Daniel, I gave my first warning after Patrick's "expired means expired" statement and about you railing, to which you responded with the comment on his ignorance. As the warning was directed toward everyone, and was well before your response, I expected you to heed it along with everyone else. That is the context of my second warning.
Just to clarify, I took extra time to respond after your first warning to ensure I did not say anything over-the-top; therefore, I do not regret any of my measured and accurate remarks. However, the fact that someone can compare his brethren to the apostates in Hebrews 6 and 10, and not be dealt with troubles me greatly. This is an extremely serious accusation as it calls into question the salvation, not only of modern Theonomists, but of all the Reformers, Puritans and early Covenanters who called for any of the Mosaic penalties to be applied today. On this logic even Charles Colson (who only believes that restitution should be reinstituted) is to be categorised with the apostates of Hebrews 6 and 10. In light of the wildness of this accusation, Theonomists have the duty to defend their reputations and highlight the folly of such a view.
Moreover, Puritan Sailor has continually maintained a position which is contrary to the Confessional Standards - namely, that the penal sanctions were part of the ceremonial law - and has compared those who disagree with him with apostates; I fail to see how this is substantially any different to people who come unto discussions about worship and accuse those who adhere to the RPW (the position of the standards) of being Pharisees (in fact I believe it is a whole lot worse). Furthermore, he has accused me of being on the verge of the Federal Vision due to his idiosyncratic interpretation of Hebrews 2:1-3; this is a total slander, yet the moderators do nothing about it. Federal Visionists hate me because of my opposition to their heresies.
While I refuse to answer Puritan Sailor directly until he repents of the disgraceful accusations he has made against me, let me make it clear that I believe Christ bore the eternal wrath of God on behalf of the elect on the cross. However, this does not set aside God's standards of temporal justice in the world, otherwise Paul could not have called the magistrate God's servant who administers God's wrath on the evildoer. Moreover, because Christ has bore God's wrath on behalf of believers, how does this mean that civil rulers are now no longer to punish murderers, rapists, incestuous persons, sodomites etc, etc, in accordance with Biblical law? Christ bore our eternal wrath judicially, but He did not set aside God's standards of temporal justice against those who violate Biblical civil law. If we are to assume that because Christ bore God's wrath on account of the elect, therefore, we cannot apply God's temporal judgments upon those unbelievers who commit crimes, then we must also assume that God will not apply His eternal judgment upon the same people.
Puritan Sailor has made a serious mistake in relation to his interpretation of Heb. 2:1-3. The writer does not say that the penalties have been set aside; what he does say is that because God is just in punishing criminals who transgressed the judicial law of Moses, we can also be certain that He is just in eternally condemning those who reject the gospel. Puritan Sailor has built a case on conjecture and is using this to undermine the orthodoxy of his brethren, yet the moderators allow him to get away with this.
Where to begin???
Daniel, I do apologize for the comment above which Chris pointed out. I made it in impatience, and I owe you more courtesy than that. I should have just left it with a 17th century definition of "expired."
As for the accusation that I am comparing you to or calling you apostate, I never intended such a thing, so I can't apologize or repent for that. If I considered you apostate, I never would have engaged you at all, nor called you "brother" so many times. My point was hermeneutical as has been my entire argument thus far, dealing with your
arguments, not challenging the validity of your faith. My intentions in this thread have been brotherly the entire time. I made it clear from the outset that I believed the entire decalogue must be enforced by the magistrate. I shared your concern for civil justice, as I reassured you over and over again. I even expressed agreement that the Mosaic judicial laws had abiding relevance. I expressed these reassurances to you repeatedly so that you would focus on the real point of disagreement, not attack positions which I do not hold. Why? Because I was endeavoring to build a constructive unity in the faith over this issue and it was clear to me that you had not considered some logical implications to your hermeneutic. I did not want you nor other brothers who read these things to not consider them as well.
My first argument was exegetical. My argument from Hebrews was very simple and straightforward. There was nothing said which has not been said before, yes by many Klineans, but also by Gouge (quoted by Andrew above) and many others in the Reformed camp. But what was clear to me by your reaction was that you had not considered it before and rather than respond exegetically you resorted to name calling (Dispensational, Hyper-preterist, idiosyncratic, ignorant, arrogant, etc) and then accused me of denying the Confession.
I summarize the argument here just so you don't have to piece it together from the other posts. The author of Hebrews argues that the old covenant has been fulfilled by the new covenant with the coming of Christ. Notice that Hebrews doesn't use our 17th century 3-fold law distinction (I'll deal with that below). He says the old COVENANT has passed away, not just the old ceremonies. He recognizes that Moses (and angels in Ch. 2) initiated an entire economy, not just ceremonies. He uses several descriptions to describe the inferiority of this COVENANT designating Moses as the inferior mediator of the entire covenant, the inferior priesthood and temple system established by this covenant, the inferior promises made in the covenant (land, rest, etc), and yes even inferior civil penalties. Not only in ch. 2 but also in ch. 10 (alluding to Deut 17 which I quoted before) the lesser yet certain penalties are used to foreshadow the greater and more certain penalties, just like Paul comparing the death of Israelites in the wilderness (under the old covenant) to the future judgment upon unfaithful Christians in 1 Cor 10. The author of Hebrews puts the old/new covenant penalties in the same inferior/superior paradigm which he used in the rest of the book. An entire economy was instituted under the mediation of Moses which expired with the coming of a better mediator. Christ's work on the cross fulfilled and laid aside this former economy. He was the antitype of all the types, of which the civil penalties were also a type. Now, that is the exegetical argument. If you disagree with the exegetical argument, fine. Lets discuss this specific argument in civility at some point in the future.
Here is where my comment about the Federal Vision came in. I know full well that you don't hold to the Federal Vision. I never accused you of holding it at all. My point was again
hermeneutical. I know you believe that Christ took upon himself the eternal wrath of God. My point was to take you to the logical conclusion of your hermeneutic, a conclusion which you would not agree with in the broader context of your faith. It seemed to me that in your zeal for continuing the Mosaic penalties, you argued the final judgment had not yet come so the penalties were not fulfilled and must continue. To make you think about that statement further, I countered that Christ's death was not just a ceremonial but a judicial fulfillment too. To deny the judicial fulfillment until the Second Coming puts you exegetically in the Federal Vision camp. Your later posts trying to clarify this point indicates to me that you had never thought about this implication before. And I would encourage you to do so now. This is not an accusation of heresy, but a logical inconsistency that I noted in your hermeneutic.
You further argued in response to me that I could not use the moral law under my hermeneutic because the Decalogue was not given until Moses. In response I showed that it was in fact given in creation, and demonstrated the Confessional validity of my argument. it seemed to me that you had not considered the implications of arguing the moral law was first given in Moses, because you then clarified later that you did believe the moral law was given before. I know full well that you believed this. But it seemed to me in your zeal for continuing the Mosaic civil laws you made a hasty argument to which I showed you the logical anti-Confessional conclusion of that hasty argument. And since I am not a Klinean, I don't even know what you were talking about regarding your last comment about Klineans.
Now we could have discussed this issue exegetically in Hebrews, dealing with specifically how the Mosaic penalties can continue to help us today when they have expired with that old covenant economy, but instead you challenged my Confessional fidelity to which I must now respond, lest anyone else have doubts about this. But I would remind you that the Confession, especially on chapter 19, was a consensus document. The Divines disagreed among themselves as to the implications of "general equity," but the language we do have is what they could agree was taught clearly in Scripture.
You apparently did not understand my argument (or perhaps I was not clear enough) for you accused me of confusing the ceremonial and civil laws. But my argument was about covenantal administration and fulfillment. The Mosaic covenant was a dispensation of the one covenant of grace. With the coming of Christ, that dispensation was finished and a new dispensation began. Regarding chapter 19: I argued the moral law was given in creation and the covenant of works before it was given to Moses. The decalogue is a summary of that law but it was present long before. We agree the ceremonial laws were abrogated, So I'm in perfect accord with 19:1-3. Regarding 19:4, I clearly articulated from Hebrews how that entire old covenant economy was replaced by the new covenant. As a dispensation in the covenant of grace it expired, therefore the judicial laws of the body politic (established by the old covenant) as well expired with that State. So my understanding of the judicial laws expiring as well fits the language of the Confession. I further argued that the old covenant civil laws functioned pedagogically, in that they guide us (and the magistrate) in how to address ethical situations. This is how I understand general equity. As an exposition of the moral law they can help magistrates today find principles to govern justly. Just because the Divines use Scripture references from the judicials to further explain the commandments doesn't mean those judicials are binding in the same way (I don't remember the Divines arguing for stoning someone, though they still argued for capitial punishment). Thus in practice they operated in some form of general equity, not bound to use the exact mode of punishment prescribed by Moses. You may not agree with my definition of general equity, but that's fine. We can discuss what constitutes general equity at some point in the future. But clearly my position does not contradict the Confession and since the Divines themselves could not agree on a definition of general equity, I don't think we have to agree either in order to consider each other within the bounds of the Confession. Just because some of the Divines may have been closer to your interpretation doesn't bind my conscience in the least, because they did not include their particular interpretations in the Confession itself. I further argued that capital punishment was an institution in the Noahic covenant, a point which the Confession doesn't address here and is thus not a Confessional issue.
Regarding ch. 7, I agree with every word. My understanding of the old covenant judicial penalties are included in 7:5 under "other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews." I already articulated how there was a change in administration and thus I am in perfect agreement with the language there.
Regarding Ch. 22 on Christian liberty, I no where argued that Christians were free from lawful obedience to the civil magistrate. Thus this section is irrelevant to our discussion since they were not asking here the questions we are asking. And furthermore I agree in full with ch. 23 on the Civil Magistrate (1789 version, which you probably don't like on this issue). So then, let us set aside Confessional infidelity rhetoric.
Now, I hope this will explain all my intentions and interactions with you in the this thread. My intentions were never malicious nor accusatory. I was interacting with your
arguments not questioning your salvation. If you wonder why I did not respond earlier than I did to your reaction to the "apostate" comment that was because I usually (and purposely) ignore emotional arguments, comments, and accusations in my interactions on this Board (as my history will show) because I want constructive interactions. I will only interact with arguments on point. Unfortunately, I did not realize until later how you misunderstood the comment and apologize for not earlier alleviating your concern. I hope I have satisfactorily answered your concerns and clarified my intentions with this post and look forward to more constructive and edifying conversations in the future.
