Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What practical, moral and theoretical differences are there between those that are Theonomists and the other Reformed - apart from the fact that Theonomists believe that the criminal and penal law of Moses should be applied in New Covenant states where possible?
in the changed covenantal circumstances of the New Covenant in which God is no longer the suzerein of any national or ethnic state.
in the changed covenantal circumstances of the New Covenant in which God is no longer the suzerein of any national or ethnic state.
Sadly the "reformed critique" of theonomy has taken this line and called traditional reformed thought an error and theonomy an "old-new error." I don't believe any criticism of the theonomic thesis can be sustained on this ground. If God is not the Governor of the nations and the one and only Lawgiver then there can be no civic ethics.
in the changed covenantal circumstances of the New Covenant in which God is no longer the suzerein of any national or ethnic state.
Sadly the "reformed critique" of theonomy has taken this line and called traditional reformed thought an error and theonomy an "old-new error." I don't believe any criticism of the theonomic thesis can be sustained on this ground. If God is not the Governor of the nations and the one and only Lawgiver then there can be no civic ethics.
Many of the non-Theonomic Reformed would draw the appropriate moral lessons from the example of the female nesting bird, but would not hold that the Old Covenant civil penalties should apply in the same way today.
Many of the non-Theonomic Reformed would draw the appropriate moral lessons from the example of the female nesting bird, but would not hold that the Old Covenant civil penalties should apply in the same way today.
But there isn't a civil penalty in the OT for violating that law. So how does a Theonomist differ from any other Reformed person who thinks it's a good and just law?
That one's easy. The theonomist (at least some) would say that the State has no business imposing a criminal law against out-of-season game bird hunting, but the non-theonomist might say it is appropriate.
Instead, I affirm that God is Lord of the nations by right and may legislate what, when and how he pleases.
Keep in mind that only the minority of OT laws had/have any penalties attached to them. Not killing a female game bird during nesting season hasn't got a civil or ecclesiastical penalty attached to it, but a Theonomist sees it as a command from God none the less.
One eyebrow instead of two?Difference(s) between Theonomists and other Reformed?
For the record, the Theonomist (at least, my brand) essentially holds that every single moral in the Bible, including those involving penal sanctions, is binding today.
Yes.
I would hold that many of the judicial laws, including the many death penalties that were added at the time of Moses, also include ceremonial and moral elements.
The death penalties were ceremonial, because they were in place of a sacrifice for the sin committed e.g. high-handed Sabbath-breaking or adultery.
Well if he wasn't condemned to death for some reason e.g. lack of evidence, I don't know if a lower level of evidence could have meant that he suffered a lower penalty.
If that was the case, he surely would have also to have had a sacrifice. It seems to be that animal blood had to be shed for every sin (or sins) or that someone had to die for their sins.
Murder is singled out as a sin in particular, if it is properly proven, where the sentence must not be commuted from death.
It's also significant that the death penalty coincided with the criminal being cut off from the Covenant and that stoning was to be carried out by the congregation - pointing to these criminal/penal laws at least being partially fulfilled in church discipline in the New Covenant (e.g. Matthew 18).
Quote:Rich
Well if he wasn't condemned to death for some reason e.g. lack of evidence, I don't know if a lower level of evidence could have meant that he suffered a lower penalty.
Tim:
No, you're either guilty or you aren't.
Quote:Rich
If that was the case, he surely would have also to have had a sacrifice. It seems to be that animal blood had to be shed for every sin (or sins) or that someone had to die for their sins.
Tim:
No, restitution is just one thing you're leaving out. There's no sacrifice or death penalty for a first or second time thief; there is restitution.
Tim: Rape is as well
Quote:Rich
It's also significant that the death penalty coincided with the criminal being cut off from the Covenant and that stoning was to be carried out by the congregation - pointing to these criminal/penal laws at least being partially fulfilled in church discipline in the New Covenant (e.g. Matthew 18).
Tim:
First and second time thieves weren't killed or cut off.
If that was the case, when the law was operating properly there may have been quite a few who got off because of the lack of the requisite evidence.
Exo 22:1 "If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep
in the changed covenantal circumstances of the New Covenant in which God is no longer the suzerein of any national or ethnic state.
Sadly the "reformed critique" of theonomy has taken this line and called traditional reformed thought an error and theonomy an "old-new error." I don't believe any criticism of the theonomic thesis can be sustained on this ground. If God is not the Governor of the nations and the one and only Lawgiver then there can be no civic ethics.
Sins that were gross and wilful, like the flagrant breach of the Sabbath (in the context) of the man collecting sticks, were denied a sacrifice, thus the death penalty had to ensue. The grossest breaches of the first 9 of the 10C all had the death penalty attatched to them. This would remind the people that all sins deserve death, and that they were only kept from death by sacrifice. (See Numbers 15, particularly from verse 22 onwards. See also Hebrews 10:26-29)
The death penalty for murder was the only death penalty that was given to all mankind. The phalanx of other death penalties were "added because of transgressions"(Galatians 3:19), to keep the church and kingdom under age in check, and to teach them that all transgressions deserve death without a sacrifice.
Quote:
Exo 22:1 "If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep
Note there's nothing about a sacrifice there.
Sins that were gross and wilful, like the flagrant breach of the Sabbath (in the context) of the man collecting sticks, were denied a sacrifice, thus the death penalty had to ensue. The grossest breaches of the first 9 of the 10C all had the death penalty attatched to them. This would remind the people that all sins deserve death, and that they were only kept from death by sacrifice. (See Numbers 15, particularly from verse 22 onwards. See also Hebrews 10:26-29)
How do those passages teach or imply that capital punishment was only instituted to let people know that sin demanded death -- and only in extreme circumstances? Also, is there anything in the Confession regarding that?
The death penalty for murder was the only death penalty that was given to all mankind. The phalanx of other death penalties were "added because of transgressions"(Galatians 3:19), to keep the church and kingdom under age in check, and to teach them that all transgressions deserve death without a sacrifice.
How do you know that the "it" in Gal. 3:19 has its antecedent as specific OT non-murder (and perhaps non-rape) capital crimes? And if that is in fact its antecedent, how does that comport with your previous argument that they were added for ceremonial reasons (i.e. rather than "because of transgressions")?