Adultery and homosexuality in the moral law

Status
Not open for further replies.

Taylor

Puritan Board Senior
True, but the main question is do we always execute the death penalty, or are their times grace should be shown?

Brother, with all due respect, I don’t know how what I just said could be any clearer an answer to that question.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Brother, with all due respect, I don’t know how what I just said could be any clearer an answer to that question.
Thgere seems to be 2 main issues on this discussion, which are there any sins other than Murder that today warrant death penalty, and when should that penalty be applied?
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Thgere seems to be 2 main issues on this discussion, which are there any sins other than Murder that today warrant death penalty, and when should that penalty be applied?

No, those questions reduce to a deeper question that you haven't answered: what makes a punishment just? Your appeals to the David scenario confuse God with the civil magistrate.
 

Jeri Tanner

Moderator
Staff member
Thgere seems to be 2 main issues on this discussion, which are there any sins other than Murder that today warrant death penalty, and when should that penalty be applied?
I think you have presented this hypothetical question/observation several times; The answer is that in a Christianized society, which we don't have, the Christian judges and magistrates would need to work those things out according to the general equity deemed proper, and also on a case by case basis. Do you have a good understanding of modern theonomy vs. more traditional Reformed and confessional thought on these things?
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
I think you have presented this hypothetical question/observation several times; The answer is that in a Christianized society, which we don't have, the Christian judges and magistrates would need to work those things out according to the general equity deemed proper, and also on a case by case basis. Do you have a good understanding of modern theonomy vs. more traditional Reformed and confessional thought on these things?
Theonomy is not accepted by standard reformed and Confessing Baptists on the whole, correct? Is it similar to what Rushdoony proposed in his Christian reconstructionism?
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
No, those questions reduce to a deeper question that you haven't answered: what makes a punishment just? Your appeals to the David scenario confuse God with the civil magistrate.
Punishment should fit the crime as taking into account all aspects of the situation.
 

Jeri Tanner

Moderator
Staff member
Theonomy is not accepted by standard reformed and Confessing Baptists on the whole, correct? Is it similar to what Rushdoony proposed in his Christian reconstructionism?
I'm not sure about modern theonomy's popularity with reformed, confessional Baptists. Modern theonomy (important to make that distinction I believe) is held to by Reformed and confessional Presbyterians but again I don't know to what extent. Several on the puritanboard hold to it. Yes, Rushdoony, Gary North, and Bahnsen are the modern theonomist names I'm familiar with. And among those who hold to modern theonomy there are still a variety of views and opinions. I am not an expert on it by any means and I don't hold to modern theonomy. I do hold to the magistrate's duty to uphold the 10 commandments as law in a Christian society, and the outworkings of that as far as fines and punishments when God's law is broken would have to be wisely prescribed and enforced.
 

Jeri Tanner

Moderator
Staff member
Punishment should fit the crime as taking into account all aspects of the situation.
"Punishment should fit the crime' is a popular slogan but not particularly helpful in working these things out in a society. "Taking in account all aspects of the situation" is on the right track. I'd suggest doing some reading so you can get a handle on modern theonomic thought and then read Puritans and others on how general equity works in establishing NT punishment for crime. There may be some helpful PB threads on it.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
I'm not sure about modern theonomy's popularity with reformed, confessional Baptists. Modern theonomy (important to make that distinction I believe) is held to by Reformed and confessional Presbyterians but again I don't know to what extent. Several on the puritanboard hold to it. Yes, Rushdoony, Gary North, and Bahnsen are the modern theonomist names I'm familiar with. And among those who hold to modern theonomy there are still a variety of views and opinions. I am not an expert on it by any means and I don't hold to modern theonomy. I do hold to the magistrate's duty to uphold the 10 commandments as law in a Christian society, and the outworkings of that as far as fines and punishments when God's law is broken would have to be wisely prescribed and enforced.
Since OT Israel though, when has there ever been a real Christian nation ?
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
"Punishment should fit the crime' is a popular slogan but not particularly helpful in working these things out in a society. "Taking in account all aspects of the situation" is on the right track. I'd suggest doing some reading so you can get a handle on modern theonomic thought and then read Puritans and others on how general equity works in establishing NT punishment for crime. There may be some helpful PB threads on it.
There seems to be a blending of Post Mil theology and reconstructing theology from what I can see.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Senior
Theonomy is not accepted by standard reformed and Confessing Baptists on the whole, correct? Is it similar to what Rushdoony proposed in his Christian reconstructionism?

Modern acceptance doesn't make it any less a historic Reformed position on the judicial law. Observe what James Ussher has to say:

What call you the Judicial Law?
That wherein God appointed a Form of Politick and Civil Government of the Common-wealth of the Jews: Which therefore is ceased with the Dissolution of that State, for which it was ordained; saving only in the common Equity.

Is this [i.e., the Judicial] Law utterly revoked and abolished by Christ?
No. For he came not to overturn any good Government of the Common-wealth; much less that which was appointed by God himself.

May not Christian Magistrates then swerve any thing from those Laws of Government, which were set down by Moses?
In some Circumstances they may: But in the general Equity and Substance they may not.

What Judicial Laws are immutably to be observed now of Christian Magistrates?
Those which have Reasons annexed unto them, and especially those wherein God hath appointed Death for the Punishment of hainous Offences.

—James Ussher, A Body of Divinity: Or, the Sum and Substance of Christian Religion, 8th ed. (London, 1702), 242; bold/underline added.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Modern acceptance doesn't make it any less a historic Reformed position on the judicial law. Observe what James Ussher has to say:

What call you the Judicial Law?
That wherein God appointed a Form of Politick and Civil Government of the Common-wealth of the Jews: Which therefore is ceased with the Dissolution of that State, for which it was ordained; saving only in the common Equity.

Is this [i.e., the Judicial] Law utterly revoked and abolished by Christ?
No. For he came not to overturn any good Government of the Common-wealth; much less that which was appointed by God himself.

May not Christian Magistrates then swerve any thing from those Laws of Government, which were set down by Moses?
In some Circumstances they may: But in the general Equity and Substance they may not.

What Judicial Laws are immutably to be observed now of Christian Magistrates?
Those which have Reasons annexed unto them, and especially those wherein God hath appointed Death for the Punishment of hainous Offences.

—James Ussher, A Body of Divinity: Or, the Sum and Substance of Christian Religion, 8th ed. (London, 1702), 242; bold/underline added.
Israel was the only nation in history though God d=set apart to operate as a theonomy, as what was a Christian nation since that time?
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Senior
Israel was the only nation in history though God d=set apart to operate as a theonomy, as what was a Christian nation since that time?

Brother, you very clearly do not understand theonomic ethics. First of all, there is no such thing as "a theonomy." You probably mean "theocracy." Second and furthermore, this is not a question of whether or not God has set up a "Christian nation," but whether or not God has given us a standard of civil justice. If he has (and he definitely has), we are bound to abide by every jot and tittle. Just as sin is the personal transgression (or omission) of the law, civil injustice is the transgression (or omission) of God's law in regard to civil ethics.

Regarding your constant assertion that "Israel is the only theocracy," do you not understand that every nation is a theocracy? All law, being based upon morality, is inherently religious in foundation. So, just because a nation like our may pretend to be secular in its government, it is very much a theocracy. It's laws are just based upon the religion of autonomous man and not the law of the God of the Bible.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Brother, you very clearly do not understand theonomic ethics. First of all, there is no such thing as "a theonomy." You probably mean "theocracy." Second and furthermore, this is not a question of whether or not God has set up a "Christian nation," but whether or not God has given us a standard of civil justice. If he has (and he definitely has), we are bound to abide by every jot and tittle. Just as sin is the personal transgression (or omission) of the law, civil injustice is the transgression (or omission) of God's law in regard to civil ethics.

Regarding your constant assertion that "Israel is the only theocracy," do you not understand that every nation is a theocracy? All law, being based upon morality, is inherently religious in foundation. So, just because a nation like our may pretend to be secular in its government, it is very much a theocracy. It's laws are just based upon the religion of autonomous man and not the law of the God of the Bible.
Israel though had a unique application of the law of God to her, as we do not order executions for the same sins that God set up for them under the OC.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Senior
other then for Murder, what crimes and sins warrant the death penalty today here in America for example?

That depends on what civil crimes God has said is worthy of death in his law. Murder, kidnapping, and rape are a few examples.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Senior
What about worshipping other gods then?

What about it? What does the Scripture say? Was this offense strictly civil? Or did it have a ceremonial aspect particular to the state of Israel as a “body politic.”

Also, “worshipping other gods” is vague. Are we talking about private worship, or things like public teaching of heresy and practicing of idolatry?
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
What about it? What does the Scripture say? Was this offense strictly civil? Or did it have a ceremonial aspect particular to the state of Israel as a “body politic.”

Also, “worshipping other gods” is vague. Are we talking about private worship, or things like public teaching of heresy and practicing of idolatry?
teachings of say JW and Mormon and Islam .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top