My question from this is how does one's view of the natural world affect one's view of the Law?


----------



## MW (Apr 14, 2010)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> My question from this is how does one's view of the natural world affect one's view of the Law?


 
I'm tempted to simply say, Read on.

You will form a better idea of Fairbairn on evolution when you come to the footnote which shows the problems with Darwinian thinking in terms of a creed. Faribairn wrote around the time of the naturalist ascendancy, before the theory of evolution or time and criticism had effected its rebuttal. He was among a class of Free Church thinkers who allowed science its province, generally considered Darwinism speculative, and strictly maintained biblical origins in terms of moral categories.

When you come to sub-section II., it will be shown how materialism, idealism, and realism tend to function in distinct ways in relation to law. I will let you enjoy the discovery because Fairbairn has his own delicious way of presenting his dishes.


----------



## DTK (Apr 15, 2010)

Pastor Winzer offers here a very helpful comment on Fairbairn, and the general contemporary climate of his day. I have the book, and have a high appreciation for Fairbairn's treatment of this subject.


----------



## loomster2000 (Apr 20, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > My question from this is how does one's view of the natural world affect one's view of the Law?
> ...


 
Scrumptiously stated....


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 24, 2010)

I've read this book a long time ago and Fairbairn gives some degree of balance against the notion of theonomy a la Rushdoony and Bahnsen. 

He points out that the basic principle of justice is embodied in the _lex talionis_, that the punishment should be commensurate with the crime and that modern Christian governments shouldn't _always_ hew too closely to Mosaic penology.

I suppose we'd have to go to the Theonomy section to discuss this.


----------

