"General Equity," etc

[Jerusalem Blade]

Adam and friends, let's continue the discussion here.

A split thread, continuing from: http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/thinking-about-millennial-views-34953/index2.html, post #113.

 

[Christusregnat]

Adam and friends, let's continue the discussion here.

A split thread, continuing from: http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/thinking-about-millennial-views-34953/index2.html, post #113.

Steve,

This is a good idea; the other thread was getting a bit thick and distracted, but very enjoyable.

Would you like to discuss this from an exegetical viewpoint, or a confessional viewpoint, or both?

Once that's established, I'd love to dialogue.

Cheers,

 

[Christusregnat]

Steve,

I just noticed that you had posted an article before Mr. Coldwell suggested a new thread. I've read through the article, and have a few thoughts on it. If I may clarify, I will be speaking on behalf of what I would call - at least professedly - Confessional Theonomists. In other words, the school of theonomy that I subscribe to believes that the Westminster Standards are the best human summary of the Divine Scripture's teaching. We claim that the standards teach some form of theonomy. Here are some responses:

One of the tenets of Christian Reconstruction is theonomy, the belief that the Old Testament civil law is morally binding today.

My understanding is that the WCF teaches that all civil bodies politic are obliged by the marrow of the judicial laws. In other words, there is an underlying theme in the judicial laws which illustrates one of the Ten Commandments. Here are some examples of the WCF's usage of the marrow of such laws:

In Chapter XIX we read the following:

Paragraph IV: To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require

The proof of this from Scripture is as follows:

Exodus chapters 21 and 22 (in which the summary of the "judicial law is given"); to understand their thought process about these laws in Ex 21 - 22, they give Christ's words:

MAT 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

They also illustrate general equity as follows:

1CO 9:8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

Thus, the WCF believes that Christ did not come to destroy the law and the prophets, including the civil laws of Ex 21 - 22. Rather, He came to fulfill them, and show us how to obey them. Mr. Isabel claims:

Immediately after the two paragraphs in which consideration is given to the temporary role of the ceremonial and judicial laws in redemptive history, there is a paragraph which contrasts the undissolved obligation of the moral law, and which cites Matt. 5:17-19 as proof of that proposition, indicating that the Westminster Assembly regarded Matt. 5:17-19 as referring to the moral law as distinct from the ceremonial and judicial laws.

As you just saw, the Assembly saw Matthew 5:17's assertion that Christ did not come to destroy Exodus 21 and 22's teaching, but rather to fulfill it, as illustrated by the application made of the lex taliones.

Paragraph VI: ...The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof:

One of the passages used to prove this section is Leviticus 26. Leviticus 26 is a detailed explanation of the curses upon a nation that does not obey the civil law. In other words, if the civil law was not followed, this was the passage that explained the curses for disobedience. This is a favorite passage for theonomists.

Also, the claim is made that theonomists don't believe in the three-fold use of the law: Moral, Ceremonial, Judicial. To this purpose, Mr. Isabel cites Rushdoony. Let me give the quotation in context:

The Messiah, the Lamb of God, having come, the old, typical laws of sacrifice and their priesthood and ceremonies were succeeded by the atoning work of Christ, the great High Priest (Heb. 7). It is a serious error to say that the civil law was also abolished, but the moral law retained. What is the distinction between them? At most points, they cannot be distinguished. Murder, theft, and false witness are clearly civil offenses as well as moral offenses. In almost every civil order, adultery and dishonoring parents have also been civil crimes. Do these people mean, by declaring the end of the civil law, that the Old Testament theocracy is no more? Bur the kingship of God and of His Christ is emphatically asserted by the New Testament and especially by the book of Revelation. The state is no less called to be under Christ than is the church. It is clearly only the sacrificial and ceremonial law which is ended because it is replaced by Christ and His work.

(emphasis in original)

Thus, Isabel is incorrect in his assertion that theonomists disregard the three-fold division of the law, and his use of this passage from Rushdoony is (at best) poor scholarship. Rush says clearly that there are three types of law: moral, judicial and ceremonial. He notes that there are distinctions between the moral and judicial law, though they be fewer than we might at first think. Also, the passage Rush cites says nothing about the ending of the theocracy, but the end of the ceremonies, since Christ is our true Passover, Lamb, Priest, Temple, etc. The quote from Rush on page 551 is due to Rush's misunderstanding of what the WCF teaches. He says that WCF, Chapter XIX, para IV DOES NOT teach that the "rule of life for man is also the rule of life for his courts, civil governments, and institutions, or else God is then only the God of individuals and not of institutions." He is wrong; that is emphatically what the WCF teaches: both men and institutions are to be under God's almighty rule.

As for citing Bashnsen's "By this Standard" pages 135 - 138, the author again errs. Bahnsen does indeed state that there are two basic types of OT law: moral and ceremonial, but also adds that there are two subdivision of each basic category. Bahnsen says:

The moral law of God can likewise be seen in two subdivisions, the divisions having simply a literary difference: (1) general or summary precepts of morality - for instance, the unspecified requirements of sexual purity and honesty, "thou shalt not commit adultery" and "thou shalt not steal," and (2) commands that specify the general precepts by way of illustrative application - for instance, prohibiting incest, homosexuality, defrauding one's workers, or muzzling the ox as he treads.
The Puritans termed these case-law applications of the Decalogue "judicial laws," and they correctly held that we are not bound today to keep these judicial laws as they are worded (being couched in the language of an ancient culture that has passed away) but only required to heed their underlying principles (or "general equity," as they called it.)

(By this Standard, pages 137 - 138).

Bahnsen is borrowing his terms from Puritans such as George Gillespie:

1. First, the law (Deut. 13:6-9), concerning the stoning and killing of him, who shall secretly entice people, saying, "Let us go after other gods." If it is said, that this law did bind the Jews only, and is not moral or perpetual, I answer, Jacobus Acontius, though he is of another opinion concerning this question than I am, yet he candidly and freely confesses that he sees nothing in that law which does not belong to the New Testament, as well as the Old; for, he says, the reason and ground of the law, the use and end of it, is moral and perpetual (v. 11): All Israel shall hear and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness, as this is among you. But yet, says Acontius, this law does not concern heretics, who believe and teach errors concerning the true God or his worship; but only apostates who fall away to other gods. In this I shall not much contend with him; only thus far, if apostates are to be stoned and killed according to that law, then surely seducing heretics are also to receive their measure and proportion of punishment. The moral equity of the law requires this much at least, that if we compare heresy and apostasy together, look how much less the evil of sin is in heresy, so much and no more is to be remitted of the evil of punishment, especially the danger of contagion and seduction, being as much or rather more in heresy than in apostasy; yea, that which is called heresy being oftentimes a real following after other gods.

see Wholesome Severity: Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty, by George Gillespie

Gillespie, of famed memory as a Scots delegate to the Westminster Assembly is representative of the WCF's teaching on the "general equity" of the judicial laws. I have a booklet entitled "Theonomy and the Westminster Assembly of Divines" which is an annotated sourcebook of quotations on how the divines viewed the judicial laws. They saw them as Gillespie did: judicial applications of moral laws. That's the point Bahnsen makes. If you are interested in this booklet, I can pass it along.

To the WCF again, as it discusses the civil magistrate. It cites the general equity of the law to explain the duties of the magistrate

yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.

The judicials cited to prove this are as follows:

LEV 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

DEU 13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. 6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers. 12 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, etc.

NOTE, this is the same passage Gillespie was referring to above.

Mr. Isable rightly cites Murray in demonstrating that the WCF and the Catechism contain a system of ethics as well as doctrine. What I would further assert is that taking away a part of that system of ethics detracts from the entire system of doctrine and practice, and creates a socially weak version of the Reformed faith. It may still be strong on soteriology, but if it gives up this part, why not give up six-day creation? Why not give up the plenary inspiration and inerrancy of scripture. If the civil power is not bound to be under God's direct authority, why should the church of the seminary?

Those are some thoughts for now. More to come, if the Lord wills. I have to go and do the dishes

Cheers,

 

[Christusregnat]

Steve,

Also, here's Calvin's commentary on Matthew 5:17ff., demonstrating that when Rushdoony called Calvin antinomian in civil affairs, I believe he was wrong:

There appear to have been chiefly two reasons, which induced him to declare this agreement between the law and the Gospel. As soon as any new method of teaching makes its appearance, the body of the people immediately look upon it, as if everything were to be overturned. Now the preaching of the Gospel, as I mentioned a little ago, tended to raise the expectation, that the Church would assume a totally different form from what had previously belonged to it. They thought that the ancient and accustomed government was to be abolished. This opinion, in many respects, was very dangerous. Devout worshippers of God would never have embraced the Gospel, if it had been a revolt from the law; while light and turbulent spirits would eagerly have seized on an occasion offered to them for entirely overthrowing the state of religion: for we know in what insolent freaks rash people are ready to indulge when there is any thing new.
Besides, Christ saw that the greater part of the Jews, though they professed to believe the Law, were profane and degenerate. The condition of the people was so decayed, every thing was filled with so many corruptions, and the negligence or malice of the priests had so completely extinguished the pure light of doctrine, that there no longer remained any reverence for the Law. But if a new kind of doctrine had been introduced, which would destroy the authority of the Law and the Prophets, religion would have sustained a dreadful injury. This appears to be the first reason, why Christ declared that he had not come to destroy the Law. Indeed, the context makes this abundantly clear: for he immediately adds, by way of confirmation, that it is impossible for even one point of the Law to fail, — and pronounces a curse on those teachers who do not faithfully labor to maintain its authority.

Calvin goes on:

I am not come to destroy. God had, indeed, promised a new covenant at the coming of Christ; but had, at the same time, showed, that it would not be different from the first, but that, on the contrary, its design was, to give a perpetual sanction to the covenant, which he had made from the beginning, with his own people.
“I will write my law, (says he,) in their hearts,
and I will remember their iniquities no more,”
(Jeremiah 31:33, 34.)
By these words he is so far from departing from the former covenant, that, on the contrary, he declares, that it will be confirmed and ratified, when it shall be succeeded by the new. This is also the meaning of Christ’s words, when he says, that he came to fulfill the law: for he actually fulfilled it, by quickening, with his Spirit, the dead letter, and then exhibiting, in reality, what had hitherto appeared only in figures.
With respect to doctrine, we must not imagine that the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law: for it is the eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must, therefore, be as unchangeable, as the justice of God, which it embraced, is constant and uniform. With respect to ceremonies, there is some appearance of a change having taken place; but it was only the use of them that was abolished, for their meaning was more fully confirmed. The coming of Christ has taken nothing away even from ceremonies, but, on the contrary, confirms them by exhibiting the truth of shadows: for, when we see their full effect, we acknowledge that they are not vain or useless. Let us therefore learn to maintain inviolable this sacred tie between the law and the Gospel, which many improperly attempt to break. For it contributes not a little to confirm the authority of the Gospel, when we learn, that it is nothing else than a fulfillment of the law; so that both, with one consent, declare God to be their Author.

Further on:

The kingdom of heaven means the renovation of the Church, or the prosperous condition of the Church, such as was then beginning to appear by the preaching of the Gospel. In this sense, Christ tells us, that “he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than John,” (Luke 7:28.) The meaning of that phrase is, that God, restoring the world by the hand of his Son, has completely established his kingdom. Christ declares that, when his Church shall have been renewed, no teachers must be admitted to it, but those who are faithful expounders of the law, and who labor to maintain its doctrine entire. But it is asked, were not ceremonies among the commandments of God, the least of which we are now required to observe? I answer, We must look to the design and object of the Legislator. God enjoined ceremonies, that their outward use might be temporal, and their meaning eternal. That man does not break ceremonies, who omits what is shadowy, but retains their effect. But if Christ banishes from his kingdom all who accustom men to any contempt of the law how monstrous must be their stupidity, who are not ashamed to remit, by a sacrilegious indulgence, what God strictly demands, and, under the pretense of venial sin, to overthrow the righteousness of the law. Again, we must observe the description he gives of good and holy teachers: that not only by words, but chiefly by the example of life, they exhort men to keep the law.

Note, first of all, Calvin recognizes two basic categories of law in this passage: moral and ceremonial. Under the moral law, Calvin understands to be "ancient and accustomed government". Can you guess what this is?

Also, the only objection that Calvin sees as having any force about "every jot and tittle of the law" remaining are ceremonial laws. In other words, by implication, Calvin understands Christ to have two types of law in mind: moral and ceremonial, and the moral remains, along with the ancient covenant, the "accustomed form of government" etc.

The judicial laws are conspicuously absent.

More could be said, but I trust you get the point. At least as an exegete, Calvin's statements agree with theonomists of WCF or TCR type. It appears that he included the civil laws as part of the moral law.

Also, of interest are Calvin's sermons on Deuteronomy 28 (the curses and blessings of the civil law), in which he details his understanding of the societal applicability of the judicial law's enforcement arm: God's curses and blessings. These sermons have been published in a book called "The Covenant Enforced":

Covenant Enforced

You can find the whole book for free at this website, if that is of interest.

The Calvin quotes I used above are found here:

Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 1 | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

God bless,

Adam

 

[timmopussycat]

Steve,

Also, here's Calvin's commentary on Matthew 5:17ff., demonstrating that when Rushdoony called Calvin antinomian in civil affairs, I believe he was wrong:

If you read on a little further to Calvin's comments on v. 19 you will discover that Calvin in this passage takes the Law and the Prophets to mean "the Moral law" or decalogue. Which is why Rush correctly recognized that Calvin differed from his own position and called him antinomian.

 

[timmopussycat]

:

In Chapter XIX we read the following:

Paragraph IV: To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require

The proof of this from Scripture is as follows:

Exodus chapters 21 and 22 (in which the summary of the "judicial law is given"); to understand their thought process about these laws in Ex 21 - 22, they give Christ's words:

MAT 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

They also illustrate general equity as follows:

1CO 9:8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

Thus, the WCF believes that Christ did not come to destroy the law and the prophets, including the civil laws of Ex 21 - 22. Rather, He came to fulfill them, and show us how to obey them. Mr. Isabel claims:

Immediately after the two paragraphs in which consideration is given to the temporary role of the ceremonial and judicial laws in redemptive history, there is a paragraph which contrasts the undissolved obligation of the moral law, and which cites Matt. 5:17-19 as proof of that proposition, indicating that the Westminster Assembly regarded Matt. 5:17-19 as referring to the moral law as distinct from the ceremonial and judicial laws.

The writer is Sherman Isbell not Isabel.

:As you just saw, the Assembly saw Matthew 5:17's assertion that Christ did not come to destroy Exodus 21 and 22's teaching, but rather to fulfill it, as illustrated by the application made of the lex taliones.

As Sinclair Ferguson long ago noted the Divines here cite Matt. 5:17 as proof for the proposition that the civil laws have expired and v. 38,9 for how they understood general equity to work.

Paragraph VI: ...The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof:

One of the passages used to prove this section is Leviticus 26. Leviticus 26 is a detailed explanation of the curses upon a nation that does not obey the civil law. In other words, if the civil law was not followed, this was the passage that explained the curses for disobedience. This is a favorite passage for theonomists.

Please note that section VI follows section IV and V which establish that only those civil laws remaining valid by general equity and the moral law remain valid in this age.

snip...

:Gillespie, of famed memory as a Scots delegate to the Westminster Assembly is representative of the WCF's teaching on the "general equity" of the judicial laws. I have a booklet entitled "Theonomy and the Westminster Assembly of Divines" which is an annotated sourcebook of quotations on how the divines viewed the judicial laws. They saw them as Gillespie did: judicial applications of moral laws. That's the point Bahnsen makes. If you are interested in this booklet, I can pass it along.

If Bahnsen made only the point that the Mosaic judicials were only judicial applications of the moral law decalogue, there would have been no debate. It was when Bahnsen also attempted to establish a second premise: that all the judicials must remain valid in the present covenantal era except where amended by the lawgiver, that the controversy began. For it was here that he differs from Calvin and Gillespie. Foulner's book which you mention is weakened by the fact that the author does not discuss (for whatever reason) points on which Calvin, Gillespie and Reformed worthies come to conclusions that Bahnsen's second premise forbids.

 

[Christusregnat]

Steve,

Also, here's Calvin's commentary on Matthew 5:17ff., demonstrating that when Rushdoony called Calvin antinomian in civil affairs, I believe he was wrong:

If you read on a little further to Calvin's comments on v. 19 you will discover that Calvin in this passage takes the Law and the Prophets to mean "the Moral law" or decalogue. Which is why Rush correctly recognized that Calvin differed from his own position and called him antinomian.

Timothy,

I'm sorry if my original post was not clear, but I said:

Note, first of all, Calvin recognizes two basic categories of law in this passage: moral and ceremonial. Under the moral law, Calvin understands to be "ancient and accustomed government". Can you guess what this is?

Also, the only objection that Calvin sees as having any force about "every jot and tittle of the law" remaining are ceremonial laws. In other words, by implication, Calvin understands Christ to have two types of law in mind: moral and ceremonial, and the moral remains, along with the ancient covenant, the "accustomed form of government" etc.

The judicial laws are conspicuously absent.

Your point serves to make my point even stronger: Calvin assumed the theocracy to be part of the Moral law; the same as Gillespie and the Westminster Assembly, and Bahnsen. Whether this was Rush's position has been proven by the quotation I made previously where he shows the overlap, albeit some measure of difference between moral and civil.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[Christusregnat]

Timothy,

See responses below.

The writer is Sherman Isbell not Isabel.

I knew I was getting that wrong. Thanks!

As Sinclair Ferguson long ago noted the Divines here cite Matt. 5:17 as proof for the proposition that the civil laws have expired and v. 38,9 for how they understood general equity to work.

That's an ingenious, albeit less than credible, assertion. If the divines believed this, then what was the purpose of citing Deut 13 and Leviticus 24, which teach that the civil magistrate is to execute blasphemers and evangelists for false gods? Were they assuming that the civil law had expired when they taught that the magistrate should look to the judicial laws to find his duty? I think not.

Paragraph VI: ...The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof:

One of the passages used to prove this section is Leviticus 26. Leviticus 26 is a detailed explanation of the curses upon a nation that does not obey the civil law. In other words, if the civil law was not followed, this was the passage that explained the curses for disobedience. This is a favorite passage for theonomists.

Please note that section VI follows section IV and V which establish that only those civil laws remaining valid by general equity and the moral law remain valid in this age.

Indeed, which is why it's so important in illustrating that the judicial law, and its curses, is not a covenant of works, and why it is part of the moral law which forever binds all men, justified or otherwise. Again, the judicials are an exposition of the moral.

:Gillespie, of famed memory as a Scots delegate to the Westminster Assembly is representative of the WCF's teaching on the "general equity" of the judicial laws. I have a booklet entitled "Theonomy and the Westminster Assembly of Divines" which is an annotated sourcebook of quotations on how the divines viewed the judicial laws. They saw them as Gillespie did: judicial applications of moral laws. That's the point Bahnsen makes. If you are interested in this booklet, I can pass it along.

If Bahnsen made only the point that the Mosaic judicials were only judicial applications of the moral law decalogue, there would have been no debate. It was when Bahnsen also attempted to establish a second premise: that all the judicials must remain valid in the present covenantal era except where amended by the lawgiver, that the controversy began.

Actually, I dispute 1. the logic of what you've said here, and 2. The historical accuracy of this assertion.

As to 1. if the judicials are an expression of the moral law, then all of them must of necessity apply, if they are moral in nature.

Premise One: The Moral Law forever binds all men everywhere

Premise Two: The Judicial Law is composed of civil applications of the Moral Law

Conclusion: The Judicial Law's civil applications of the Moral Law bind all men everywhere

This is Bahnsen's reasoning. The only exception would be if God told you that something didn't apply from the judicials, in which case one would naturally conclude that there was nothing "moral" about such a law, and that it was merely circumstantial, or peculiar to the Jewish people. Bahnsen says as much in his book "By This Standard".

As to 2. Meredith Klein was Bahnsen's arch rival on this issue, and I don't think that he would grant the judicials to be civil applications of the Moral Law, I think he would consider them "intrusionist". Please correct me if I am mistaken. But, I believe the basic problem was that Bahnsen was re-asserting an ethic that made use of the Mosaic judicial laws rather than leaving them ambiguous.

Foulner's book which you mention is weakened by the fact that the author does not discuss (for whatever reason) points on which Calvin, Gillespie and Reformed worthies come to conclusions that Bahnsen's second premise forbids.

I've talked to Martin about his book. First, if you think that he is the author of the book, I'm not sure if you're referring to the same book, or that you've read it. Foulner, as you will note from the cover, and the title page, compiled and annotated, but wasn't the author. He gives a 5-page intro, but the lion's share is taken up with other authors, followed by a postscript, and a two page conclusion.

The purpose of this booklet, according to the compiler, was to help his friend Colin Gunn (a good buddy of mine) who was being ousted from holding office as "unconfessional" from one of the Scottish Presbyterian churches. Martin's modest claim was to demonstrate that the Scottish Presbyterians were unaware of what the divines actually believed, and that being a capitalist, or believing in capital punishment for adulterers or idolaters is not anti-confessional, or unreformed. In his preface, which I'm sure you've read, Martin says "It is the sole purpose of this work to show that the teachings of this movement [ajb - theonomy] are not new, but were widely held among Reformed theologians, particularly the Puritans at the Westminster Assembly." Thus, his purpose was not comparative between Gillespie, Calvin, et al.

However, as in the syllogism above, I don't think that anyone who holds to premises one and two can avoid the conclusion, but perhaps you can set me straight.

Cheers,

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Adam,

A few preliminary thoughts here (and please bear with me if I am tardy in responding, for I am also busy with pastoral duties).

In your post #3 you have the sentence, “Leviticus 26 is a detailed explanation of the curses upon a nation that does not obey the civil law.” “...a nation...”? It is plainly written that “These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the LORD made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses.” These in Lev 26, and in Deuteronomy 28, a sister passage, are written neither to the nations at large (then or now), nor to the church under the New Covenant, the international holy nation of God’s people, but strictly to the Jewish nation under the covenant and law of Moses.

Moreover, a nation that does not obey the moral law (which is not elucidated by the Judicial law) is not bound to suffer the plagues of Lev 26 and Deut 28, but a far worse judgment awaits it at the second advent of Christ, unless in mercy He metes judgment on it beforehand that may bring repentance. The “law” Paul speaks of in 1 Timothy 1:8ff is “according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God”, of which Jesus made him a minister. It is not the judicial law, but the moral law. Distinctions between the two will be made below. And I will seek to show that the Gospel of Christ is inimical to the theonomic agenda and doctrine.

It impresses many, the elaborate doctrinal bases, big name theologians, weighty tomes, and fierce rhetoric that accompanies the Christian Reconstructionist movement. But some of the greatest cults and false religions have the same! The Jehovah’s Witnesses system is amazingly elaborate and seemingly internally consistent, but it is false, built, it seems to me, on C.T. Russell’s simple denial of eternal Hell for Satan and the damned. The elaborate system constructed by the Theonomic Christian Reconstructionists (henceforth TCR) is likewise built upon a simple error: the Kingdom of Christ in this age, when it attains maturity, is a carnal kingdom, and not a strictly spiritual one. To TCR the success of the Gospel of Christ will be measured by the nations of the world being subdued and “Christianized” – which does not mean born of the Spirit and regenerated unto holiness and life everlasting – but simply compliant with the ancient Jewish nation’s judicial laws, at least outwardly in appearance.

The Lord Jesus instituted a spiritual kingdom that He explicitly designated as “not of this world”. The blessed hope of the believer – and of all this holy nation – is the redemption of the body on the Day of Resurrection, and fellowship with the Lord and our brethren; whereas the "blessed hope" of the TCR is the bettering of the world, the subduing of the nations to the Gospel, which will become more and more “Christian” – even if this takes thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. These vastly differing expectations will dramatically affect our labors and activities here; they will affect our views of what the Gospel really entails.

The Scripture shows that, especially toward the end of the days, the church shall be a suffering, persecuted church. But though “we are killed all the day long....[and] accounted as sheep for the slaughter....we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us” (Rom 8:36, 37). I know the TCR system says this is all past us, we are heading into “golden days”! This tends to lull the saints to ease, and not to expect the onslaughts of the antichrist spirit and those humans who embrace it. And at the very end, just prior to the Lord’s return, there shall be an all-out assault on “the camp of the saints”

I suppose this is where our contention shall center. Matthew 5:17-20 itself is a battleground for exegetes with their various agendas, but that shall not daunt me.

You will assert that I, as well my nation and my church, are under the judicial laws of Moses? How then is it Paul says a better covenant is mediated unto me than was by Moses (Heb 8:6), and that the days have come when a new covenant is made with the house of Israel (v. 8), not according to that covenant He made with my people when He took them out of Egypt (v. 9), as that one “he hath...made old” (NKJV “He has made obsolete”) and “ready to vanish away” (v.13). So there is a tension between Matt 5:17-20 and this assertion of God in Hebrews (and many other passages), which I will examine.

I have had a similar trip laid on me by Messianic Jews, though far less pernicious (as I will demonstrate) than this Theonomic one. Nothing personal, Adam, in my using these words, as you are but a well-meaning conveyor of doctrine you have received and believed, and your conscience is clean in your teaching it. Nonetheless, the doctrine is what I am after, not you at all. The Jews told me I had to obey the Mosaic laws pertaining to foods, festivals, Shabbat, etc, on a similar basis, arguing from Matt 5, and Acts 21.

My internet connection is down as I write this, and I am writing for when I get it going again.

I am unfamiliar with the theonomic authors (though I may have a book or two of theirs in my library), so if I err in regard to that I trust you will correct me.

I like this clarity in what Isbell writes about “general equity”:

General Equity



The Confession uses the term general equity to identify the element in the judicial laws which is of enduring obligation. The meaning of this term is evident from the chapter in which it appears. There is an equity or righteousness which on four other occasions in this chapter is said to still oblige, amidst all the changes in redemptive history. That equity is the moral law, which 1) was first given at creation, 2) was afterwards delivered in the ten commandments, 3) is distinguished from the ceremonial and judicial laws as such, 4) is always backed by the authority of the Creator, and 5) is strengthened by Christ in the Gospel: "God gave to Adam a law, . . . by which He bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience . . . . . This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness . . . . . Beside this law, commonly called moral, [are the ceremonial and judicial laws] . . . . . The moral law doth for ever bind all . . . to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it: neither doth Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation."



Confirmation that "general equity" signifies the moral law is furnished by an examination of the earlier Reformed and contemporary Puritan literature which forms the background and context for the writing of the Confession. These writers regarded equity as identifiable by reference to well-known standards. In the classical Reformed tradition, equity is the righteousness of the moral law, which is 1) embodied in a natural law binding upon all men as creatures under the authority of the Creator, and 2) common to moral teaching found in the Scriptures as a whole. We shall see that Calvin and the Puritans did not allow the judicial laws to define equity. Conformity to the moral law was the standard against which these writers reviewed the judicial laws and isolated the elements of perpetual equity in them. Outstanding statements of this hermeneutical perspective were given by Calvin, William Ames and Francis Turretin, and many others gave briefer expression to the same teaching.​

With this definition in view (will you agree with it?), I accept that general equity is the principle that brings not muzzling the ox to having the minister eat the fruit of his labors. But to have it mean the judicial laws pertaining to the punishment of lawbreakers in the Jewish Mosaic theocracy are carried over beyond that theocracy’s demise into the spiritual kingdom of Jesus Christ is not only without warrant, but violently contrary to the laws of that kingdom.

The term “general equity” has been used by some as a magical override to the plain meaning of the Confession, and also to bolster erroneous exegesis of Matthew 5.

As I am needing to prepare a sermon, as well as attend to pastoral care, I may not be able to write much more till next week.

 

[Christusregnat]

Adam,

A few preliminary thoughts here (and please bear with me if I am tardy in responding, for I am also busy with pastoral duties).

Steve,

Thank you for taking the time to interact, in the midst of what sounds like a very busy schedule; I am truly grateful.

In your post #3 you have the sentence, “Leviticus 26 is a detailed explanation of the curses upon a nation that does not obey the civil law.” “...a nation...”? It is plainly written that “These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the LORD made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses.” These in Lev 26, and in Deuteronomy 28, a sister passage, are written neither to the nations at large (then or now), nor to the church under the New Covenant, the international holy nation of God’s people, but strictly to the Jewish nation under the covenant and law of Moses.

Perhaps I misunderstood the original intent of the reference to Isbell's article, but I thought that we were arguing about the confessional teaching on this issue. If we are, then your argument above must be considered later. Suffice it to say, I believe that you are attacking the confessional position, since the WCF cites Leviticus 26 (and as you rightly observe, Deut 28 by implication) in proof of the moral law's perpetual validity. If you want to argue this scripturally, we can do so; but let's be clear about what we're discussing.

Moreover, a nation that does not obey the moral law (which is not elucidated by the Judicial law) is not bound to suffer the plagues of Lev 26 and Deut 28, but a far worse judgment awaits it at the second advent of Christ, unless in mercy He metes judgment on it beforehand that may bring repentance.

I can full agree with this if we say that the individuals who don't obey the moral law and the judicial applications will suffer all the curses of God in this life that God is pleased to meet out to them, and the plagues of God for all eternity in hell. Nations don't go to hell; individuals do.

As for your comment that the moral law is not elucidated by the Judicial law, let me ask you this: Have you ever preached against incest? How did you define incest? Where in Scripture do you find its meaning? Have you ever preached against sodomy? What about bestiality? If so, where in Scripture did you go? Or did you only preach against adultery? If the moral law is the only thing you find as perpetual, then this is all you can preach about, since this is the only thing mentioned in the Ten Commandments.

The “law” Paul speaks of in 1 Timothy 1:8ff is “according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God”, of which Jesus made him a minister. It is not the judicial law, but the moral law.

This is very poor exegesis; please reread the passage, and see if you can see the following explicit parallels:

9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.

We could say that v.9 could be the Moral Law (ML vs. JL from here on), except that the Greek has "smiters of fathers and mothers" in v.9. The ESV rightly renders it "for those who strike their fathers and mothers". Tell me, where did Paul get this "law" from, which he says is according to sound doctrine, and according to the glorious gospel of Christ?

And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

Pray tell, which passage of Scripture did Paul get this from? Exodus 20? No, the same chapter that the divines cite in the WCF as teaching the JL: Exodus 21.

Then Paul says that sound doctrine and the gospel of Christ (and the law) are contrary to "men who practice homosexuality, enslavers". Again, where are such laws recorded:

And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

Again, Exodus 21, and the next verse after the one about smiting father and mother. Again, the JL.

What about "men who practice homosexuality"? Where did Paul find that?

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Thus, as I noted in the Calvin quote, the "ancient system of government" was never done away with, and Paul recognizes that the law, the gospel, and all sound doctrine will recognized the goodness of God's JL, as it applies God's ML.

And I will seek to show that the Gospel of Christ is inimical to the theonomic agenda and doctrine.

If I may be so bold, if the theonomic agenda and doctrine include Leviticus 20 and Exodus 21, then Paul the Apostle does not agree with you. You may be right on other points of the TCR agenda and teaching, but if you're going to include the JLs mentioned by Paul, you could not be more mistaken.

The elaborate system constructed by the Theonomic Christian Reconstructionists (henceforth TCR) is likewise built upon a simple error: the Kingdom of Christ in this age, when it attains maturity, is a carnal kingdom, and not a strictly spiritual one.

If, by "strictly spiritual" you mean it does not seek to escape from this created cosmos, and leave it over to Satan as his domain to be governed by his power, then I gladly agree to such a "carnal kingdom". If by "strictly spiritual" you mean strictly in accordance with the power of the Holy Spirit, then I would say this is a dreadful calumny, and would ask you to consider. Every theonomist I know believes in the power of God's Spirit as the only power by which all of Christ's enemies will be made His footstool. As I said, the school of theonomy I accept is Confessional; we believe in everything the WCF teaches, including the "carnal" stuff about the JLs and the civil govt, and marriage, etc. etc.

To TCR the success of the Gospel of Christ will be measured by the nations of the world being subdued and “Christianized” – which does not mean born of the Spirit and regenerated unto holiness and life everlasting – but simply compliant with the ancient Jewish nation’s judicial laws, at least outwardly in appearance.

I think that this is one area where your unfamiliarity with TCR authors may be hampering you in this discussion. TCR and Confessional theonomists do not think that Christianization and individuals being born again by the Spirit and regenerated unto holiness and life everlasting are at odds with each other. In fact, we see these as compatible, and complimentary goals. The more saints you have, the more theocratic a society will become. The more theocratic a society becomes, the more the gospel will advance.

I should also mention that TCR authors are very big on recognizing the reign of Christ over all spheres of government. The basic spheres of govt (according to TCRs) being 1. self 2. family 3. church, and 4. civil. All other spheres of govt would fall somewhere within these four, according to TCR. Thus, when theonomists of all stripes speak of the JLs as they relate to #4, we're not negating sphere #1. In other words, the application of the JL to cases of manstealing does not negate the need for a man to be born from above, and the reality of heaven. These are not incompatible, and choosing 1 Tim 1 to prove that they are was a very great blunder. You merely served to demonstrate how incompatible your understanding is with that particular passage.

The Lord Jesus instituted a spiritual kingdom that He explicitly designated as “not of this world”. The blessed hope of the believer – and of all this holy nation – is the redemption of the body on the Day of Resurrection, and fellowship with the Lord and our brethren; whereas the "blessed hope" of the TCR is the bettering of the world, the subduing of the nations to the Gospel, which will become more and more “Christian” – even if this takes thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. These vastly differing expectations will dramatically affect our labors and activities here; they will affect our views of what the Gospel really entails.

Again, I think this is a false dichotomy. We don't see "God being a God to us and our children" as being antithetical to God also creating a better world by the power of His Spirit, and making all of the world's nations His disciples. We believe that the Word of God is all about our salvation. We just define salvation as Scripture does: primarily about our right standing before God's Law through the obedience and sufferings of our glorious Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. However, we don't see the primary thing (which you are right to be jealous to defend) as the only thing. Then there is sanctification, and the progressive covering of the whole world with the knowledge of the glory of God. Not incompatible, otherwise, your argument against us is against the Holy Spirit's instructions given by Moses. That's fine if you want to do that, but then you make Moses into an anti-gospel legalist, which he wasn't. Moses is not inimical to the gospel, but (as Paul points out) is according to the glorious gospel of our blessed Savior.

The Scripture shows that, especially toward the end of the days, the church shall be a suffering, persecuted church. But though “we are killed all the day long....[and] accounted as sheep for the slaughter....we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us” (Rom 8:36, 37).

Perhaps this is for the eschatology thread, but I will simply register my disagreement with applying passages about the fall of the Jewish nation to the Christ's Second Coming.

I know the TCR system says this is all past us, we are heading into “golden days”! This tends to lull the saints to ease, and not to expect the onslaughts of the antichrist spirit and those humans who embrace it. And at the very end, just prior to the Lord’s return, there shall be an all-out assault on “the camp of the saints”

You know the only place that I've ever seen the saints lulled to sleep because of the coming of a golden age was in the writings of people who misunderstand their position. The puritans believed a golden age was upon them, and it pushed them to form a form of church govt and a confession that endures to this day. Others (the Pilgrims) were driven by this vision to establish a Christian commonwealth. The 19th Century "golden dayers" went as missionaries to the end of the earth. I don't think David Livingstone, or William Carrey, or Oliver Cromwell, or George Gillespie, or William Bradford, or William Chalmers Burns, or John G. Paton, or a host of other saints were lulled to sleep. Rushdoony (one of these golden dayers) almost singlehandedly revived homeschooling in America by his writings, and appearing as an expert witness in court case after court case. Why? Because he was lulled to sleep by promises of a better day? I think not.

I suppose this is where our contention shall center. Matthew 5:17-20 itself is a battleground for exegetes with their various agendas, but that shall not daunt me.

Calvin's agenda was to explain Scripture; I wouldn't impute much more to him than that.

You will assert that I, as well my nation and my church, are under the judicial laws of Moses? How then is it Paul says a better covenant is mediated unto me than was by Moses (Heb 8:6), and that the days have come when a new covenant is made with the house of Israel (v. 8), not according to that covenant He made with my people when He took them out of Egypt (v. 9), as that one “he hath...made old” (NKJV “He has made obsolete”) and “ready to vanish away” (v.13). So there is a tension between Matt 5:17-20 and this assertion of God in Hebrews (and many other passages), which I will examine.

Now we're getting somewhere:

1 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. 4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5 They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain." 6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

What is the context of the Hebrews passage you cite to prove that the JL no longer applies? It is dealing with the priesthood, the temple, the sacrifice, etc.

Tell me now, how could a new covenant be better if it left out laws to direct the civil sphere? How is it better for pedophiles to roam at large (as they do in California) than for them to be executed? How is it better for wicked men to grope in the dark to try and figure out what "good and evil" is, when God has already defined it? The Apostle makes no mention of JLs here; only ceremonies and priestly acts, which (as Calvin noted in the comments I posted above) have been abolished in Christ's body.

The Apostle continues:

13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Again, context, context, context. The Apostle has already proved that the priesthood of Christ is far superior to that of the earthly priests who serve in a tabernacle made by man's hands. He has shown how superior the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ is, and how the promises are better (God's laws written on our minds, and our sins washed away in His blood).

What, pray tell, does this have to do with the JL? By the by, this is why the divines state that the ceremonial laws have been abrogated, and mention nothing of their ongoing applicability. The language of abrogation is not used of the JLs; they expired with the expiration of that state, but continued to bind all civil bodies politic in term of their general equity. Again this passage proves the abrogation of the ceremonies; a point not under dispute.

Also, the "ready to vanish away" is the same thing as Christ discusses in Matthew 24:1-35: the destruction of the sacrificial system, and the termination of the Jewish nation at 70 A.D. The system was coming to a close, and about to vanish away; the fulfillment had come, and the shadow was passing away.

I have had a similar trip laid on me by Messianic Jews, though far less pernicious (as I will demonstrate) than this Theonomic one. Nothing personal, Adam, in my using these words, as you are but a well-meaning conveyor of doctrine you have received and believed, and your conscience is clean in your teaching it. Nonetheless, the doctrine is what I am after, not you at all. The Jews told me I had to obey the Mosaic laws pertaining to foods, festivals, Shabbat, etc, on a similar basis, arguing from Matt 5, and Acts 21.

I hope you demonstrated from Colossians, Hebrews, etc. that the ceremonies have been abrogated, and that they no longer bind anyone anywhere, not even by general equity, as their general equity was soaked up on the cross. This is not a similar trip. I do resent being told that I'm laying a trip on you, but I think I know what you're getting at. You're reacting against what I've said because of a bad experience with people that are pretending to say something similar. I disagree with them. Simply because their basis for argument is the same doesn't mean that we're saying the same thing. I appreciate and commend your strong stand against Judaizing; but that's not what I'm doing. And that's not what the WCF does; and it's not what TCR authors do.

The Confession uses the term general equity to identify the element in the judicial laws which is of enduring obligation.

Amen!

We shall see that Calvin and the Puritans did not allow the judicial laws to define equity.

The confession states that it is the general equity of the JLs which still obliges all civil bodies politic:

"He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require."

General equity of the JLs, not of the ML. What I agree with is that the general equity of the JLs is their explanation and application of the ML. In other words, I think his premise is right, that the ML is what gives the equity to the JL. The area of disagreement is that I think the ML (defined as the Ex 20 Ten Commandments) is defined and explained by the JLs.

Here's a for instance: I tell my employee "Thou Shalt Be a good employee". What does this mean to him? Well, it's his overall guiding light. But, what about taking pencils home with him? What about clocking in before starting work? What about botching a sales deal because he's mad at his boss?

The JLs give us details of what the ML tells us in general categories. We know, for instance, that it is wrong to steal another human being? Why? Because, 1. God's moral law says "thou shalt not steal", and 2. Because God gave us a JL that explains that kidnapping is forbidden, and punishable by death.

Conformity to the moral law was the standard against which these writers reviewed the judicial laws and isolated the elements of perpetual equity in them.

Amen. This is exactly what my position is. As you will note in my dialogue with Timothy, I stated:

As to 1. if the judicials are an expression of the moral law, then all of them must of necessity apply, if they are moral in nature.
Premise One: The Moral Law forever binds all men everywhere
Premise Two: The Judicial Law is composed of civil applications of the Moral Law
Conclusion: The Judicial Law's civil applications of the Moral Law bind all men everywhere
This is Bahnsen's reasoning. The only exception would be if God told you that something didn't apply from the judicials, in which case one would naturally conclude that there was nothing "moral" about such a law, and that it was merely circumstantial, or peculiar to the Jewish people. Bahnsen says as much in his book "By This Standard".

This was why Calvin, Gillespie, and the WCF support the executing of blasphemers and adulterers, for instance. They followed this same procedure.

With this definition in view (will you agree with it?), I accept that general equity is the principle that brings not muzzling the ox to having the minister eat the fruit of his labors. But to have it mean the judicial laws pertaining to the punishment of lawbreakers in the Jewish Mosaic theocracy are carried over beyond that theocracy’s demise into the spiritual kingdom of Jesus Christ is not only without warrant, but violently contrary to the laws of that kingdom.

Here's where I think this discussion is getting helpful.

As I stated earlier, TCR sees differing spheres of govt as all under the direct authority of God: individual, family, church and civil. What you're doing here is confusing two of those spheres: church and civil. The church has a jurisdiction over sin, and had the keys of the kingdom. The state has the beheading sword and the power of coercion. Both of these are God's servants. However, one operates by the overarching theme of justice, while the other operates by the overarching theme of grace. If you commit adultery, you may repent and be forgiven by God and His church. That doesn't mean that you wouldn't be executed by the magistrate for such a vile act. The same for murder, or for making restitution for stealing. You may be saved, but you still need to accept the civil punishment. The one does not preclude the other, but they are intended to sweetly comply with each other. This is why the Reformed recognize a difference in the "uses" of the law.

The term “general equity” has been used by some as a magical override to the plain meaning of the Confession, and also to bolster erroneous exegesis of Matthew 5.

Actually, the term "general equity" is illustrated by the WCF's handling of the judicial laws as "proof texts" for moral duties (see WLC 10 commandments section), for the magistrates duties (see WCF chapter 23), for the punishments and curses we may expect in this life (WCF chapter 19), etc. If you PM me, I'll pass along the booklet I mentioned which gives quotations from Puritans, Reformers, and from the original WCF.

As I am needing to prepare a sermon, as well as attend to pastoral care, I may not be able to write much more till next week.

Not to worry. This dialogue is excellent, but I understand that there are things necessary, and things that are otherwise.

God bless you,

Adam

 

[ChristianTrader]

Just wish to make a general comment concerning things I read in the precursor thread.

There is no such thing as the separation of the church and state. There can only be a distinction. It only a question of which church will be established. The only way to separate church and state is to separate morality and state, and that is obviously nonsense.

If one disagrees with Theonomy or the Original WCF etc. concerning the civil magistrate, then all one can do is argue for a different set of laws and what should be outlawed instead of an absolute separation.

CT

 

[JohnV]

You're supposing too much, Hermonta. I for one know very well what I signed onto when I submitted to the Westminster Confession. I've studied it well, and have had a seven year church trial over how well I know it. I'm not a Theonomist. Nor is there any danger that I will be. As a matter of fact it is exactly the point of God's law that stands against it.

 

[ChristianTrader]

You're supposing too much, Hermonta. I for one know very well what I signed onto when I submitted to the Westminster Confession. I've studied it well, and have had a seven year church trial over how well I know it. I'm not a Theonomist. Nor is there any danger that I will be. As a matter of fact it is exactly the point of God's law that stands against it.

Where did I say that those who submit to the Westminster Confession are supposed to be Theonomists?

All I stated was that the separation of church and state is an incoherent notion.

As an aside, are you an establishmentarian?

CT

 

[JohnV]

You're supposing too much, Hermonta. I for one know very well what I signed onto when I submitted to the Westminster Confession. I've studied it well, and have had a seven year church trial over how well I know it. I'm not a Theonomist. Nor is there any danger that I will be. As a matter of fact it is exactly the point of God's law that stands against it.

Where did I say that those who submit to the Westminster Confession are supposed to be Theonomists?

When you put Theonomist in the same breath as belief in the Original Westminster Confession, e.g.:

"If one disagrees with Theonomy or the Original WCF etc."

I apologize if I misunderstood.

All I stated was that the separation of church and state is an incoherent notion.

I absolutely agree with that statement, and I especially like the way you said it at first. Let me repeat it:

"There is no such thing as the separation of the church and state. There can only be a distinction. It only a question of which church will be established. The only way to separate church and state is to separate morality and state, and that is obviously nonsense."

The way the separation of church and state is talked about in our day in secular society you'd think that they would also accept that there are two different airs to breathe. You're right, it's plain nonsense.

As an aside, are you an establishmentarian?

CT

I would not call myself that. This term is also the subject of equivocation. I guess it all depends on what you would call "the establishment". I'm certainly not establishmentarian in the modern sense. I'm sticking to the well-established Reformed faith.

 

[Christusregnat]

Nor is there any danger that I will be. As a matter of fact it is exactly the point of God's law that stands against it.

John,

This seems to demonstrate that you are unteachable.

What if someone were to demonstrate that the WCF teaches that blasphemers and idolators should be executed? Or would you say that the execution of blasphemers, idolaters, adulterers, and others by the civil power is something other than theonomy?

Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding you.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[JohnV]

Nor is there any danger that I will be. As a matter of fact it is exactly the point of God's law that stands against it.

John,

This seems to demonstrate that you are unteachable.

What if someone were to demonstrate that the WCF teaches that blasphemers and idolators should be executed? Or would you say that the execution of blasphemers, idolaters, adulterers, and others by the civil power is something other than theonomy?

Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding you.

Cheers,

Adam

This might be going off topic a bit, Adam. No, I am not unteachable. I'm just not reachable by those types of arguments which Theonomists stand on. It's not about theonomy at all, nor about who I think should or should not be executed. Its about a proper Reformed approach. You just can't go about things that way and stay Reformed.

I fought Theonomists in church court for seven years, and it never got to the point of debating Theonomy. They backed off right at the start, denying that they were so sure about it under oath. It was not about that after all.

That's also not what this thread is about. It's about General Equity.

 

[ChristianTrader]

As an aside, are you an establishmentarian?

CT

I would not call myself that. This term is also the subject of equivocation. I guess it all depends on what you would call "the establishment". I'm certainly not establishmentarian in the modern sense. I'm sticking to the well-established Reformed faith.

So according to the well-established Reformed faith, are you an establishmentarian?

CT

 

[Christusregnat]

This might be going off topic a bit, Adam. No, I am not unteachable. I'm just not reachable by those types of arguments which Theonomists stand on. It's not about theonomy at all, nor about who I think should or should not be executed. Its about a proper Reformed approach. You just can't go about things that way and stay Reformed.

I fought Theonomists in church court for seven years, and it never got to the point of debating Theonomy. They backed off right at the start, denying that they were so sure about it under oath. It was not about that after all.

That's also not what this thread is about. It's about General Equity.

John,

Thanks for sharing your experiences. The topic of whom is to be executed for what types of crimes is precisely what the general equity question answers.

Again, it sounds like you have made up your mind to disagree with theonomic arguments, and therefore you (if left to yourself) will never come to embrace the WCF's teaching on the subject.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[JohnV]

Adam:

I think I should respond to you in personal e-mail. I'm not going to put this on the Board.

Hermonta:

Before I say that I am establishmentarian I'm going to have to look up that word. It used to be that I had no trouble calling myself "conservative", but that also identified me with people with whom I had no agreement on very important things. So if its like that then I want to avoid using that term.

 

[Christusregnat]

Adam:
I think I should respond to you in personal e-mail. I'm not going to put this on the Board.

Sounds good to me!

Adam

 

[JohnV]

As an aside, are you an establishmentarian?

CT

I would not call myself that. This term is also the subject of equivocation. I guess it all depends on what you would call "the establishment". I'm certainly not establishmentarian in the modern sense. I'm sticking to the well-established Reformed faith.

So according to the well-established Reformed faith, are you an establishmentarian?

CT

Hermonta (and this applies to your question too, Adam):

In the church that I am now I am willing to live with differences because the church is bigger than the differences. When I joined to PB I didn't agree with the moderators on quite a few things, but they didn't always know about it, and yet I always supported them even when I didn't agree. That's kind of like being 'establishmentarian'.

I won't champion my own views, because I think it is beneath an honest search for truth. You'll read my posts that argue against a number of things, but not very often where I'm defending my own views, and never that my own personal views are right. My aim is to conform myself to truth more and more my whole life. I won't just follow the crowd. The church fathers don't want me to just follow them; they want me to follow the Lord. That's kind of like being non-establishmentarian

When I looked up 'establishmentarian' I saw that it had several connotations that could be applied. Because of the my above statements it is not a good idea to call myself 'establishmentarian'. My own views have to change, and what I may not understand now I might understand later. To call myself 'establishmentarian' can say too much and it can say too little. It's like trying to demonstrate the term 'now'; the moment you say it its already in the past: that's how hard it is to be called an establishmentarian in a defined way.

So I'll pass on the term.

 

[Christusregnat]

So I'll pass on the term.

I may be presuming, but I think Hermonta meant the following definition:

Establishmentarianism
official recognition of a church as a national institution, especially the Church of England (establishmentarianism - definition of establishmentarianism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.).

Godspeed,

Adam

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello again, Adam,

You said (post #10),

As for your comment that the moral law is not elucidated by the Judicial law, let me ask you this: Have you ever preached against incest? How did you define incest? Where in Scripture do you find its meaning? Have you ever preached against sodomy? What about bestiality? If so, where in Scripture did you go? Or did you only preach against adultery? If the moral law is the only thing you find as perpetual, then this is all you can preach about, since this is the only thing mentioned in the Ten Commandments.​

Actually, you are right here. Sloppy usage. “Elucidate” is not the right word. “Not the same as” is better. I should have said, “the moral law is not the same as the Judicial law”, and the sentence would have read,

Moreover, a nation that does not obey the moral law (which is not the same as the Judicial law) is not bound to suffer the plagues of Lev 26 and Deut 28...​

For it is true, as we shall see, the JL does elucidate the ML. Thanks for correcting me.

When I said (in post #9),

The “law” Paul speaks of in 1 Timothy 1:8ff is “according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God”, of which Jesus made him a minister. It is not the judicial law, but the moral law.​

You responded and said,

This is very poor exegesis...​

and proceeded to give the me the OT quotes this passage of Paul uses.

Paul uses these items from the Judical law (JL) to specify types of sin included in (for instance) the moral law (ML) Thou shalt not commit adultery, and here the JL does elucidate the ML. But my point is, that while particular kinds of sins are specified as part of a broader (moral) category, the penalties of the JL are not carried over into the New Testament. This is a proper use of "General Equity".

Paul may speak of the items from the JL while cataloguing various sins the moral law thunders against, but their use in the New Covenant is but illustrative and without the mandatory physical death sentence many of them warranted under Mosaic Law.

In the spiritual kingdom of Christ, the Old Testament death sentence is carried out spiritually: excommunication from the House of life. And even here, the use of such extreme discipline is in order to bring the sinner to repentance and restoration. All those outside the House of life are already dead. By House of life I mean the Household of God.

Note Paul’s pronouncement on the sinners of 1 Cor 5:11: “Put away from among yourselves that wicked person”. Under Moses some of them would have been put to death “without mercy” (Heb 10:28).

Likewise Peter, when preaching after the day of Pentecost, describes the Mosaic penalty for those who “will not hear that prophet”: they “shall be destroyed from among the people” (Acts 3:23). In the New Covenant era this translates into “they are no longer Israel, but cut off”, aliens from the House of life.

In the source passage, Deut. 18:19, it reads thus,

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto My words which He shall speak in My name, I will require it of him.​

This is a warning to heed the words of those appointed to the prophetic office, and in particular Him who is the culmination and fulfillment of that office, Messiah. The phrase, “I will require it of him,” means in this instance, “I will require his place among My people and his life.” Consider the destruction to be visited on those who with wicked hearts refused to “hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all His commandments…” (Deut 28:15), which promised destruction is shown in the verses following, so you may comprehend the dread import of the words “I will require it…”* to the Jewish nation after Messiah appeared among them.

* [It is the same usage as in Genesis 9:5; 42:22; and 2 Chron. 24:22.]

But there is a difference in what happens to those who break the Judicial Laws of Moses while under the jurisdiction of the Torah of Messiah.

The death penalty of the reconstituted Israel (for Messiah did not replace Israel with the church, but “ordered it” – Isa 9:7 – as He saw fit) is spiritual death. We will get to crimes against the state in a moment.

See also Paul, when the Corinthian man took his father’s wife (1 Cor 5:1ff.), Paul did not seek to have the Jewish or civil authorities put him to death as the JL mandated in Lev 20:11, but rather he was put out of the church and “delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus”. It appears in 2 Cor 2 that this punishment did work repentance in the person, and Paul urged the church to receive him again.

I should note, as this is a Reformed board, that the “death penalty of the reconstituted Israel...[which] is spiritual death” is never meted against one of Christ’s true sheep, for such can “never perish” (John 10:28; 6:39). However, as seen with the man in 1 Cor 5, they can be consigned “unto Satan” in the realm of death for terrible “scourgings” (Heb 12:5ff.) that nonetheless yield the fruit of righteousness.

The dead who by imposture dwell in the House of life (outwardly) reveal their unregenerate nature by sins, and the sentence of death under which they already are is confirmed by their excommunication. But even these may be granted grace unto life and repentance by the Lord.

We in the House of life are not killers – murderers – although self defense and military or police actions are not forbidden us. To kill in the name of Moses – or even to promote a theology condoning killing in the name of Moses – should be banned more speedily than racism or blasphemous heresy. It boggles the mind that such grotesque madness is treated as an acceptable choice of theology and eschatology among Christians.

When heathen or Christians break civil law, and I am thinking of capital crimes, yes, the state has the God-given right to execute them, physically.

Sorry for coming on so strong among gentle friends, but the theology I go after is alien, and warrants destruction.

Steve

P.S. The title of the thread, ‘ “General Equity”, etc’, has in that “etc” a lot of wiggle room for expanding the discussion beyond General Equity.

 

[JohnV]

So I'll pass on the term.

I may be presuming, but I think Hermonta meant the following definition:

Establishmentarianism
official recognition of a church as a national institution, especially the Church of England (establishmentarianism - definition of establishmentarianism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.).

Godspeed,

Adam

I still pass. I never belonged to the Church of England. We've got one adjacent to our lot, but that's as close as I've ever come to being establishmentarian in that sense. I've never been part of a church that was a national institution. And even if I did, my approval or disapproval hardly qualifies as "official".

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Adam,

When I referenced the Mosaic covenant in Hebrews 8 as being “...made old” (NKJV “made obsolete”) and “ready to vanish away” (v.13), you wrote how we needed to pay attention to “context, context, context”, and opined, “It is dealing with the priesthood, the temple, the sacrifice, etc....The Apostle makes no mention of JLs here; only ceremonies and priestly acts, which...have been abolished in Christ's body.” Is what you allege thoroughly true?

As you say, let’s look at the context.

Yes, Hebrews 8 is indeed looking at things pertaining to the priesthood; and also how Christ is mediator of a better covenant, of which He is high priest; however, when talking of “the covenant [God] made with their fathers”, and its annulment, the reason given is not the changing to a better priesthood, but “because they continued not in My covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord” (v. 9). This “not continuing” did not pertain to abuses or failures in the service of priestly function, but, as the source passage in Jeremiah 31:32 shows, they broke the covenant. How was it broken? By idolatry, rebellion / disobedience, adultery, etc; in short by their continual flagrant violations of the moral law, and that in its particular judicial applications. Even though Hebrews 8 is talking of the priesthood, verse 9 is referring to the abrogation of the entire covenant “[God] made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.”

Now verse 10 of Hebrews 8, and also verses 31 – 34 of Jeremiah 31 talk of the “new covenant” the Lord will establish with His people: it shall “not [be] according to the covenant that I made with their fathers”, but, “After those days, saith the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be My people.”

What law is this that shall be in our hearts? The Law, or Torah, of Messiah. And what is that? That’s the $64,000 question, n'est pas?

 

[Christusregnat]

Now verse 10 of Hebrews 8, and also verses 31 – 34 of Jeremiah 31 talk of the “new covenant” the Lord will establish with His people: it shall “not [be] according to the covenant that I made with their fathers”, but, “After those days, saith the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be My people.”

What law is this that shall be in our hearts? The Law, or Torah, of Messiah. And what is that? That’s the $64,000 question, n'est pas?

Steve,

Excellent $64K question

Two issues:

1. The "covenant that God made" with the Exodus generation is specifically identified with the 10 Commandments:

Exodus 34:27 And the LORD said to Moses, "Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." 28 So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

See the parallel at Deuteronomy 4:12-13

Thus, if we assume that Jeremiah had this in mind, then we would have to adopt the position that the ML is no longer part of the New Covenant - the antinomian position. The other reading of Jer 31 is that the problem with the Old Covenant was the response of the covenant members. The Ten Commandments was not the problem, and was not altered; rather, the response was fixed by writing the covenant on their minds, and washing away their sins by the blood of Christ.

2. As I stated previously, this passage doesn't have bearing on the JL question.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[Christusregnat]

I still pass. I never belonged to the Church of England. We've got one adjacent to our lot, but that's as close as I've ever come to being establishmentarian in that sense. I've never been part of a church that was a national institution. And even if I did, my approval or disapproval hardly qualifies as "official".

John,

I think Hermonta may have been referring to the fact that (for example) The Synod of Dordt was called and deliberated by the semi-Established Church of Holland, the Dutch Reformed Church, and that the Westminster Assembly was called by the Church of England, in concert with Parliament.

The Reformed faith (for instance, in the original WCF) considers the magistrate's duty to include protecting the true church with the civil sword.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Adam, you said,

Two issues:

1. The "covenant that God made" with the Exodus generation is specifically identified with the 10 Commandments:

Exodus 34:27 And the LORD said to Moses, "Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." 28 So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

See the parallel at Deuteronomy 4:12-13

Thus, if we assume that Jeremiah had this in mind, then we would have to adopt the position that the ML is no longer part of the New Covenant - the antinomian position. The other reading of Jer 31 is that the problem with the Old Covenant was the response of the covenant members. The Ten Commandments was not the problem, and was not altered; rather, the response was fixed by writing the covenant on their minds, and washing away their sins by the blood of Christ.

2. As I stated previously, this passage doesn't have bearing on the JL question.

Can it possibly be you are denying that the subsequent laws God gave Moses – after the Ten – are not part of “The ‘covenant that God made’ with the Exodus generation”? In other words, that the judicial laws, or civil laws, are not part of that covenant in your view?

The Ten are indeed the words of the covenant, the overarching eternal law of God in its quintessential commands; all the rest of the statutes are subsumed in them, and equally part of the covenant God made with Israel through Moses.

The LORD said to Moses, “Now these are the judgments which thou shall set before them” (Ex 21:1), and He proceeded to give Moses practical applications of the Ten by way of statutes and commandments. These likewise are part of the covenant of the Ten, and are written in the book of the covenant.

“And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said we will do. (Ex 24:3, 4)

And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD....And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said we will do, and be obedient. (Ex 24:7)​

There were many things the LORD commanded Moses to write in the book of the covenant, which is called also the “book of the law” (Deut 30:10).

The LORD added to the book of the covenant as seen in Deut 28, when He then commanded Moses to write:

These are the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb....Therefore keep the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do (Deut 29:1, 9).​

There were not two or more covenants with Moses and with the people, but one added onto. This is made clear in the account of Josiah in 2 Kings 22 and 23, where the young king was given the book of the law found during work in the temple; he then called a great gathering of the elders, priests, prophets, and people, “and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of the LORD.” (2 Kings 23:1)

Through Jeremiah the LORD said the same,

The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD saying,

Hear ye the words of this covenant, and speak unto the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem;

And say thou unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel; Cursed be the man that obeyeth not the words of this covenant,

Which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God (11:1-4).​

Adam, if we cannot even agree on the terms how can we discourse? The application of the statutes would differ, those that had relevance to the Ten, when the Mosaic economy was fulfilled in Christ, yet to the “Exodus generation” they were as much part of the covenant as the Ten. I like how Tim C. put it above:

...the Mosaic judicials were only judicial applications of the moral law decalogue​

They were not more than that, nor were they less than that. They were part and parcel of that covenant.

 

[Christusregnat]

Can it possibly be you are denying that the subsequent laws God gave Moses – after the Ten – are not part of “The ‘covenant that God made’ with the Exodus generation”? In other words, that the judicial laws, or civil laws, are not part of that covenant in your view?

Good point Steve! All I was seeking to illustrate was that the passage in question, as applied in the book of Hebrews does not change or abrogate the 10 Commandments, but only the ceremonial. The specific language used by Jeremiah indicates a change in the response of the people to this covenant, but not to the terms of the covenant per se. Same Law; same covenant people; different response. This was my basic point; it has no bearing on whether the JL applies, except insofar as the JL applies the ML to civil realms. As stated previously, I do believe that the subsequent JLs were explanations of the ML, and don't think that they were outside of the design of the original 10 Words.

The Ten are indeed the words of the covenant, the overarching eternal law of God in its quintessential commands; all the rest of the statutes are subsumed in them, and equally part of the covenant God made with Israel through Moses.

Indeed, this is what I believe. With this word of explanation: the eternal law of God is not unique to Israel, but is demanded of all who are created in God's image, whether redeemed or unredeemed, fallen or unfallen. The point of political application is to address the situation of civil bodies politic with the marrow of the moral law.

Adam, if we cannot even agree on the terms how can we discourse? The application of the statutes would differ, those that had relevance to the Ten, when the Mosaic economy was fulfilled in Christ, yet to the “Exodus generation” they were as much part of the covenant as the Ten. I like how Tim C. put it above:

...the Mosaic judicials were only judicial applications of the moral law decalogue​

They were not more than that, nor were they less than that. They were part and parcel of that covenant.

I don't think I was clear in my post on Heb 8. Basically, I think Heb 8 is not talking about a change in the covenant of grace itself, but in the administration of that covenant in the times of the gospel vs. the time of the law. The differences? No ceremonies due to their fulfillment by Christ, and the same Laws of the covenant written on the hearts of the covenant members.

The net result: the JL is not affected by quoting Hebrews 8. Rather, the JL is more firmly established as being written on the hearts of God's saints. Heb 8 says nothing to diminish the JL as stated in the Mosaic Covenant; it rather strengthens the application.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Adam, would you please explain what you mean when you use the term, "the marrow of the moral law"? Thanks.