ConfederateTheocrat
Puritan Board Freshman
What is the Non-Theonomic, Reformed understanding of Matthew 5:17-20?
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.
Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat
Does this "fulfill" mean that the law is completed and over with?
Heb 8:6 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.
8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat
Does this "fulfill" mean that the law is completed and over with?
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat
Does this "fulfill" mean that the law is completed and over with?
No.
Read Calvin, Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, Owen, Edwards, Watson, Vos, or just about any other Reformed divine before Rushdooney.
Originally posted by JohnV
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat
Does this "fulfill" mean that the law is completed and over with?
No.
Read Calvin, Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, Owen, Edwards, Watson, Vos, or just about any other Reformed divine before Rushdooney.
I would agree that theology comes first. It is, after all, more important even to such ideas. It must be within a solid theology that we must form our ideas concerning secondary matters. And a clear ethic is already traced out in such theological works as Calvin, Henry, Owen, Edwards et al. A solid theological training would certainly have avoided such fiascos as I encountered, one would think. Directly countering Jesus' teaching is quite an audacious thing to do. It is even more audacious for a church not to notice.
Originally posted by Authorised
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Christ here refers not to the moral law per se, but to the totality of the law and prophets as a literary document.
How do theonomists interpret John 8? Christ gives the adulterous woman a religious forgiveness, but it never says that he pursued her case any further, i.e. finding her husband to accuse her so that she could be stoned according the law of Moses.
How many Christians living today, much less atheists and pagans, would be/should be killed in a theonomy?
How would we find out about a man copulating with his wife while menstruating?
Edit: I'm still new to theonomy and I'm just looking to have questions answered. I haven't really decided yet, but I still have inclinations against it.
[Edited on 17-12-2004 by Authorised]
It is manifest, by his following discourse, that he principally spake of the moral law, though he also fulfilled the ceremonial law...Saith he, I am not come to destroy and put and end to the moral law.
Originally posted by Cottonball
What do you all mean though? I mean, how rigorously should what parts of the law be upheld? It was my impression (from Calvin!) that much of it was, well, to be thrown out the window, because it was meant to be a preparation for Christ, who has now come. So what parts of the law (other than the Commandments, obviously) are you referring to?
Originally posted by Paul manata
How do theonomists interpret John 8? Christ gives the adulterous woman a religious forgiveness, but it never says that he pursued her case any further, i.e. finding her husband to accuse her so that she could be stoned according the law of Moses.
First off, this passage in John 8 is disputed to have not even been included in the original mauscripts. Even if it is, it is evidence for theonomy.
(1) There is no proof that she committed adultary. Also, where was the man? If she was 'caught in the act' then the man would also have been there. The law teachers were trying to trap Jesus, then.
(2) Jesus knows everything. He knew she didn't commit adultary. So, he told then to cast the first stone. The law says that the accusers were to cast the first stone. But, it also gives the same penalty to a false accuser that the accused would have sufferd. He who is without sin should cast it (i.e., he who is telling the truth in this case should cast it).
(3) If Jesus did violate the law then he would have violated his own holy nature as well as keeping *all* the law for us. So, he couldn't have just said: "let's not obey the law in this instance."
(4) Some may say, "well Jesus knew everything so if she did commit adulatry (which is disputed) he should've stoned her." But, Jesus was not a witness and did not have the testimony of 2 or more witnesses according to the law. So, Jesus upheld it, even if she did.
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Paul manata
How do theonomists interpret John 8? Christ gives the adulterous woman a religious forgiveness, but it never says that he pursued her case any further, i.e. finding her husband to accuse her so that she could be stoned according the law of Moses.
First off, this passage in John 8 is disputed to have not even been included in the original mauscripts. Even if it is, it is evidence for theonomy.
(1) There is no proof that she committed adultary. Also, where was the man? If she was 'caught in the act' then the man would also have been there. The law teachers were trying to trap Jesus, then.
(2) Jesus knows everything. He knew she didn't commit adultary. So, he told then to cast the first stone. The law says that the accusers were to cast the first stone. But, it also gives the same penalty to a false accuser that the accused would have sufferd. He who is without sin should cast it (i.e., he who is telling the truth in this case should cast it).
(3) If Jesus did violate the law then he would have violated his own holy nature as well as keeping *all* the law for us. So, he couldn't have just said: "let's not obey the law in this instance."
(4) Some may say, "well Jesus knew everything so if she did commit adulatry (which is disputed) he should've stoned her." But, Jesus was not a witness and did not have the testimony of 2 or more witnesses according to the law. So, Jesus upheld it, even if she did.
First off, denial of John 8 is not even an option. I really don't care what a bunch of "scholars" think about ripping a section of the Bible out. They can have the fruit of that (Rev. 22).
Second, this section, neither proves nor disproves theonomy. How could it? Jesus lived under the "body politic, {to whom God} 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." So even if we can show that Jesus' actions were in line with Theonomic principles, that proves nothing.
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by fredtgreco
First off, denial of John 8 is not even an option. I really don't care what a bunch of "scholars" think about ripping a section of the Bible out. They can have the fruit of that (Rev. 22).
First off, Rev 22 only applies if it was indeed in the original text, so you beg the question. No ones talking about ripping it out, indeed, it supports theonomy so why would I want that! What they're saying, is, that according to our standards of textual criticism this portion is hotly disputed. When you support the Bible from textual criticism and then turn around on the same scholarship, it reeks of special pleading.
Originally posted by Paul manata
pox pax pix... who cares about a dead language anyway:bigsmile:
Fred, early fathers and early manuscripts and early OT representatives do not have it. So, how's the Church been mislead for 1500 years? Also, you know very well that there are varient readings and some minor errors due to copying and translation. You know this. So, has God mislead us for over 1500 years?
Your situation does not tell the whole story. It's not as if I can point to one obscure fragment which omits John 8. There are ALOT. Yeah, maybe you have more but I don't just have 1 or 2 on my side. So, I have numbers AND manuscripts which are closer to the originals in time.
Originally posted by Paul manata
it comes down to accepting the many or the age.
Originally posted by Paul manata
let's not forget that many good Christian scholars are textual critics. It's not like all the christians in the world don't do textual criticism.
Also, what doctrines or principles are found in John 8 that the Spirit has mislead people on? What damage to the Christian faith would happen if it wasn't in there?
Also, only the autographs are inspired.
Originally posted by turmeric
Pax, you guys! I'm starting to smell smoke!
WCF 1:8 The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical