Robert Truelove
Puritan Board Sophomore
I have been returning to a study Theonomy a bit lately and continue to be perplexed by some of the major writings on the subject...
For instance, in Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law, in the Introduction under the heading "2. The Law as Revelation and Treaty" he goes out of his way to establish that all civil law is religious in nature. I agree with this.
However, on page 398, where he deals with the woman caught in adultery in John 8 (please forget the textual concern for now) he says that Christ's forgiveness was a 'religious forgiveness, not a civil judgment'.
So...if the civil laws in Christ's day were biblical (which Rushdoony says they were not--to which I give much latitude) then this woman should have been put to death for her sin (which he appears to affirm); even though Christ forgave her 'religiously speaking?'.
Now, if all civil law is 'religious in nature' as Rushdoony affirms in the introduction, how is it that he has Christ separating the religious from civic in his dealing with the adulterous woman?
To put the concern bluntly, it appears to me that Theonomy as commonly articulated, fails to comprehend the concept of mercy, while it is a triumph for the concept of justice. But if we are to be conformed to the image of Chirst, how are we to receive a teaching of justice without mercy? This is where I struggle with the teachings of Theonomy. I have no qualms with much of what is taught under that label; but I perceive a total lack of understanding for the place of love and mercy under that same label.
It would seem to me that what Theonomy lacks is a solid dealing with how love and mercy should balance out the letter of the law in regards to its application to civil laws.
Thoughts?
For instance, in Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law, in the Introduction under the heading "2. The Law as Revelation and Treaty" he goes out of his way to establish that all civil law is religious in nature. I agree with this.
However, on page 398, where he deals with the woman caught in adultery in John 8 (please forget the textual concern for now) he says that Christ's forgiveness was a 'religious forgiveness, not a civil judgment'.
So...if the civil laws in Christ's day were biblical (which Rushdoony says they were not--to which I give much latitude) then this woman should have been put to death for her sin (which he appears to affirm); even though Christ forgave her 'religiously speaking?'.
Now, if all civil law is 'religious in nature' as Rushdoony affirms in the introduction, how is it that he has Christ separating the religious from civic in his dealing with the adulterous woman?
To put the concern bluntly, it appears to me that Theonomy as commonly articulated, fails to comprehend the concept of mercy, while it is a triumph for the concept of justice. But if we are to be conformed to the image of Chirst, how are we to receive a teaching of justice without mercy? This is where I struggle with the teachings of Theonomy. I have no qualms with much of what is taught under that label; but I perceive a total lack of understanding for the place of love and mercy under that same label.
It would seem to me that what Theonomy lacks is a solid dealing with how love and mercy should balance out the letter of the law in regards to its application to civil laws.
Thoughts?