Does Deut 28 apply to us?

[kalawine]

General Equity would be a contradiction if you assume Abrogated as used by the divines means totally nullified in its entirety. The Puritans is the shining example of what abrogation vs general equity means. (Stoning a murder is not necessary if you don't have stones nearby, you can hang him)

This point gets close to some questions I have about theonomy (I'm new to the subject). For nontheonomists who hold that the judicial laws have expired, would you say that the penalties for breaking the judicial laws are not to be considered a part of the moral content of those laws so that civil magistrates today cannot properly base penalties for crimes on the penalties found in the OT?

My question for theonomists here is, since we're responsible for every jot and tittle of OT law, does this mean that we ought to stone people guilty of capital offenses or is lethal injection okay? How do you determine what parts to follow and what parts are circumstantial to Israel?

Good questions!

 

[Archlute]

Well, penalties are not moral, they are "penal". Penalties, in and of themselves cannot be considered moral, except in how they are applied. You can have justly applied or unjustly applied penalties, but the disciplinary action itself is without inherent morality.

 

[Christusregnat]

Whether or not James Jordan's attempts to read the modern theonomic agenda into Calvin's thought, or your apparent approval of that reading, is accurate or not is beyond the level of scholarship and debate that could profitably take place on a forum like the PB. However, even if it could be proved that Jordan's reading is correct, that really doesn't mean very much. I think that Calvin gets other things wrong in his preaching (such as in his sermons on Micah), and often times in his concern to correct the social-ecclesiastical problems of his day his sermons end up missing the Gospel altogether, which is what "ministers of the Gospel" are called to preach, as Christ's ambassadors.

Did Calvin believe that he had a reason for preaching these sermons as he did? Sure. Were there significant social corruptions going on in Geneva at the time? Sure. But does that mean that we are obliged to follow his interpretations on every passage, or to refrain from disagreeing with his homiletic procedure? No. If that were the case, then Calvin would just be the Protestant version of the Papal Magisterium.

I still doubt that Jordan was reading him right. I've read most of Calvin's sermons on Micah, and a handful from his preaching in Deuteronomy, and although Calvin seeks change in the unjust practices of the merchants, and to stem the corrupting influence of the brothels and such, his version of social change through the preaching of the Scriptures, and the theonomic version of the same through the enforcement of theocratic law are two very, very different foundations.

Adam,

Thank you for your thoughts. As you will note in my original post on this thread, I stated:

The idea that these sections of Scripture only have a limited, or personal application does not seem to be Reformed or confessional. At least if we measure such by the Westminster Confession and Calvin.

Therefore, the scope of my statement was limited to two sources, one of which you have yet to interact with.

The OP is about the applicability of the blessings and curses. Calvin and the Westminster standards accept these as normative for all nations. You (presumably) do not. To that degree, your interpretation is out of accord with the sources I cited, including Winthrop. That's all I was getting at.

Also, conceding the applicability of Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26 to modern day nations and the applicability of the judicials are two separate (albeit related) issues, and should not be confused. My point was that the first use of the law is complemented by the blessings and curses. Although this is a basic point in modern theonomist thought, it is only because it is basic to Calvin and the Westminster Standards' thought.

As for Calvin not "preaching the gospel", I'm not sure what you're getting at. There are many men whom I could think of in Scripture who preached on such subjects as Calvin did, and yet were still preaching the gospel of Christ. For instance, Jesus, who taught the execution of those who curse their father or mother, or Paul who taught the Romans about the magistrate's duty to punish evil and praise those that do well. Then there is Moses who preached the gospel of Christ, and taught the civil justice that God demands among men.

The setting of enforcement of civil sanctions against preaching of scripture is like saying that if a man preaches against adultery, he's failed to "preach the gospel". Your concern for preaching the gospel is good, and right. However, if that means that a preacher may not follow the example of Paul, or Jesus, or Moses, or Elijah, or Amos, etc. then I think your zeal may be blameworthy.

Theonomists do not make "preaching of the Scriptures" and "the enforcement of theocratic law" as two mutually exclusive foundations. Rather, both are built on one foundation: Jesus Christ. Each man is taught by the church how to reform, according to his personal station. If the tradesman, husband, and father, he is taught how to glorify Christ in his trade, his marriage and his fatherhood. If a pastor to Christ flock, he is taught how to glorify Christ in being "a fisher of men" etc. If one who governs, he is taught how to glorify Christ in his government. To say that preaching of the Scriptures is somehow contrary to God ruling over all nations is... well... unscriptural. Christ is King of kings, and Lord of lords. This is all that theonomists argue, and it is the teaching of the system of doctrine drawn up by the Assembly of Divines.

Anywho, just some thoughts. Thanks for the interaction!

 

[Archlute]

Thanks for your thoughts as well, Adam.

At this point I don't feel it a fruitful use of my time to go around in circles on several things that seem not to be sticking, nor do I feel I have the time to get into definitions of preaching, and an evaluation of Calvin's sermons. There is a whole lot of material at the seminary level that would help in fleshing out and discussing these issues further, but I figure that instead of rewriting and discussing three years of applicable lecture notes, I'll just leave the discussion as is, and make better use of my time in actually carrying out the work of the ministry where I have been placed.

I will not be able to change your mind within one thread regarding material that takes some people months to grasp fully. Applied theology, and all the related disciplines that go into making it work, is both a pretty broad and detailed topic. I'll just say that Morecraft fails to get the understanding and application of that passage correct, on at least the point under discussion. I think that any number of reliable homiletic profs would be in agreement with me. In the tradition of the "Clowney Diagram", when preaching moves directly from OT principle to personal application w/o getting first to the elements of fulfillment in Christ (and only then to its application in the life of a believer) it is labeled as moralism. Just as moving straight from the OT event to application, bypassing both OT principle and fulfillment in Christ, would receive the label of allegory.

You might try reading some works by Clowney, Goldsworthy, Johnson, and a few others on why we preach this way. You may find yourself understanding things in a different light, and I doubt that you would call it unconfessional. I didn't hear anyone saying anything of the sort about Clowney's teaching or ministerial fruitfulness either before or after his passing. I think I'll hang with my profs on this one. They always seemed to do a pretty good job of preaching the OT when I was around.

Seriously though, you should at least read through a copy of Dennis Johnson's Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ in all of the Scriptures. I think you'd find it a good read, even if you were personally to come away still being unconvinced on a point or two.

 

[shackleton]

Something I had been wondering about of late, if a reformed person wants to go back and apply the laws of Deuteronomy to us today and not take hermeneutics and historical perspective into account how is this any different than the people who want to say miracles, healing, tongues, spiritual gifts etc. still apply to us today because they read of these things happening in the NT?

Shouldn't historical and cultural perspective and hermeneutics be taken into account in both instances?

 

[Neopatriarch]

Well, penalties are not moral, they are "penal". Penalties, in and of themselves cannot be considered moral, except in how they are applied. You can have justly applied or unjustly applied penalties, but the disciplinary action itself is without inherent morality.

Certainly the punishment should fit the crime. Perhaps I should be asking whether or not the judicial law's prescription of death for murderers is part of the moral content of the judicial law or is a slap on the wrist okay? Can the judicial laws teach us which penalties are right to apply to particular crimes?

 

[timmopussycat]

Could Deut. 28 be applied to the United States? Is the US. the covenant nation of God? There are certainly principles in that passage that show that any nation who thumbs its nose at God and goes into idolatry will be judged.
Here is a passage that could most certainly be applied to the U.S. as well as any other nation:
Jer 18:7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
Jer 18:8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
Jer 18:9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
Jer 18:10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

Blueridge,

God never made a covenant with America; rather, God's covenant is intended to be brough to all nations, not just Israel any more. This is a major theme in the minor prophets, in Isaiah, and in the New Testament: "Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations."

The reality that America is experiencing the plagues of Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26 does not depend on a specifically "Amero/Israel" ideology, it simply requires that one understand the shift from OT to NT is not one that casts out the civil in favor of the personal, but one that casts out the one nation to include all nations.

Cheers,

Not even Bahnsen fell into the trap of suggesting that the reason OT stipulations carried over was that they remained coovenantally valid in the NT era. Had he done so he would have been in Galatianism. Bahnsen's arguments for NT validity of OT judicials were a) all must remain valid unless amended by the lawgiver in the NT and b) the judicials are included in the moral law and thus transcend the Sinai covenant.

From God's history of dealing with nations not in covenant with him, one may argue, I think correctly, that the character of God is such that he is free to and may, at any time he pleases, impose judgments on nations that turn from him, whether or not those nations are officially in covenant with him.

It seems to me there is cause for a widespread call to Christians to pray and fast, not only for the crisis, but for our powerlessness in evangelism over the last 70 years which has led to it. The most disquieting thing about the present crises is that I have seen only one call for Christians to pray and fast in the moment and that if I remember correctly was issued by a layman on a discusion board not a politician or major Christian leader. In older days politicians would have made such a call without thinking about it; today I have not heard of any significant voice in evangelicalism make such a call.

 

[timmopussycat]

Something I had been wondering about of late, if a reformed person wants to go back and apply the laws of Deuteronomy to us today and not take hermeneutics and historical perspective into account how is this any different than the people who want to say miracles, healing, tongues, spiritual gifts etc. still apply to us today because they read of these things happening in the NT?

Shouldn't historical and cultural perspective and hermeneutics be taken into account in both instances?

Yes, historical and cultural perspective and hermeneutics ought to be taken into account when applying Mosaic judicial stipulations to situatons outside the Mosaic covenant. In section 19:4 of the WCF, the Westminster Divines have given us a method of doing so that has yet to be surpassed. That section says 2 things. First, none of the laws remain covenantally valid "they have expired together with the state of [the Jews] and second, in the words"not obliging any other now further than general equity may require" the Divines provided an applicability test that each law must pass before we institute it today: we must demonstrate the contemporary validity of any law we believe applicable today by showing that it remains just despite the differing relationships between God and man that are found outside Sinai.

 

[timmopussycat]

Fine, but having skimmed the longish introduction where Jordan tries to make his case is already a strike against it for me. Whether or not Beeke lists it as his number one choice as a commentary is irrelevant. I'd like to see where he does that anyway, since the work is no commentary in the true sense whatsoever, but rather a reprinting of Calvin's sermons with prefatory material added by a theonomist. If Beeke actually lists it as his #1 commentary, as you claim, I'd have to say that's a pretty poor choice, since it technically is not a commentary. Put up a link or something.

Adam,

Calvin's material speaks for itself, and the argument that someone wrote a preface with whom you disagree does not really say much against what Calvin actually stated in his sermons. Rather, it says that your prejudice is so strong that you are unwilling to take Calvin's socio-political thought even handedly.

You can skip the preface, but don't skip the message.

Cheers,

Did Jordan just write the preface or did he also translate Calvin's sermons as has been mentioned in another thread here? If Jordan translated the sermons, I would be careful.
For it is certain that while Calvin believed with modern Theonomists that many Mosaic judicials were applicable today, it is equally certain he had a different hermeneutic than Bahnsen to justify his belief. These differences in hermeneutics lead to differences over which laws should apply today. These differences are evident in book iv chaper 20 pp. 14-16 of Institutes published before Calvin preached on Deuteronomy and it remains present in his Commentary on the Four Last Books of Moses, written and published after Calvin preached on Deuteronomy.

So if Jordan did translate these sermons, I would check any points where it appears Calvin has adopted Bahnsen's Theonomic hermeutic against the earlier translation which is I believe is available online.