Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Brian Schwertley has just given a lecture in defence of Biblical civil law:
SermonAudio.com - Objections to Judicial Law
SermonAudio.com - Objections to Judicial Law
Last edited:
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.
WCF XIX: 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.
Some folks really like to stretch that general equity phrase.
WCF XIX: 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.
Some folks really like to stretch that general equity phrase.
WCF XIX: 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.
Some folks really like to stretch that general equity phrase.
Ok, what does general equity mean, then? And you tell us the answer, not some website which you have "ctrl c + ctrl v". The ball is in your court, with all due respect. At least Ken Gentry (The Standard Bearer) gave an exegetical, historical analysis of the Confession to provide a theonomic answer to it. Critique him if he's wrong but he must be given credit, along with Schwertely and others, for going back to the Confession and seeing what it says. It appears that modern Reformed people read their own 21st century, pluralistic understanding of civil law back into the theocratic puritanism of the 17th century.
I could not find the Gentry online but is his contribution to the Bahnsen [SIZE=-1]Festschrift [/SIZE]the same as the review of Foulner's booklet, found here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030311161620/www.chalcedon.edu/report/97nov/gentry.shtml ?
WCF XIX: 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.
Some folks really like to stretch that general equity phrase.
Ok, what does general equity mean, then? And you tell us the answer, not some website which you have "ctrl c + ctrl v". The ball is in your court, with all due respect. At least Ken Gentry (The Standard Bearer) gave an exegetical, historical analysis of the Confession to provide a theonomic answer to it. Critique him if he's wrong but he must be given credit, along with Schwertely and others, for going back to the Confession and seeing what it says. It appears that modern Reformed people read their own 21st century, pluralistic understanding of civil law back into the theocratic puritanism of the 17th century.
Here is Dr. Gentry's article called "Theonomic Ethics and the Westminster Confession"
There is alot of good stuff in the article.
It has been posted more than once over the years, but I didn't see in a search of PB that it ever got any response when it was cited. Has anyone on the Gentry side of things dealt with Sherman Isbell's article on general equity?
General Equity: Part I
Any more certain source?
Do you recall the argument generally he makes (and what time is it there; shouldn't you be in bed?)
Do you recall the argument generally he makes (and what time is it there; shouldn't you be in bed?)
I think he concentrates on Ligon Duncan's 3-fold division of the law argument, and what the term equity meant, among other things.
Also, if you check his website, it may be possible to purchase this article on its own without having to by The Standard Bearer.
In the UK it is currently 3:15 am - I should be in bed, but insomnia is keeping me up.
...I am a cross-bread between a Scottish Presbyterian and an American Reconstructionist.
In the UK it is currently 3:15 am - I should be in bed, but insomnia is keeping me up.
Daniel,
Do you belive Mr. Schwertley is a Theonomist ?
Here is Dr. Gentry's article called "Theonomic Ethics and the Westminster Confession"
There is alot of good stuff in the article.
Yes that article is particularly good for showing how the word "equity" was used in the Authorized Version. Needless to say it refers to justice, not church discipline as Pergamum's historical revisionism would have us believe.
One last point: Even the original confession states that the judicial laws are EXPIRED. They do not obligate us any longer. Only insofar as general equity is required - and the American Presbyterians define "general equity" in the same manner as I do and they are against you. Those divines in Philadelphia held to a view of "general equity" the same as mine. Take your fight to them, not me.
I thought that the moral laws of God were to be adhered to by everybody...even by those in the government. Clearly, worshipping a false God is a moral issue. If we think that the civil government should punish immoral behavior...it doesn't get much more immoral than idolatry and such.Practical ramifications - Tolerating false religions. Should the civil governemnt tolerate Jews and Atheists and let them live in peace within their borders? It appears the the 1788 revision of the WCF says, Yes, a nation is not to persecute other faiths. That is an improvement from many of the Reformers' persecutory mindset who desired to protect the Kingdom of Christ by coercion.
Here is Dr. Gentry's article called "Theonomic Ethics and the Westminster Confession"
There is alot of good stuff in the article.
Yes that article is particularly good for showing how the word "equity" was used in the Authorized Version. Needless to say it refers to justice, not church discipline as Pergamum's historical revisionism would have us believe.
Historical revisionism? American Presbyterianism sides with me in their 1788 revision of the embarrassing theocratic parts of the WCF.
They could have left the WCF as is, because non-theocratic views were tolerated all along, but they decided to revise those theocratic parts; evidencing a widespread desire to purge the confession of its theocractic elements.
I am glad for this. They consciously opted for a greater degree of disestablishmentarianism, or at least consciously rejected the state persecution of heretics.
I am on the side of the majority of American Presbyterians who clarified their position on the law by revising the WCF in 1788. If you contend with me you have to contend with all those people much smarter than I who did that revising to bring it more in line with Scripture.
Practical ramifications - Tolerating false religions. Should the civil governemnt tolerate Jews and Atheists and let them live in peace within their borders? It appears the the 1788 revision of the WCF says, Yes, a nation is not to persecute other faiths. That is an improvement from many of the Reformers' persecutory mindset who desired to protect the Kingdom of Christ by coercion.
One last point: Even the original confession states that the judicial laws are EXPIRED. They do not obligate us any longer. Only insofar as general equity is required - and the American Presbyterians define "general equity" in the same manner as I do and they are against you. Those divines in Philadelphia held to a view of "general equity" the same as mine. Take your fight to them, not me.
General equity means exactly what it sounds like. It has to do with the principles associated with the judicial laws. These particular laws were for a covenanted nation that no longer exists. Since God has chosen not the create a new covenant with any other nation like He did with Israel, no other nation is obliged to adhere to those laws. Sinclair Ferguson and Lig Duncan have given sufficient explanations but unfortunately many theonomists don't like them so they resort to the old "well the Standards can be viewed in a number of different ways so theonomy is an allowable interpretation". The Standards say what they say and they can't be massaged to fit a particular viewpoint no matter how hard one tries. I don't buy if from the FV's and I don't buy it from the theonomists.
If all of the judicial laws are still for the New Covenant, then how about the dietary laws? Why would we not allow slavery and multiple marriages as well? Not railing brethren, just asking.
General equity means exactly what it sounds like. It has to do with the principles associated with the judicial laws. These particular laws were for a covenanted nation that no longer exists. Since God has chosen not the create a new covenant with any other nation like He did with Israel, no other nation is obliged to adhere to those laws. Sinclair Ferguson and Lig Duncan have given sufficient explanations but unfortunately many theonomists don't like them so they resort to the old "well the Standards can be viewed in a number of different ways so theonomy is an allowable interpretation". The Standards say what they say and they can't be massaged to fit a particular viewpoint no matter how hard one tries. I don't buy if from the FV's and I don't buy it from the theonomists.