he beholds
Puritan Board Doctor
Thanks, Tim! I think I was not quite understanding you before--that was a great and helpful post! Thank you!
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.
Rutherford's most mature statement (i.e. latest in life) RE the judicial law can be found in his Examen Arminianismi chapter 19 on the Civil Magistrate, a good portion of which is translated and presented in The Confessional Presbyterian journal volume 4. "In Translatione, Samuel Rutherford, Of the Civil Magistrate From Examen Arminianismi," translated by Guy M. Richard.
Adam,
I really don't want to get into a long discussion on theonomy. My purpose in the thread is not to persuade you away from your convictions, but to address Jessica's (and other's) specific issues. And if I have to contradict your position to do it, well then she can see there are two sides to the matter.
And, I reject that overarching "principle of continuity," as if theonomy was a necessary entailment of Covenant Theology. It's not.
Adam,
I'm deferring comment on this topic to Matthew Winzer's forthcoming analysis of Rutherford and all the Westminster Divines that had anything to say connected to the topic of any abiding nature of the judicial law in the 2009 issue of The Confessional Presbyterian.
Adam,
I'm deferring comment on this topic to Matthew Winzer's forthcoming analysis of Rutherford and all the Westminster Divines that had anything to say connected to the topic of any abiding nature of the judicial law in the 2009 issue of The Confessional Presbyterian.
2) The Confession states that the Judicial laws of Israel have "expired." Think of laws we have today that have "sunset provisions."But you STILL can't do X if it involves breaking some other law that remains in effect.notional law: After Jan XX, 20XX, the law against X is no longer the law of the land. Do as you please.
That "law that remains in effect" corresponds to "general equity." The moral law (the Confession's referent to "general equity") is present anywhere and everywhere, at any time. It never expires nor is abrogated. It's been in the hands of men and societies since the dawn of history.
Is it right thinking to say that the whole of the Moral Law is summarized in the Ten Commandments?
Jessica,OK, so maybe me wanting a formula for this (ie: trying to determine specifically if a given action goes against at least one specific commandment) is not an effective manner of determining whether a law is binding, or Moral. But it does seem to me that maybe that could be a way to check for general equity. If not, how does one determine general equity?
I am not disagreeing with you, for I think that your post explained what I believe very well. But I am still wondering how, if at all, we determine general equity? Do we hold it up to the Ten Commandments?
And maybe I am mis-reading your post altogether and the Ten Commandments are not the only summary of the Moral Law, to which all other laws must have "general equity." (That term is new to me.)
...I think the only safe way to live is for me to look however I choose, as long as it does NOT go against the principles in Scripture and let those people deal with their consciences while I deal with my own.
So, Jessica, do you think after all of this dialogue here, that you can next time sizzle your pork-chop guilt free??
So, Jessica, do you think after all of this dialogue here, that you can next time sizzle your pork-chop guilt free??
But I already do that!! I guess I was wondering why others don't!
Apparently this whole thread makes me look like a weak-conscienced sister. But I will tell you, I feel bound to very little but Christ!