RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Let's all admit that "general equity" is a compromise phrase.
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.
Let's all admit that "general equity" is a compromise phrase.
Does the controversy over whether the WCF allows for theonomy the reason that Morecraft is not a part of the PCA or the OPC? He subscribes to the WCF and is a strong theonomist. (At least from the sermons I have listened to) Is his view of theonomy more than the mainline Presbyterian denoms can handle?
Morecraft required his deacons/elders to be theonomists, among other things.
If true there doesn't seem to be anything about this on their website. All it says is that elders and deacons must subscribe to the WCF.
Members do not have to adhere to all the teachings in the Westminster Standards. Like the Bible, we make a distinction between those who are Christians who must only make a credible profession of faith and promise to live as "becometh the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ" in order to be a member of the church and the spiritual leaders of the church, the Pastors, Elders, and Deacons. These I Tim. 3 tells us must be "sound in the faith" and must, therefore hold to all the doctrines taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith which we believe to be the very teaching of the Bible.
So, my question is, do theonomists (like Morecraft) believe that the WCF demands a theonomic interpretation? Or do they simply argue that a theonomic interpretation is allowed?
BTW, I love listening to Morecraft preach.
Morecraft required his deacons/elders to be theonomists, among other things.
If true there doesn't seem to be anything about this on their website. All it says is that elders and deacons must subscribe to the WCF.
Members do not have to adhere to all the teachings in the Westminster Standards. Like the Bible, we make a distinction between those who are Christians who must only make a credible profession of faith and promise to live as "becometh the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ" in order to be a member of the church and the spiritual leaders of the church, the Pastors, Elders, and Deacons. These I Tim. 3 tells us must be "sound in the faith" and must, therefore hold to all the doctrines taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith which we believe to be the very teaching of the Bible.
So, my question is, do theonomists (like Morecraft) believe that the WCF demands a theonomic interpretation? Or do they simply argue that a theonomic interpretation is allowed?
BTW, I love listening to Morecraft preach.
See here on Chalcedon Presbyterian Church leaving the PCA and the formation of the RPCUS in 1983.
8. Whereas this laxity has allowed North Georgia Presbytery, within recent months, to receive ministers, who, at the time of their reception, would not affirm:
a. That theistic evolution is unbiblical;
b. That verbal revelation has ceased along with tongue speaking;
c. That regeneration necessarily precedes faith;
d. That reception of Jesus as Savior and Lord may never be divided into two distinct decisions or acts;
e. That Christians may not be divided into two categories – the carnal and the spiritual;
f. That the first day of the week from the resurrection of Christ to the end of the world is the Christian Sabbath;
Let's all admit that "general equity" is a compromise phrase.
Do you mean it was added as a compromise by the Divines? Similar to eating 'at' or 'around' the table?
While this is something to keep in mind this is also an example of the genetic fallacy.
Only if I said their position is "wrong" because of from whom they originate. I didn't say that. In fact, I freely granted to Wayne that he may be right. My point was that Wayne had actually criticized Reformers and Puritans when he made his criticism against covenanting.
Then I pointed to what I thought an obvious and not really controversial point: there are socio differences between late Americans and early Puritans. Meredith Kline critiqued Bahnsen for being too Puritan.
To be clear I wasn't critisizing the Reformers or Puritans regarding covenanting. People enter into covenants with God even today when they make their vows of church membership. Unfortunately they break these vows without considering the consequences. So the examples you provided are fine and dandy.
My issue is whether a nation should enter into a covenant with God. I don't believe that the folks who put together the Mayflower Compact had the authority to bind a nation (that didn't exist at the time) or future generations. In fact based on my reading of Scripture, I see no direct warrant or even through good and necessary consequences that a nation should or must enter into covenant with God. In fact I don't see where individuals or groups are required to enter into a Covenant with God (with the exception of Christians and the Church). If you know of any, please let me know.
In addition, based on the history of nations being in covenant with God, unless a government could guarantee that all the stipulations would be met not only at the time that the covenant was made but to future generations, It would appear to me that Christian prudence would say "DON"T DO IT"!!!
The theonomists today would rightly point to "general equity" furthering their position. What does general equity mean? Simply to apply the law justly in its current context. Nothing too shocking about that.
Only if I said their position is "wrong" because of from whom they originate. I didn't say that. In fact, I freely granted to Wayne that he may be right. My point was that Wayne had actually criticized Reformers and Puritans when he made his criticism against covenanting.
Then I pointed to what I thought an obvious and not really controversial point: there are socio differences between late Americans and early Puritans. Meredith Kline critiqued Bahnsen for being too Puritan.
To be clear I wasn't critisizing the Reformers or Puritans regarding covenanting. People enter into covenants with God even today when they make their vows of church membership. Unfortunately they break these vows without considering the consequences. So the examples you provided are fine and dandy.
My issue is whether a nation should enter into a covenant with God. I don't believe that the folks who put together the Mayflower Compact had the authority to bind a nation (that didn't exist at the time) or future generations. In fact based on my reading of Scripture, I see no direct warrant or even through good and necessary consequences that a nation should or must enter into covenant with God. In fact I don't see where individuals or groups are required to enter into a Covenant with God (with the exception of Christians and the Church). If you know of any, please let me know.
In addition, based on the history of nations being in covenant with God, unless a government could guarantee that all the stipulations would be met not only at the time that the covenant was made but to future generations, It would appear to me that Christian prudence would say "DON"T DO IT"!!!
And as I pointed out to both you and Chris, that is why I am not a National Confessionalist. Most theonomists do not argue for covenanting. It is not necessary to the position. In fact, in the book God and Politics: 4 Views, Bahnsen and the National Confessionalists squared off against one another. Demar, in the same book, really took a few Confessionalists to task.
Interesting. Is the following still true of PCA?
8. Whereas this laxity has allowed North Georgia Presbytery, within recent months, to receive ministers, who, at the time of their reception, would not affirm:
a. That theistic evolution is unbiblical;
b. That verbal revelation has ceased along with tongue speaking;
c. That regeneration necessarily precedes faith;
d. That reception of Jesus as Savior and Lord may never be divided into two distinct decisions or acts;
e. That Christians may not be divided into two categories – the carnal and the spiritual;
f. That the first day of the week from the resurrection of Christ to the end of the world is the Christian Sabbath;
Interesting. Is the following still true of PCA?
8. Whereas this laxity has allowed North Georgia Presbytery, within recent months, to receive ministers, who, at the time of their reception, would not affirm:
a. That theistic evolution is unbiblical;
b. That verbal revelation has ceased along with tongue speaking;
c. That regeneration necessarily precedes faith;
d. That reception of Jesus as Savior and Lord may never be divided into two distinct decisions or acts;
e. That Christians may not be divided into two categories – the carnal and the spiritual;
f. That the first day of the week from the resurrection of Christ to the end of the world is the Christian Sabbath;
I believe B and F are still true. A is not true, strictly speaking. I'd be surprised if C, D and E are still true, especially C.
For the record, I have never advocated that we ought to covenant with God as a nation. I was just pointing out that was a standard Reformed practice until the secularization of the american church. Theonomists as theonomists do not advocate covenanting. That is the National Confessionalist position.
Someone like Virginia Huguenot would be a better person to ask. But I will give it a shot:
I would probably say #1. If we look at the original writings, especially the Mayflower Compact, some could say that we are already under covenant with God. On the other hand, someone else would retort that Lincoln's war severed that covenant because since the South fell, Christendom fell.
But as I say, I am not a National Confessionalist. I don't know how they would answer.
Dan Ford deals with this in his book, "In The Name of God, Amen" available here: In the Name of God, Amen
I don't have this book so could you give the readers digest version of how he handles this?
Haveing undertaken, for ye Glorie of God, and advancements of ye Christian faith, and the honour of our King & countrie, a voyage to plant ye first colonie in ye Northern parts of Virginia; Doe by these presents, solemnly & mutualy, in ye presence of God, and one of another; covenant & combine ourselves together into a Civill body politick...
Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission. The Lord hath given us leave to draw our own articles. We have professed to enterprise these and those accounts, upon these and those ends. We have hereupon besought Him of favor and blessing. Now if the Lord shall please to hear us, and bring us in peace to the place we desire, then hath He ratified this covenant and sealed our commission...
No civil legislation could be considered legitimate that violated God's overarching standards, for He would neither condone nor protect a province that adopted societal norms repugnant to His will. His Moral Law had superintended the behavior of ancient Israel, and Israel was blessed or cursed accordingly. New Englanders therefore guarded their own duty to legislate according to those precepts.
Their very being as a people depends on their Fidelity to God, and steadfastness in keeping his Covenant: and if they finally recolt they must expect to be rooted out, and come to nothing...And if this Great and General Assembly could indeed find its means of sharp'ning the edge of the magistrates sword, thereby rendering him a great Terror of those Evil Works.
Oh New-England! how art thou fallen! We are not the genuine Offspring of the first Settlers of this Land!; we are a spurious Race, risen up in stead of them, but very unlike them. We are guilty of great Apostasy; we have broken the Covenant, which, as we are a professing People, subsists between God and us.
And for the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity;
The Day appointed by the United States in Congress assembled, to be observed as a Day of Thanksgiving, for the restoration of Peace, and establishment of our Independance, in the Enjoyment of our Rights and Priveleges.
It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great creator and preserver of the universe.
Dan Ford deals with this in his book, "In The Name of God, Amen" available here: In the Name of God, Amen
I don't have this book so could you give the readers digest version of how he handles this?
The Ford quotes cited in the post referred to only give one side of the complicated Massachusetts picture. While the colonists were clearly theonomists in the broad sense, they were not following Bahnsen's particular version of Theonomy. For Nathaniel Ward's The Book of Lawes and Liberties...1648 the first official law code of the colony, (Cotton's Abstract of the Laws of New England was never law in the colony and his work was rejected twice) carried over from English common law some punishments that differed in degree of equity from the Mosaic civil stipulations even though the colonists lacked biblical authorization to make such amendments. (See New England Puritans and the State in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique.
Bahnsen and Gentry go to great lengths, not that anybody cares, to show that the laws apply, sometimes differently, in the New Covenant context.
Those that argue "not obliging under any now" means that the New Testament is an estoppel by deed must necessarily become antinomian. Is "further than the general equity thereof my require," a fuzzy principle whereby we can't know what is Just or what is not Just, or is it circumstantial and conditional upon the redeeming work of Christ? I believe the latter because Scripture teaches us that God doesn't change and that Christ is the same today, yesterday and forever.
Consider Biblical Law for a moment, the center of social life is the family. God proscribes behavior that is treason against the family and provides sanctions to that degree. In humanistic law orders the center of social life is the State and the State proscribes behavior that is treason against the State and provides sanctions to that degree. While men interpret Biblical Law as being unconscionable with death penalties for that which strikes at the heart of the family, Biblical Law doesn't teach treason against the State.
The intent of the law unto Israel, and unto us, is that man would find his life in the Triune God, not the body politic of either Church or State, but that both would provide man the means to live towards those ends, providing truth in both the ministry of Grace and Justice.
Brian Schwertley has just given a lecture in defence of Biblical civil law:
SermonAudio.com - Objections to Judicial Law
I have been accused by people of having an unbiblical view of natural law and being a Theonomist and all sorts of things and so I wanted to clarify my views, clarify the views of the reformation, and show that certain people are taking natural law and their going in a direction with it that was never intended by the Reformers, was never part of the WCF, and is quackadox - it is unorthodox.
Later on, Schwertley goes further, during minutes 26 through 28, and calls out a member (and others) in the PRC (the denomination I am a part of). He is commenting on Schaff's History of the Christian Church Volume 8 where Schaff is describing Calvin's view which Schwertley says he agrees with. After reading this portion, Schwertley says:
"So, it is quite obvious Calvin did not hold to the Natural Law Antinomianism of Greg Durand and some in the PRC denomination...the Presbyterian Reformed Church"
Brian Schwertley has just given a lecture in defence of Biblical civil law:
SermonAudio.com - Objections to Judicial Law
Later on, Schwertley goes further, during minutes 26 through 28, and calls out a member (and others) in the PRC (the denomination I am a part of). He is commenting on Schaff's History of the Christian Church Volume 8 where Schaff is describing Calvin's view which Schwertley says he agrees with. After reading this portion, Schwertley says:
"So, it is quite obvious Calvin did not hold to the Natural Law Antinomianism of Greg Durand and some in the PRC denomination...the Presbyterian Reformed Church"
Brian Schwertley's primary target in his "Judicial Law" series on Sermon Audio has been my 2003 critique of Christian Reconstructionism/Theonomy, but his condemnations of my views as "modified Dispensationalism," "natural law antinomianism," and now also "heresy," are completely outrageous. In fact, there isn't a single statement of mine that he has not taken out of context, misquoted, or even fabricated out of thin air. According to him, I believe Christians should ignore the Old Testament, that it may not be consulted for personal sanctification, that the moral law has been obliterated and no longer binds anyone, that I deny original sin, etc. etc. - absolutely NONE of which is true. What I do believe is that the covenant made with the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai was added "because of transgressions," that it was subservient to the Abrahamic covenant and therefore did not abrogate "the promise," that it was a "pedagogue" to lead the "stiff-necked" Israelites to Christ, that its covenantal sanctions were typological of the Covenant of Works, that its demands were all perfectly fulfilled by Christ, and that it ceased to operate AS A COVENANT with the institution of the New Covenant.
There is nothing new or unique about any of this - not only is it biblical (2 Corinthians 3), but this was all expressly taught by numerous Reformed commentators in the past, including John Owen, Samuel Petto, Thomas Boston, Meredith Kline, et. al. See my synopsis "Different Views of the Mosaic Covenant Within the Reformed Tradition"
Schwertley's problem is that he identifies Reformed orthodoxy in terms of his extreme theonomic perspective which practically denies the difference between the Old and New Covenants and views the Sinaitic covenant as a mere administration of the Covenant of Grace rather than subservient to (the handmaiden of) the Covenant of Grace. This is seen in how he follows Greg Bahnsen in speaking of the "Older" and "Newer" Covenant. He also fails to understand my criticisms of the "covenantal nomism" of Reconstructionism and how (in my opinion) it laid the foundation for the Federal Vision heresy of progressive justification.
I contacted Schwertley right after he posted part one of his series back in September and I have spent a great deal of time explaining my position to him and showing him exactly where and how he had misrepresented it. To date, he has not retracted any of his comments and this past December, he returned to the subject and had the incredible gall to claim that I had "refused to respond" to him. A detailed record of our correspondence is now online at this address. I have also contacted both his session and his presbytery, but have not yet received a reply from them. They probably only received the documentation this past weekend, so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for a while longer.
Since my name was brought up in this thread (which is how I found it through Google), I thought I'd try to set the record straight.
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.
Welcome to PB Mr. Durand!
Welcome to PB Mr. Durand!
Thank you! Please call me Greg.
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.
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.
If "further than the general equity thereof may require" means all of the judicial laws are still binding today, then what does "not obliging under any now" mean?
So the 'general equity' that is allowed refers to judicial laws and that which is 'not obliging now' refers to the ceremonial laws? If that were the case, why didn't the Divines just say so? If this is what their words mean they seem to be unnecessarily vague.
CH. XIX
3. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.
4. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
Most of the difficulty of theonomic discussions arises because of the vague use of terms. Theonomy teaches the abiding validity of *law*. It is inconsistent to assert the abiding validity of law, and then retreat under scrutiny to a position which asserts the abiding validity of *principle*. Law is law, not principle.
As I've noted in the past, much time has been spent on defining the usus loquendi of "general equity." That is good so far as it goes; but the crucial term is "expiration." That has a technical meaning in jurisprudence which cannot in any sense be reconciled with the basic contentions of theonomy. A law is said to have expired when the conditions no longer exist for which it was enacted. The Westminster Confession of Faith states in no uncertain terms that the OT judicials have expired, which means they are no longer applicable as laws to modern nations. Theonomy, OTOH, contends that these laws are very much applicable and as laws ought to govern modern nations. Therein lies the discrepancy.
The time to abandon the old debate about theonomy is well overdue, since most of its original adherents qualified their position to such a degree that the term itself became virtually meaningless. Theonomy is a good term when used in opposition to autonomy, and should be used to distinguish the Christian belief that God's will alone determines what is good and evil from the non Christian belief that morality is relative. It is, however, an inappropriate term in the context of discussing the extent to which OT judicial laws apply to modern states. The stubborn maintenance of this one term dooms all discussions to the quagmire of mutual misunderstanding.
Most of the difficulty of theonomic discussions arises because of the vague use of terms. Theonomy teaches the abiding validity of *law*. It is inconsistent to assert the abiding validity of law, and then retreat under scrutiny to a position which asserts the abiding validity of *principle*. Law is law, not principle.
As I've noted in the past, much time has been spent on defining the usus loquendi of "general equity." That is good so far as it goes; but the crucial term is "expiration." That has a technical meaning in jurisprudence which cannot in any sense be reconciled with the basic contentions of theonomy. A law is said to have expired when the conditions no longer exist for which it was enacted. The Westminster Confession of Faith states in no uncertain terms that the OT judicials have expired, which means they are no longer applicable as laws to modern nations. Theonomy, OTOH, contends that these laws are very much applicable and as laws ought to govern modern nations. Therein lies the discrepancy.
The time to abandon the old debate about theonomy is well overdue, since most of its original adherents qualified their position to such a degree that the term itself became virtually meaningless. Theonomy is a good term when used in opposition to autonomy, and should be used to distinguish the Christian belief that God's will alone determines what is good and evil from the non Christian belief that morality is relative. It is, however, an inappropriate term in the context of discussing the extent to which OT judicial laws apply to modern states. The stubborn maintenance of this one term dooms all discussions to the quagmire of mutual misunderstanding.
Most of the difficulty of theonomic discussions arises because of the vague use of terms. Theonomy teaches the abiding validity of *law*. It is inconsistent to assert the abiding validity of law, and then retreat under scrutiny to a position which asserts the abiding validity of *principle*. Law is law, not principle.
That may be true. But the flip side is that one can hear the principle/fact-law distinction and made mention by theonmists in audio and literature. I don't think it's fair to say that they "retreated" to the "principle" distinction. Especially when that seems to have been a part from the start (minus any careless language). Thus Bahnsen could write: "...[O]ne nowhere reads [in the Bible] about God's law that his moral stipulations share the same kind of historical variation [as the specific commands]. ... Christian ethics, the standard by which we judge all other opinions, should be that the laws moral pervisions are correct" (Bahnsen, The Theonomic Reformed Approach to Law and Gospel, in Five Views on Law and Gospel, p.109, emphasis supplied.). I am afraid, Matthew, that you are not being charitable here. People are finite, fallen, and just plain human, so I expect them to make mistakes, not be perfect, etc. If someone qualifies, amends, or makes more clear his position, you must let them do that. You can't hold them to a position that is not theirs, or is only theirs due to them not saying what they meant. The proof that this is an eminently plausible way to proceed is to get up from reading my words, go to your restroom, look in the mirror, and ask yourself if you've ever not put things as clearly as you would have liked. What you call a "retreat" I call a "qualification." This reminds me of what ole Bertie Russell once wisely quipped about how language can be employed: "I am firm. You are obstinate. He is a pig-headed fool."
(Greg Bahnsen, "The Theonomic Position" in God and Politics, Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government ed. Gary Scott Smith, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. 1989,In all of its minute detail, (every jot and tittle) the law of God down to its least significant provision should be reckoned to have an abiding validity- until and unless the Lawgiver reveals otherwise.
As I've noted in the past, much time has been spent on defining the usus loquendi of "general equity." That is good so far as it goes; but the crucial term is "expiration." That has a technical meaning in jurisprudence which cannot in any sense be reconciled with the basic contentions of theonomy. A law is said to have expired when the conditions no longer exist for which it was enacted. The Westminster Confession of Faith states in no uncertain terms that the OT judicials have expired, which means they are no longer applicable as laws to modern nations. Theonomy, OTOH, contends that these laws are very much applicable and as laws ought to govern modern nations. Therein lies the discrepancy.
And I think the qualifications I listed actually show that this isn't a critique, at all. Yes, the *laws* that he gave *that body politic* have "expired." I think Bahnsen would agree. In fact, I know he did. So I'm at a loss to see how this is meant to be a criticism of theonomy. I can see how it is if one wants to be uncharitable, but I don't think that you do. Thus you'd have to re-work your critique.
The time to abandon the old debate about theonomy is well overdue, since most of its original adherents qualified their position to such a degree that the term itself became virtually meaningless. Theonomy is a good term when used in opposition to autonomy, and should be used to distinguish the Christian belief that God's will alone determines what is good and evil from the non Christian belief that morality is relative. It is, however, an inappropriate term in the context of discussing the extent to which OT judicial laws apply to modern states. The stubborn maintenance of this one term dooms all discussions to the quagmire of mutual misunderstanding.
AMEN!!! Matthew, may I add the above comments to my book? You have just said exactly what I have been trying to get some Theonomists to see for years now.
Most of the difficulty of theonomic discussions arises because of the vague use of terms. Theonomy teaches the abiding validity of *law*. It is inconsistent to assert the abiding validity of law, and then retreat under scrutiny to a position which asserts the abiding validity of *principle*. Law is law, not principle.
That may be true. But the flip side is that one can hear the principle/fact-law distinction and made mention by theonmists in audio and literature.