Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Please tell me which parts of God's law we are now required to obey?
Please define your term. What exactly do you mean by "God's law"?
That was addressed to Nicholas, not to you.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Please tell me which parts of God's law we are now required to obey?
Please define your term. What exactly do you mean by "God's law"?
That is not true if you are referring to Christian Reconstructionism proper. Personal regeneration NEVER leads to the belief that the Christian is placed back under the terms of the Sinatic covenant for blessing or cursings. To the contrary, personal regeneration leads to resting in the fact that Christ merited those blessings and suffered those cursings in our behalf.
Personal regeneration then leads to personal sanctification, which, with the blessing of God, in turn leads to the spread of the Gospel and to cultural reformation.
According to this logic the people in the Old Testament must have been saved in some other way than by the merits of Christ. That is Dispensationalism.
Daniel,
That is unwarranted conclusion. Nothing at all was ever said to suggest that OT saints were saved other than by the merits of Christ.
Please read my response to Brian Schwertley's similar charge of Dispensationalism HERE.
The Old Covenant promised blessings for obedience (i.e. longevity, health, continued tenure in the land, etc), and cursings for disobedience (i.e. death, sickness, expulsion from the land, etc.) Do you believe that these sanctions carry over into the New Covenant? If so, then you can't agree that these sanctions were typological.
Greg: Thank you kindly for this clarification. Obviously I did not develop this thought, but this is what I was attemtping to say. Hence putting "new" before Galatian is more assuredly correct. AS an aside, Paul did not seperate the mosaic law into 3 parts in this writing. The Judaizers were transporting the OT Mosaic convenant into the New Covenant, and were shaprly rebuked by Paul who did not tolerate this thought one bit, Hence the Pauline corpus is much harder on leagalism in any sense of the word compared to the antinomianism in the corinthian body.
Please tell me which parts of God's law we are now required to obey?
What do you mean which part and what is the motivation for obedience? We are specifically speaking of penal sanctions attached to thus Law. Which again was not part of the Pauline Corpus.
Genesis 9 does not distinguish between manslaughter and murder, you need further revelation to do that.
Nor does it tell you how to punish rape, incest, kidnapping, nor not supporting Tradition GOP values, etc.
Look at modern day America or Europe. And conversely, the Bible itself promises cultural blessings for cultural obedience. I know, I know, that was the old testmament and Isreal was a theocracy. But on the other hand, maybe there is a logic and consistency to God's order.
I was only showing support for your thought above in the last quote Jacob that God did in fact bless and curse based upon cultural behavior before the Mosaic Covenant. And if he acted thus before the Mosaic Covenant then the arguments you seem to suggest concerning Isreal's Theocracy have no warrant. You and Daniel Ritchie went past my post's intention.
Where did Bahnsen say that the civil magistrate was covenantally bound to enforce the penal sanctions of the Mosaic law? I know at least one place where he denies that premise.
According to Bahnsen:
"The overall view of the civil magistrate according to Scripture (whether Older Testament, New Testament, Israelite or Gentile) has been found to be uniform and unchanged.... Thus the doctrine of the state presented by Paul in Romans 13 is a reaffirmation of the essential Older Testament conception of the civil magistrate" [Theonomy in Christian Ethics, page 398; emphasis in original].
The civil magistrate in the "Older Testament conception" was a covenantal agent, so the implication is that, since this conception is "uniform and unchanged," the civil magistrate today is also a covenantal agent. To the contrary, Romans 13 says absolutely nothing about the magistrate's duty to enforce the judicial laws of the Old covenant. The magistrate is a common grace institution which was established in embryonic form in Genesis 9 - long before Sinai.
Again:
"If the magistrate is to have direction from God, if the magistrate is to be limited in what he can legitimately do, and if there is to be any court of appeal above the magistrate to which the Christian can plead against abuse, then the magistrate should be seen as bound by the law of God and obligated to enforce it...." [ibid., page 466]
"Law of God" = Sinaitic covenant, according to Theonomy. Hence, the magistrate is covenantally bound to enforce the laws of the Sinaitic covenant.
My library is all packed up in preparation for moving, so that's the best I can do at the moment.
Look at modern day America or Europe. And conversely, the Bible itself promises cultural blessings for cultural obedience. I know, I know, that was the old testmament and Isreal was a theocracy. But on the other hand, maybe there is a logic and consistency to God's order.
Remember Adam or Noah? Pre Mosaic. I was just reading an article in the Reformed Baptist Theological Review by Robert Gonzales Jr. where he references the Noahic Covenant as having foundation in the Pre fall Covenant possibly.
Anyways there is blessing and cursings placed on the whole of cultural obedience before the Mosaic.
I don't dispute that. I would only express my doubts that a comprehensive Christian ethic can be derived from Genesis 9. Or pre-fall. I don't mind using whatever insights may be there, but I find them incomplete.
Remember Adam or Noah? Pre Mosaic. I was just reading an article in the Reformed Baptist Theological Review by Robert Gonzales Jr. where he references the Noahic Covenant as having foundation in the Pre fall Covenant possibly.
Anyways there is blessing and cursings placed on the whole of cultural obedience before the Mosaic.
I don't dispute that. I would only express my doubts that a comprehensive Christian ethic can be derived from Genesis 9. Or pre-fall. I don't mind using whatever insights may be there, but I find them incomplete.
A comprehensive theonomic (non-CR) ethic is not limited to pre-fall data or Gen. 9. It incorporates pre-Sinai data, Sinai data and NT data, each as and where appropriate.
AS an aside, Paul did not seperate the mosaic law into 3 parts in this writing.
Where did Bahnsen say that the civil magistrate was covenantally bound to enforce the penal sanctions of the Mosaic law? I know at least one place where he denies that premise.
According to Bahnsen:
"The overall view of the civil magistrate according to Scripture (whether Older Testament, New Testament, Israelite or Gentile) has been found to be uniform and unchanged.... Thus the doctrine of the state presented by Paul in Romans 13 is a reaffirmation of the essential Older Testament conception of the civil magistrate" [Theonomy in Christian Ethics, page 398; emphasis in original].
The civil magistrate in the "Older Testament conception" was a covenantal agent, so the implication is that, since this conception is "uniform and unchanged," the civil magistrate today is also a covenantal agent. To the contrary, Romans 13 says absolutely nothing about the magistrate's duty to enforce the judicial laws of the Old covenant. The magistrate is a common grace institution which was established in embryonic form in Genesis 9 - long before Sinai.
Again:
"If the magistrate is to have direction from God, if the magistrate is to be limited in what he can legitimately do, and if there is to be any court of appeal above the magistrate to which the Christian can plead against abuse, then the magistrate should be seen as bound by the law of God and obligated to enforce it...." [ibid., page 466]
"Law of God" = Sinaitic covenant, according to Theonomy. Hence, the magistrate is covenantally bound to enforce the laws of the Sinaitic covenant.
My library is all packed up in preparation for moving, so that's the best I can do at the moment.
Hi Greg:
You will need better evidence before you charge Bahnsen with requiring the civil magistrate to hold the Mosaic judicials as a covenantal duty.
From those excerpts, one may only reach your conclusion by way of inference and, lacking better evidence, I suspect that not only is the inference unnecessary but that Bahnsen would also deny your claim.
Once you move and have unpacked, I think you should doublecheck Bahnsen's books and if you find no passages that make the fulfillment of Mosaic judicials the magistrates covenantal responsibility, then you shoudl withdraw the claim.
All inferences, yes, but I think they are valid inferences.
According to Bahnsen:
"The overall view of the civil magistrate according to Scripture (whether Older Testament, New Testament, Israelite or Gentile) has been found to be uniform and unchanged.... Thus the doctrine of the state presented by Paul in Romans 13 is a reaffirmation of the essential Older Testament conception of the civil magistrate" [Theonomy in Christian Ethics, page 398; emphasis in original].
The civil magistrate in the "Older Testament conception" was a covenantal agent, so the implication is that, since this conception is "uniform and unchanged," the civil magistrate today is also a covenantal agent. To the contrary, Romans 13 says absolutely nothing about the magistrate's duty to enforce the judicial laws of the Old covenant. The magistrate is a common grace institution which was established in embryonic form in Genesis 9 - long before Sinai.
Again:
"If the magistrate is to have direction from God, if the magistrate is to be limited in what he can legitimately do, and if there is to be any court of appeal above the magistrate to which the Christian can plead against abuse, then the magistrate should be seen as bound by the law of God and obligated to enforce it...." [ibid., page 466]
"Law of God" = Sinaitic covenant, according to Theonomy. Hence, the magistrate is covenantally bound to enforce the laws of the Sinaitic covenant.
My library is all packed up in preparation for moving, so that's the best I can do at the moment.
Hi Greg:
You will need better evidence before you charge Bahnsen with requiring the civil magistrate to hold the Mosaic judicials as a covenantal duty.
From those excerpts, one may only reach your conclusion by way of inference and, lacking better evidence, I suspect that not only is the inference unnecessary but that Bahnsen would also deny your claim.
Once you move and have unpacked, I think you should doublecheck Bahnsen's books and if you find no passages that make the fulfillment of Mosaic judicials the magistrates covenantal responsibility, then you shoudl withdraw the claim.
Here is what was written on the flap of Theonomy: An Informed Response:
"Theonomy: An Informed Response is a mopping-up operation. It completes what Gary North began in Westminster's Confession: the Abandonment of Van Til's Legacy and Greg L. Bahnsen extended in No Other Standard: Theonomy and Its Critics. The authors challenge the Westminster's faculty's assertion that biblical civil law is no longer binding in the New Covenant era, especially its mandated negative civil sanctions against convicted criminals. The authors ask the faculty: What does the Bible require of civil government if a resurrected Old Covenant law-order is not applicable? What is the Bible-sanctioned alternative? In short, 'If not God's law, then whose?'
There are two things to notice here: First, Theonomy is said to teach a "resurrected Old Covenant law-order" along with its "mandated negative civil sanctions," and second, the term "God's law" is narrowly identified with this "law-order."
Granted, the above was written by Gary North, but Bahnsen was a contributor to the book and I have never read that he objected to North's summary of Theonomy.
In fact, Bahnsen's son David has made public Bahnsen's objections to at least one Northean hyperbole, so one can no longer assume that North speaks for Bahnsen.
Bahnsen was always more cautious than North, and it is true, one is often left to draw conclusions from inference rather than explicit statement when coming to an understanding of his position.
I just found my copy of Theonomy in Christian Ethics and am going through some of the things I've highlighted in it. Here are some quotes:
"The New Covenant presents no new covenantal law or moral order.... [quotes from 1 Chron 16:14-17] The perpetuity of God's commandments follows from the eternality of His covenant of which they comprise an inalienable part" [pages 184-185 - from the chapter entitled "Covenantal Unity"]
Inference: The Old and New Covenants are really only the same covenant under "older" and "newer" administrations. Consequently, the civil magistrate today is under the same covenantal obligations as the magistrate in OT Israel. Later on in Chapter 16, Bahnsen verified that this is indeed the direction he meant to go when he asked the rhetorical question, "Ought the civil magistrate to obey and enforce the Older Testament law of God (particularly its penal sanctions)? [page 317].
This one doesn't do it. For Bahnsen, were he here, could reply: "You need to notice that the first sentence of the paragraph you quoted on p. 184 beigins "One could anticipate that the law of Moses would have permanent validity... He is here only adducing grounds for suspecting that the law would continue permanently: he is not asserting that it does so.
More importantly, the question at issue is not merely does the perpetuity of the commandments follow from this premise? but does Bahnsen thinks it does so on covenantal grounds. Bahnsen doesn't say this plainly here, and when we look at the 10 theses he presented as part of his introduction to Theonomy's second edition, we find him writing at thesis 4 "...Old Testament Standing Laws continue to be morally [my emphasis] binding in the New Testament..." By the way, when researching Bahnsen I early developed the habit of checking every belief I thought he was propoudning by these 10 theses since this is his own "distilled form" of Theonomy. As such, they deserve to function as an interpretive control.
Chapter 17 lays out the civil magistrate's covenantal duty to enforce "covenantal law" within Israel. Since there is "no new covenantal law or moral order" and the "one covenant" is eternal, according to Bahnsen, one should expect that he would apply the same responsibility to the civil magistrate today. That is exactly his point in Chapter 19: "The magistrate must rule, then, according to God's Law" [page 387] - not just the moral law, but the specific "covenantal law" given at Sinai. On page 399, he wrote, "The continuing validity of the law and the uniform doctrine of the civil magistrate make it nearly impossible to drive a wedge between the moral obligations of the civil magistrate now and those of the civil magistrate in the Older Testament."
All inferences, yes, but I think they are valid inferences. Bahnsen flattened out the Old and New Covenants into one covenant and taught that the civil magistrate's duty to enforce "covenantal law" is unchanged since Sinai.
And Bahnsen could reply: "You are overlooking the fact that I clearly distinguished between covenantal administrations. I am not saying that the civil magistrate's obligation to institute and enforce applicable Mosaic judicials today applies because the Sinai covenant administration remains operative (which indeed would be Galatianism). Instead, they apply today because 'God's revealed standing laws are a reflection of his moral character and, as such, are absolute in the sense of being non-arbitrary, objective, universal, and established in advance of particular circumstances...' (Bahnsen, Theonomy) Thesis 6 p.xxvi) and as such they morally apply today as per my thesis 4. This is the reason why your next point also fails."
This view fails to consider the typological and pedagogical purpose of the Sinaitic covenant and it implies that God's covenantal relationship with national Israel was not unique in history but was normative and was intended to extend to all the nations of the world. When I was a theonomic Postmillennialist, I would have said, "Yeah, so what?" But now, as an Amillennialist, that idea is utterly foreign to me. "This present evil age is passing away." "My kingdom is not of this world." There are two kingdoms - the City of Man (where the civil magistrate sits temporarily as God's common grace agent) and the City of God (where the elect of God are found). Contrary to Theonomy and Reconism, there is no mixing of the two kingdoms in Scripture.
You are correct that there is no mixing of the two kingdoms in Scripture. But Christians in countries following the English parliamentary tradition share in the ultimate sovereignty. And what happens if God sends a revival to a country and Christians become the majority of voters How then are we to exercise our responsibility? I am sure you will agree that we ought not to ignore the political realm but apply WCF 19:4, correctly understood, to the situation?
Finally, the Westminster divines clearly stated that the OT civil law has expired with the nation of Israel and no longer obliges beyond the general equity thereof. So, Bahnsen's insistence that there is "no new covenantal order" is unconfessional and just plain wrong.
Agreed
In fact, Bahnsen's son David has made public Bahnsen's objections to at least one Northean hyperbole, so one can no longer assume that North speaks for Bahnsen.
This one doesn't do it. For Bahnsen, were he here, could reply: "You need to notice that the first sentence of the paragraph you quoted on p. 184 beigins "One could anticipate that the law of Moses would have permanent validity... He is here only adducing grounds for suspecting that the law would continue permanently: he is not asserting that it does so.
More importantly, the question at issue is not merely does the perpetuity of the commandments follow from this premise? but does Bahnsen thinks it does so on covenantal grounds. Bahnsen doesn't say this plainly here, and when we look at the 10 theses he presented as part of his introduction to Theonomy's second edition, we find him writing at thesis 4 "...Old Testament Standing Laws continue to be morally [my emphasis] binding in the New Testament..." By the way, when researching Bahnsen I early developed the habit of checking every belief I thought he was propoudning by these 10 theses since this is his own "distilled form" of Theonomy. As such, they deserve to function as an interpretive control.
And Bahnsen could reply: "You are overlooking the fact that I clearly distinguished between covenantal administrations. I am not saying that the civil magistrate's obligation to institute and enforce applicable Mosaic judicials today applies because the Sinai covenant administration remains operative (which indeed would be Galatianism).
You are correct that there is no mixing of the two kingdoms in Scripture. But Christians in countries following the English parliamentary tradition share in the ultimate sovereignty. And what happens if God sends a revival to a country and Christians become the majority of voters How then are we to exercise our responsibility? I am sure you will agree that we ought not to ignore the political realm but apply WCF 19:4, correctly understood, to the situation?
Finally, the Westminster divines clearly stated that the OT civil law has expired with the nation of Israel and no longer obliges beyond the general equity thereof. So, Bahnsen's insistence that there is "no new covenantal order" is unconfessional and just plain wrong.
Agreed
AS an aside, Paul did not seperate the mosaic law into 3 parts in this writing.
Are you saying that the three part distinction is invalid or something?
CT
Do you disagree with the historic Christian understanding, including our blessed Confession, on the tri-partite division of the Law?
Do you disagree with the historic Christian understanding, including our blessed Confession, on the tri-partite division of the Law?
It is not necessary to disagree with the historic Christian understanding including the confessions on the tripartite division of the law to affirm as that the law has covenantally expired. The tripartite division is a tool applied by later Christians to analyze how which parts of the law remain "profitable" today.
AS an aside, Paul did not seperate the mosaic law into 3 parts in this writing.
Are you saying that the three part distinction is invalid or something?
CT
I am saying I, as of lately, do not see the 3 part distinction in the Pauline corpus. With much prayer and supplication, I am fighting endlessly on this subject. Has God sent me a delusion? I pray not. Am I being swayed to and fro? I pray not. In my heart of hearts I am unable to see this 3 part distinction as clear as others can. I see different aspects of it in Paul. All under the umbrella of Mosaic code. And an overwhleming amount of evidence that Paul speaks of it being abolished, all of it. I know the reprecussions of this thinking will lead one to call me antinomian. If you please bear with me and allow yourselves some patience with me on this subject, it will be greatly appreciated....
Do you disagree with the historic Christian understanding, including our blessed Confession, on the tri-partite division of the Law?
In fact, Bahnsen's son David has made public Bahnsen's objections to at least one Northean hyperbole, so one can no longer assume that North speaks for Bahnsen.
Well, this is the problem I'm having then. If I were asked to contribute to a book on a particular subject that was edited, published, and interpreted by someone with whom I was in vital disagreement with, I would not even consider doing it.
All throughout the years that I was involved in the Recon movement, I never once saw Bahnsen distance himself from it. In fact, back in 1994, Bahnsen published an article of mine in his Penpoint newsletter which defended Reconism. I was an avid reader of Gary North, and since I saw them associated with one another in the same movement, perhaps I tended to read Bahnsen through the lens of North.
So, you are saying that you have evidence to prove that Bahnsen rejected North's interpretation of Theonomy as teaching a "resurrected Old Covenant law-order"? I would very much like to see that, and if true, I will make note of it in the revision of my book that I'm working on.
This one doesn't do it. For Bahnsen, were he here, could reply: "You need to notice that the first sentence of the paragraph you quoted on p. 184 beigins "One could anticipate that the law of Moses would have permanent validity... He is here only adducing grounds for suspecting that the law would continue permanently: he is not asserting that it does so.
More importantly, the question at issue is not merely does the perpetuity of the commandments follow from this premise? but does Bahnsen thinks it does so on covenantal grounds. Bahnsen doesn't say this plainly here, and when we look at the 10 theses he presented as part of his introduction to Theonomy's second edition, we find him writing at thesis 4 "...Old Testament Standing Laws continue to be morally [my emphasis] binding in the New Testament..." By the way, when researching Bahnsen I early developed the habit of checking every belief I thought he was propoudning by these 10 theses since this is his own "distilled form" of Theonomy. As such, they deserve to function as an interpretive control.
Okay, I have the 1977 edition published by Craig Press. This is the one to which Meredith Kline responded, and Kline got the same impression that I did: that Bahnsen was teaching continuity on covenantal grounds, instead of merely moral grounds. So did Walter Chantry and many others.
Here's what it looks like to me: Bahnsen shot out of the gate insisting that "every jot and tittle" of the "Older Covenant" applies "in minute detail" today. When his critics objected that this merged the Old Covenant with the New, he backtracked and said, "No, I'm only referring to MORAL principles." As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, that is not theoNOMY after all since moral principles are not law.
Not even a Dispensationalist would disagree that the moral principles of the Old Testament remain the same today and should be applied. So, if what you are saying is correct, Bahnsen spent his whole career defending a position that nobody in the Christian world really disagreed with.
Now I'm confused as to why you think that Bahnsen's version of Theonomy is a serious error.
How Firm a Foundation said:Although the hermeneutical difference between the Theonomists and followers of Calvin/Westminster hermeneutic seems irrelevant when both advocate the adoption of given Mosaic civil laws or punishments, significant problems arise when the two hermeneutics reach different conclusions. The first problem impacts Christian political activity For example, many of the differences between the results of the two hermeneutics arise with respect to offenses against the “first table” of the commandments; those sins where one sins against God directly and not against a fellow human. These situations raise the questions: are the Old Covenant criminality of such actions and their Mosaic punishments applicable only within the covenant relationship in which the Israelites stood to God, or are they universally applicable? ...
The Mosaic Law itself makes it plain that there is a distinction between being in a covenantal relationship and being outside it has a bearing on whether Mosaic civil laws apply. In Deut. 23:20, the Israelites were prohibited from lending money at interest to fellow Israelites. But the same verse makes it certain that civil law prohibition of lending money did not apply when an Israelite was asked to lend money to a Gentile.
Given that some Mosaic civil laws and some changes to them are linked to covenant status, Christians must develop employ a hermeneutic that recognizes such changes. If Rushdoony was correct that a modern nation’s non-covenant status entails non-applicability of the Mosaic crimes and penalties for Sabbath breaking, the necessary consequence (by parity of reasoning) is that all Mosaic stipulations for first table offenses are not automatically applicable outside the Sinai covenant. Such a fundamental and systematic change contravenes Bahnsen’s belief…
"… that the New Testament’ does not teach any radical change in Gods law regarding the standards of socio-political morality, God’s law as it touches upon the duty of civil magistrates has not been altered in any systematic or fundamental way in the New Testament."
While many followers of the Calvin/Westminster school follow the principle outlined here by Rushdoony and question the contemporary necessity for first table punishments, those who follow Bahnsen’s hermeneutic cannot do so. Unless this difference between Calvin/Westminster advocates and Bahnsen’s followers is resolved, Reformed or Evangelical Christians in politics will trying to persuade their electorates to take a righteous position on second table commands, while denying, over against Theonomists who are exegetically committed to the contrary, that they have a hidden agenda to institute Mosaic first table crimes and penalties.
The theological consequences of choosing the wrong hermeneutic are far more serious. If applying all unamended Mosaic civil laws remains our New Covenant duty, eternal consequences inevitably follow. As Bahnsen correctly noted;
"God's law is weighty with relevance for sanctification. The breaking of the very least stipulation of the law generates God's displeasure ... taking an erroneous teaching position with respect to the details of the law (e.g. that the exhaustive details of God's law no longer bind Christians or this period of history) does the same....The antecedent referent of 'these' in verse 19 is clearly the 'jot and tittle' mentioned in verse 18. Verse 19 teaches… that the smallest part of the law of God is a canon for determining personal standing in the kingdom of heaven."
If Theonomy is Scriptural, non-Theonomic Christians hinder their sanctification and add to humanity’s rebellion against God if they do not follow, teach and promote the civil laws and on the last day, they will be found among the least in the kingdom of heaven; a judgment worth avoiding.
Yet if Theonomy is unbiblical, Theonomists, by adding an unbiblical element to their doctrine of sanctification, are hindering Christians from growing in grace. In addition, by misrepresenting God's New Covenant requirements to unbelievers, they have launched an unnecessary debate between Christians and created much unnecessary opposition to Christian evangelism. Finally, if Theonomy is unscriptural, its advocates are, in Bahnsen’s words, “generating God’s displeasure [by] taking an erroneous teaching position with respect to the details of the law…” As such, they will be liable to God's rebuke for adding to His word the thesis that obeying and promoting all non-amended OT civil laws is part of Christians’ New Covenant duty when God has not so demanded it.
So would you agree with my assessment of North/Rushdoony Reconism as a variation of the Galatian heresy? Their writings clearly put forth a continuity of the Sinaitic covenant administration. According to Mark W. Karlberg, "[T]he judaistic error is the misapplication of the works-principle of inheritance in the typical, pedagogical sphere (where it does apply as an aspect of a divinely instituted administration) to the antitypical, spiritual sphere" [Reformed Interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant]. Would you also agree with that quote?
Yes, of course. Christians are citizens of the spiritual Kingdom of God, but they also live in the earthly kingdom of man and should participate in its affairs as far as they can without compromising their faith. As I said before, if I were ever to hold public office (hypothetical situation only), I would have no problem consulting the Old Testament as well as the New for guidance. But I would never do so with the mindset that I was "taking dominion" or "dispossessing the heathen." I would do so with the mindset of promoting temporal peace in this world for the ultimate benefit of Christ's Church and the free proclamation of the Gospel.
Finally, the Westminster divines clearly stated that the OT civil law has expired with the nation of Israel and no longer obliges beyond the general equity thereof. So, Bahnsen's insistence that there is "no new covenantal order" is unconfessional and just plain wrong.
Does the "agreed" apply to the first sentence, the second, or both? I'm still confused as to your exact disagreement with Bahnsen.
Tim,
Concerning Idolatry, it is well within the rights of the civil magistrate to suppress it as far as it goes to the peace of the society. For example, you could not allow temples to be built to the false God of Islam etc. and expect it to have no effect on the running of a Christian society. Up to and including the death penalty should be no problem, for a crime that is clearly considered to be worse than Murder (Soul Destruction). One is to fear the second death way more than the first one.
CT
Tim,
Concerning Idolatry, it is well within the rights of the civil magistrate to suppress it as far as it goes to the peace of the society. For example, you could not allow temples to be built to the false God of Islam etc. and expect it to have no effect on the running of a Christian society. Up to and including the death penalty should be no problem, for a crime that is clearly considered to be worse than Murder (Soul Destruction). One is to fear the second death way more than the first one.
CT
Missed this first time. This justification for this Mosaic punishment is not Theonomic in Bahnsen's sense but is reasoning from general equity in the Westminster sense.
Tim,
Concerning Idolatry, it is well within the rights of the civil magistrate to suppress it as far as it goes to the peace of the society. For example, you could not allow temples to be built to the false God of Islam etc. and expect it to have no effect on the running of a Christian society. Up to and including the death penalty should be no problem, for a crime that is clearly considered to be worse than Murder (Soul Destruction). One is to fear the second death way more than the first one.
CT
Missed this first time. This justification for this Mosaic punishment is not Theonomic in Bahnsen's sense but is reasoning from general equity in the Westminster sense.
So you were saying that you would agree with idolatry being punished with up to the death penalty on Westminsterian grounds but not what you believe to be Theonomic grounds?
CT
Missed this first time. This justification for this Mosaic punishment is not Theonomic in Bahnsen's sense but is reasoning from general equity in the Westminster sense.
So you were saying that you would agree with idolatry being punished with up to the death penalty on Westminsterian grounds but not what you believe to be Theonomic grounds?
CT
My point is that in arguing this way you and any Bahnsenian who follows you have abandoned what is distinctive in Bahnsen's position for the Calvin/Westminster approach.
Now Bahnsen himself might argue this way, but were I discussing matters with him, I would point out that he would also have an additional reason to hold such a view: his misexegesis of Matt. 5:17,18 meant that he was bound for good or ill to the premise that the only laws ruled inapplicable by general equity were those where we had implicit or explict Scriptural warrant to alter them and no such warrant applies in this case. So, I would conclude, the ultimate controlling reason for holding the continuity of the death penalty for adultery is that the Lawgiver has not explicitly or implicitly amended it and he would have to say yes, or sacrifice his exegesis of Matt. 5:17,18, something he was not willing to do.
Now I might agree with idolatry being punished with death on the above C/W reasoning if two possible objections to it were satisfactorily refuted. (I won't start that hare here except to say I think a biblical death penalty brought about under biblical safeguards is more just than the humanistic alternatives. Moreover, I have not seen such refutations yet.) But while I could have a profitable debate on the matter with another Calvin/Westminster type, I would not have one with Bahnsen were he present: since neither objection can show implicit or explicit Divine amendment of the death penalty statute scriptures, they are, on his Theonomic premises, inadmissable.
So you were saying that you would agree with idolatry being punished with up to the death penalty on Westminsterian grounds but not what you believe to be Theonomic grounds?
CT
My point is that in arguing this way you and any Bahnsenian who follows you have abandoned what is distinctive in Bahnsen's position for the Calvin/Westminster approach.
Now Bahnsen himself might argue this way, but were I discussing matters with him, I would point out that he would also have an additional reason to hold such a view: his misexegesis of Matt. 5:17,18 meant that he was bound for good or ill to the premise that the only laws ruled inapplicable by general equity were those where we had implicit or explict Scriptural warrant to alter them and no such warrant applies in this case. So, I would conclude, the ultimate controlling reason for holding the continuity of the death penalty for adultery is that the Lawgiver has not explicitly or implicitly amended it and he would have to say yes, or sacrifice his exegesis of Matt. 5:17,18, something he was not willing to do.
Now I might agree with idolatry being punished with death on the above C/W reasoning if two possible objections to it were satisfactorily refuted. (I won't start that hare here except to say I think a biblical death penalty brought about under biblical safeguards is more just than the humanistic alternatives. Moreover, I have not seen such refutations yet.) But while I could have a profitable debate on the matter with another Calvin/Westminster type, I would not have one with Bahnsen were he present: since neither objection can show implicit or explicit Divine amendment of the death penalty statute scriptures, they are, on his Theonomic premises, inadmissable.
So your answer is "yes" to Hermonta's question?
Once God did record His will for punishing those sins by such and such punishments. He who will hold that the Christian magistrate is not bound to inflict such punishments for such sins, is bound to prove that those former laws of God are abolished, and show some Scripture for it
My point is that in arguing this way you and any Bahnsenian who follows you have abandoned what is distinctive in Bahnsen's position for the Calvin/Westminster approach.
Now Bahnsen himself might argue this way, but were I discussing matters with him, I would point out that he would also have an additional reason to hold such a view: his misexegesis of Matt. 5:17,18 meant that he was bound for good or ill to the premise that the only laws ruled inapplicable by general equity were those where we had implicit or explict Scriptural warrant to alter them and no such warrant applies in this case. So, I would conclude, the ultimate controlling reason for holding the continuity of the death penalty for adultery is that the Lawgiver has not explicitly or implicitly amended it and he would have to say yes, or sacrifice his exegesis of Matt. 5:17,18, something he was not willing to do.
Now I might agree with idolatry being punished with death on the above C/W reasoning if two possible objections to it were satisfactorily refuted. (I won't start that hare here except to say I think a biblical death penalty brought about under biblical safeguards is more just than the humanistic alternatives. Moreover, I have not seen such refutations yet.) But while I could have a profitable debate on the matter with another Calvin/Westminster type, I would not have one with Bahnsen were he present: since neither objection can show implicit or explicit Divine amendment of the death penalty statute scriptures, they are, on his Theonomic premises, inadmissable.
So your answer is "yes" to Hermonta's question?
No, my answer is maybe.
It is such a dreadful idea isn't it, that only God has the right to amend his holy law?
No it isn't, but I want to be certain that God wants particular stipulations of it extended beyond the context in which they were originally given and that justifications for such extensions are exegetically and theologically sound. Bahnsen's is neither.
And if you don't want me "insulting" Bahsnen's memory, don't engage in ad hominem attacks like that.
My point is that in arguing this way you and any Bahnsenian who follows you have abandoned what is distinctive in Bahnsen's position for the Calvin/Westminster approach.
Now Bahnsen himself might argue this way, but were I discussing matters with him, I would point out that he would also have an additional reason to hold such a view: his misexegesis of Matt. 5:17,18 meant that he was bound for good or ill to the premise that the only laws ruled inapplicable by general equity were those where we had implicit or explict Scriptural warrant to alter them and no such warrant applies in this case. So, I would conclude, the ultimate controlling reason for holding the continuity of the death penalty for adultery is that the Lawgiver has not explicitly or implicitly amended it and he would have to say yes, or sacrifice his exegesis of Matt. 5:17,18, something he was not willing to do.
Now I might agree with idolatry being punished with death on the above C/W reasoning if two possible objections to it were satisfactorily refuted. (I won't start that hare here except to say I think a biblical death penalty brought about under biblical safeguards is more just than the humanistic alternatives. Moreover, I have not seen such refutations yet.) But while I could have a profitable debate on the matter with another Calvin/Westminster type, I would not have one with Bahnsen were he present: since neither objection can show implicit or explicit Divine amendment of the death penalty statute scriptures, they are, on his Theonomic premises, inadmissable.
So your answer is "yes" to Hermonta's question?
It is such a dreadful idea isn't it, that only God has the right to amend his holy law?
For the man who says that Biblical penology can only be applied if we decide that the penalty has "general equity" in it amounts to nothing more than Arminianism in Christian Ethics (not theological Arminianism). For him the judicial laws are not laws but only "suggestions" or "good advice" and only if men will accept them of their free will.
The reason we know that the penal sanctions are of general equity is because they were a model to the Gentile nations (Deut. 4:5-8), and since they have not been abrogated then they must be continually valid. Any other approach allows man to sovereignly pick and choose which parts of the Bible he is going to obey.
Oh look I have found a Westminster Divine that agrees with this "terrible" hermenuetic. His name is George Gillespie, perhaps the most learned theologian of the Covenanted Reformation:
Once God did record His will for punishing those sins by such and such punishments. He who will hold that the Christian magistrate is not bound to inflict such punishments for such sins, is bound to prove that those former laws of God are abolished, and show some Scripture for it