What interpretive tool do we use when we look at the Old Testament laws through the grace of the New<br>Covenant? My cousin asked me a question today, probably to trap me, but I want to find an honest<br>answer for him.<br><br>If I say that Leviticus 18 (rules on not committing incest, adultery, beastiality) as well as the Ten<br>Commandments are still in effect, then how can we say that the no hair cutting rules, slavery rules, etc are<br>not in effect? I know that the Kosher laws are not binding because of Peter's vision.<br><br>I was going to tell him that the slavery in the Old Testament was more of an indentured servant kind of<br>thing, but he would probably say something like "So if a daughter is disobedient then she can be made an<br>indentured servant?" By the way, he claims that the Bible says a parent can sell troublesome children into<br>slavery. Where is that at?<br>
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
It is common to divide the law into three categories: [color:red]moral, ceremonial and judicial</font color=red> (civil). These are the categories used in the Westminster Confession as well as in many other historic statements of faith. It should not be assumed that these represent three independent and separable types of law. [color:red]Moral law</font color=red>, as it originates in the eternal and holy nature of God, and as it relates to the nature of creation in its various moral estates, is the foundation for all other categories we speak of in connection with law. If [color:red]moral law</font color=red> is the principal base of all ethics and reflects the holiness of the Creator, then we should presume that the other categories are designated to show how it applies in creation from various considerations. The [color:red]ceremonial laws</font color=red> were instituted to reveal the redemptive work of Christ in restoring fallen men to a right standing under the [color:red]moral law</font color=red>, and the [color:red]judicial law</font color=red> is exemplary of how [color:red]moral law </font color=red>ought to have governed Israel...which BTW expired with the state of that people. <br><br><center>[color:blue]WCF<br>Chapter XIX <br>"Of the Law Of God"</center></font color=blue><br><br>I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it<br><br>II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.<br><br>III. Besides this law, commonly called [color:red]moral</font color=red>, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, [color:red]ceremonial laws</font color=red>[color:blue], 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.</font color=blue><br><br>IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry[color:red] judicial laws</font color=red>[color:blue], which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require</font color=blue>.<br><br>V. [color:red]The moral law</font color=red>[color:blue] does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.</font color=blue><br><br>VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace.<br><br>VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.
Joe<br>Thanks for the great answer. It is so comforting in a society with so many laws, yet truly without law to God, to hear you say that these uses of the law are not contrary to the grace of the gospel, yet sweetly comply with it.<br>I am in a situation now in a PCA church that there is such an aversion to even the name "rule" among some of the members. <br><br>David said the he loved the law of God and in it he mediated day and night.<br><br>When a man truly hates God's laws he puts himself into another form of legalism, and from watching this lawlessness, I see that they are not truly free or happy, yet are in bondage to their own laws of doing whatever they want to do. Yet it is such sweet knowledge to know that it is the love of Christ that constrains us to do those things that are pleasing in His sight.<br><br>Linda
A great little book (250p) on this topic is :- The Grace of the Law: a study of Puritan Theology by Ernest F. Kevan. It shows just how many thoughts the Puritans had on this topic - many of which would disagree with the Westminster Confession.<br><br>A must read for students and pastors alike.
The law is the light and the commandment the lantern.<br>WILLIAM AUS<br><br>The Law by which God rules us, is as dear to Him as the Gospel by which He saves us.<br>WILLIAM SECKER <br><br>Certainly if the giving of the law were so full of terror, much more terrible shall be our being judged according to that law.<br>EZEKIEL HOPKINS<br><br>Such as preach not the Law at all may make dead and loose hearers, and such as preach the Law too far may make desperate hearers. The golden mean to be observed: (1) I would not have the Law to be preached alone by itself, without a mixture of some of the promises of the Gospel. (2) I would have the Law to be preached, as it was published for evangelical and merciful intentions and purposes; not for destruction and desperation, but for edification.<br>JOHN SEDGWICK
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]and the judicial law is exemplary of how moral law ought to have governed Israel...which BTW expired with the state of that people.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Except the general equity of the judicial law which is still required today for all nations. (WCF XIX:4)<br><br>OTOH The "judicial law of man" has legalised abortion and legalised sodomite marriages. Yet no one argues for the "expiration" of those judicial laws since they have nothing to replace them with from the Bible. <br><br>Judicial law is an inescapable concept. Every nation has them, since all laws have to be enforced. To say that no nation today is bound to the precepts of God's judicial laws is to simply concede an obligation to a set of judicial laws other than God's. The rise of secularism in our day only corresponds to the retreat of the Church's commitment to Biblical law for all men and nations. <br><br>Historically, Calvinists have been at forefront of promoting God's law for personal and national blessings according to Deut 28. But modern Calvinist's contempt for the judicial laws of the Bible only rivals the contempt that modern Dispensationalists have for the Decalogue itself. In this, modern Calvinism and Dispensationalism are the secular humanist's best friends, since all three groups are strong opponents of God's judicial laws for today. The advance of homosexual "rights" in North America is simply one expression of the ongoing war against God's Moral and Judicial laws. Modern Calvinism is judicially impotent and has been for over a century while it continues to live off the dwindling moral capital of puritan Christianity which founded North America with God's moral and judicial laws in response to His Sovereign redeeming grace.<br><br>Colin
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Modern Calvinism is judicially impotent and has been for over a century while it continues to live off the dwindling moral capital of puritan Christianity which founded North America with God's moral and judicial laws in response to His Sovereign redeeming grace.
Do you have historical records that would confirm that the Puritans, either in Great Britain, Europe or America executed citizens for those O.T. sins which were prescribed in the judicial laws given to Israel as a Theocracy? The Westminster Confession has nothing that teaches that the specific civil laws are perpetual, in fact, it states the contrary:
[color:blue]The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XIX Of the Law of God
III. Beside 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;[4] and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.[5] All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.[6]
IV. 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.[7]
7. Exod. 21:1-23:19; Gen. 49:10 with I Peter 2:13-14; I Cor. 9:8-10
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Do you have historical records that would confirm that the Puritans, either in Great Britain, Europe or America executed citizens for those O.T. sins which were prescribed in the judicial laws given to Israel as a Theocracy?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I can cite several records. But do you have any records that the Puritans didn't execute anyone based on OT law? None of them were advocates for abolishing the death penalty for murder which is based on OT law. BTW not all punishments in the OT required the death penalty. The Judicials laws are not exclusively laws dealing with capital offenses, but with offenses against the entire decalogue. Offenses against the Eighth commandment did not require execution but restitution, (unless it was "manstealing" ie. kidnapping).<br><br>Furthermore, we are talking about sins which are also crimes. Not all sins are crimes (e.g. hatred, lust, envy, covetness, heretical thoughts, etc).<br><br>But to answer your question, Kenneth Gentry and Greg Bahnsen provides some answers from the Puritans and about the WCF:<br><br><blockquote>The Meaning of "General Equity" in the Standards<br> <br>4. As Donald Remillard noted in his A Contemporary Edition of the Westminster Confession of Faith (p. v): <br><br>The initial text of the Westminster Confession of Faith was presented to the English-speaking people in 1646. This occurred only thirty-five years after the publication of the King James version of the Bible in 1611. Consequently, its original grammar and vocabulary reflect a mode of communication long dated and 'foreign' to contemporary forms and styles of English usage.<br><br>The Assembly wrote the Confession of Faith in Elizabethan English identical with the KJV, even (1) employing its phraseology and (2) using it as the text for the Scripture proof texts. It may be reasonably concluded that the employment of the term "equity" in WCF 19:4 would have the same linguistic function as when it appeared in the KJV. The word "equity" appears ten times in the KJV:<br><br>Psalm 98:9 (KJV):<br><br>"Before the LORD; for he cometh to judge the earth: with righteousness shall he judge the world, and the people with equity." (Heb., mesharim, "uprightness") Notice the parallel of "righteousness" and "equity."<br><br>Psalm 99:4 (KJV):<br><br>"The king's strength also loveth judgment; thou dost establish equity, thou executest judgment and righteousÂness in Jacob." (Heb., mesharim, "uprightÂness") Notice the parallel of equity with judgment and righteousness.<br><br>Proverbs 1:3 (KJV):<br><br>"To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity." (Heb., mesharim, "uprightness") Notice the inclusion of equity with wisdom, justice and judgment.<br><br>Proverbs 2:9 (KJV):<br><br>"Then shalt thou understand righteousness, and judgment, and equity; yea, every good path." (Heb., mesharim, "uprightness") Ibid.<br><br>Proverbs 17:26 (KJV):<br><br>"Also to punish the just is not good, nor to strike princes for equity." (Heb., yosher, "uprightness")<br><br>Ecclesiastes 2:21 (KJV): <br><br>"For there is a man whose labour is in wisdom, and in knowledge, and in equity; yet to a man that hath not laboured therein shall he leave it for his portion. This also is vanity and a great evil." (Heb., kishron, "right, benefit)<br><br>Isaiah 11:4 (KJV): <br><br>"But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked." (Heb., mishor, "uprightness")<br><br>Isaiah 59:14 (KJV): <br><br>"And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter."<br><br>Micah 3:9 (KJV):<br><br>"Hear this, I pray you, ye heads of the house of Jacob, and princes of the house of Israel, that abhor judgment, and pervert all equity." (Heb., yashar, "right, uprightness")<br><br>Malachi 2:6 (KJV) <br><br>"The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity." (Heb., mishor, "uprightness")<br><br>5. We should notice, as well, that there is remarkable difference in the treatment of the "ceremonial law" and the "judicial law" in the Confession. <br><br>(1) Without equivocation the ceremonial law is declared "abrogated" (19:3). But the judicial law is said to have "expired," except for the "general equity." Why was it not declared "abrogated" and reference made to the New Testament for judicial principles? Or to pre-Mosaic directives, such as the Noahic Covenant? And why do the judicial laws appear in the proof-texts for the Larger Catechism exposition of the Ten Commandments? Samuel Willard (1640-1707), pastor at Boston's Old South Church, in his Compleat Body of Divinity (posthumous, 1726): "With respect to the Judicial Laws, we must observe, that these were Appendices, partly of the Moral, partly of the Ceremonial Law: Now such as, or so far as they are related to the Ceremonial, they are doubtless Abolished with it. As, and as far as they bear respect to the Moral Law, they do, eo Nomine, require Obedience perpetual, and are therefore reducible to Moral Precepts."<br><br>(2) Throughout the exposition of the Ten Commandments in the Larger Catechism, we find reference to numerous case laws. We must remember that the division of the Law by the Confession is three-fold: Moral (which involves only the 10 commandments), ceremonial (which involve symbolic, redemptive laws), and judicial (which involves all the rest, many of which are cited in the Larger Catechism). Interestingly, even one of the more difficult capital punishment laws (Deut. 13) appears several times in proof-texting the second commandment. <br><br>(3) At WCF 20:1 we read: "But, under the new testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected...." No mention of the moral or judicial divisions of the law are noted here.<br><br>6. "Equity" in the Webster's New Twentieth Century Unabridged Dictionary: "1. justice; impartiality; the giving or desiring to give to each may his due. With righteousness shall he judge the world, and the people with equity." In the Oxford English Dictionary the word "equity" is dealt with thus: "equity of a statute according to its reason and spirit so as to make it apply to cases for which it does not expressly provide."<br><br>In the original WCF 23:3 we read: "all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed" and they cited Lev. 24:16 and Deut. 13:5 as proof-texts. How could "general equity" exclude the notion?<br><br>For instance, Puritan Thomas Cartwright his Second Reply (cited in Works of John Whitgift [Parker Society ed., Cambridge: University Press, 1851], I:270): <br><br>And, as for the judicial law, forasmuch as there are some of them made in regard of the region where they were given, and of the people to whom they were given, the prince and magistrate, keeping the substance and equity of them (as it were the marrow), may change the circumstance of them, as the times and places and manners of the people shall require. But to say that any magistrate can save the life of blasphemers, contemptuous and stubborn idolaters, murderers, adulterers, incestuous persons, and such like, which God be his judicial law hath commanded to be put to death, I do utterly deny, and am ready to prove, if that pertained to this question.<br><br>The Records of the New Haven Colony (1641-1644): <br><br>"The judicial law of God given by Moses and expounded in other parts of scripture, so far as it is a hedge and a fence to the moral laws, and neither ceremonial nor typical nor had any reference to Canaan, hath an everlasting equity it, and should be the rule of our proceedings." "It was ordered that the judicial laws of God, as they were delivered by Moses... be a rule to all the courts in this jurisdiction in their proceedings against offenders."<br><br>Puritan William Perkins (cited in Rossell H. Robbins, Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology [New York: Crown, 1959], p. 382): <br><br>"That the witch truly convicted is to be punished with death, the highest degree of punishment, and that by the law of Moses, the equity whereof is perpetual."<br><br>Puritan Thomas Cartwright, according to Hutchinson, The History of the Colony and Province of Massachusetts Bay (1764): <br><br>"Cartwright, who had a chief hand in reducing puritanism to a system, held, that the magistrate was bound to adhere to the judicial law of Moses, and might not punish or pardon otherwise than they prescribed."<br><br>English theologian Thomas Scott (1747-1821) in his Holy Bible with Notes (at Ex. 21:1) wrote:<br><br>"Making some allowance for the circumstances varying in different ages and nations, there is a spirit of equity in these laws, which is well worthy of being transfused into those of any state.... A full investigation of the subject would evince, that the laws enacted by [Moses] were uniformly more wise, equitable, humane, mild, and salutary in their tendency, than the complex body of laws, even of the most civilized nations...."<br><br>Robert L. Dabney, The Practical Theology, p. 513:<br><br>"The application of the lex talionis made by Moses against false witnesses was the most appropriate and equitable ever invented."<br><br>7. A leading criticism of the Puritans of the Westminster Assembly and of the 1600s is their endorsement of the application of capital punishment in accordance with the Old Testament law. The 1640 Massachusetts Civil Bay Code in America is an example of the Puritan view, and it applies the specifics of God's penal codes.<br><br>Reformed Basel theologian Johannes Wollebius (1586-1629), in his Compendium of Christian Theology, (cited in J. W. Beardslee, Reformed Dogmatics [1965], p. 10) wrote: <br><br>"Propositions: I. As the ceremonial laws concerned with God, the political was concern with the neighbor. II. In those matters on which it is in harmony with the moral law and with ordinary justice, it is binding upon us. III. In those matters which were peculiar to that law and were prescribed for the promised land or the situation of the Jewish state, it has no more force for us than the laws of foreign commonwealths."<br><br>Leading Westminster Divine, George Gillespie in his Aaron's Rod Blossoming (1646, I:1): <br><br>"I know some divines hold that the judicial law of Moses, so far as concerneth the punishments of sins against the moral law, idolatry, blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, adultery, theft, etc., ought to be a rule to the Christian magistrate; and, for my part, I wish more respect were had to it, and that it were more consulted with."<br><br>Puritan John Owen (Works, 8:394): <br><br>"Although the institutions and examples of the Old Testament, of the duty of magistrates in the things and about the worship of God, are not, in their whole latitude and extent, to be drawn into rules that should be obligatory to all magistrates now..., yet, doubtless, there is something moral in those institutions, which, being unclothed of their Judaical form, is still binding to all in the like kind, as to some analogy and proportion. Subduct from those administrations what was proper to, and lies upon the account of, the church and nation of the Jews, and what remains upon the general notion of a church and nation must be everlastingly binding."<br><br>Puritan Thomas Shephard (1605-1649) (The Morality of the Sabbath, rep. 1853, III:53f): <br><br>"The judicial laws, some of them being hedges and fences to safeguard both moral and ceremonial precepts, their binding power was therefore mixed and various, for those which did safeguard any moral law, (which is perpetual,) whether by just punishments or otherwise do still morally bind all nations.... As, on the contrary, the moral abiding, why should not their judicials and fences remain? The learned generally doubt not to affirm that Moses' judicials bind all nations, so far forth as they contain any moral equity in them, which moral equity doth appear not only in respect of the end of the law, when it is ordered for common and universal good, but chiefly in respect of the law which they safeguard and fence, which if it be moral, it is most just and equal, that either the same or like judicial fence (according to some fit proportion) should preserve it still, because it is but just and equal that a moral and universal law should be universally preserved...."<br><br>8. That which is "expired" in the judicial laws are those elements that structured it for Israel as a nation (the particular land arrangements which allowed for cities of refuge, blood avengers, elders in the gates, stoning [as typological of God's crushing judgment], levirate marriages, and the like) or are applicable to the peculiar ancient circumstances, the accidental historical and cultural factors of Israel (fences around rooftops, goring oxen, etc.). <br><br>R. L. Dabney, Lectures in Systematic Theology, p. 412, re: Lev. 18 law against incest: <br><br>"We hold that this law, although found int he Hebrew code, has not passed away; because neither ceremonial nor typical.... We argue also, presumptively, that if this law is a dead one, then the Scriptures contain nowhere a distinct legislation against this great crime of incest." The same would be true of bestiality and other crimes. On page 402 he states: "The laws of Moses, therefore, very properly made adultery a capital crime...." <br><br>On page 403 Dabney lists capital punishment laws for murder, striking a parent, adultery, etc., without any disapprobation.<br><br>In fact, English theologian Thomas Ridgeley, in his 1855 A Body of Divinity (II:307), noted that the following laws were seven kinds that "expired" with the coming of the New Testament: (1) Levirate and inalienability of property; (2) jubilee; (3) six year limit on slavery; (4) sabbatical year; (5) usury prohibitions; (6) annual festivals; and (7) cities of refuge and blood avengers.<br><br>...in 1636, the well known American Puritan theologian, John Cotton prepared an explicit essay, entitled How Far Moses' Judicials Bind Massachusetts, in which he addresses the question, "whether we as Christians or as a people of God are not bound to establish laws and penalties set down in the Scripture as they were given to the Jews," and then offers nine supporting reasons why the answer must be affirmative. That same year Cotton produced a model civil code for his colony entitled Moses His Judicials, which contained entire sections verbatim from the Mosaic law. In his 1663 publication, A discourse about Civil Government, Cotton wrote that the best form of government for Christians to endorse was one where the laws by which men rule are the laws of God. <br><br>Also during the time of the Westminster Assembly, in 1645, the esteemed Reformed scholar, Samuel Bolton, published his treatise against antinomianism, which has been cited previously. Like Rutherford and Gillespie, Bolton got around to commenting upon the judicial law in his True Bounds of Christian Freedom, he said that is "a common maxim" toward which "we find considerable agreement...and few dissenters" that:<br><br>"As for the judicial law, which was an appendix to the second table, it was an ordinance containing precepts concerning the government of the people in things civil, and it served three purposes: it gave the people a rule of common and public equity, it distinguished them from other peoples, and it gave them a type of the government of Christ. That part of the judicial law which was typical of Christ's government has ceased, but that part which is of common and general equity remains still in force."<br>--Cited from Theonomic Ethics and the Westminster Confession of Faith by Kenneth Gentry </blockquote><br><br>Further information is found in [u]Calvinism and the Judicial Laws of Moses[/u].<br><br>And in Martin Foulner's [u]Theonomy and the Westminster Confession[/u]<br><br>And [u]Theonomic Find Surprises Historians[/u]<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The Westminster Confession has nothing that teaches that the specific civil laws are perpetual, in fact, it states the contrary:</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>So then even civil law against murder is also not perpetual? If you are going to cite the WCF, be sure to cite all of it: <br><br><blockquote>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, <span style="background-color:yellow;">further than the general equity thereof may require</span>.</blockquote><br><br>Note too, that in the next chapter on "Christian Liberty", it says that "under the New Testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law" (XX:1), but no mention is made about being free from the yoke of the Judicial law. And BTW how is the civil magistrate supposed to "suppress all blasphemies" (XXIII:3) without appealing to the judicial law? And why are the penal laws repeatedly cited in the Westminster Larger Catechism on the Ten Commandments?<br><br>Colin
As is typical of your replies, you have tried to circumvent the question and offer nothing in reply but rhetoric. So, I will ask again but with more preciseness so that there can be no doubt as to what I was originally asking you, "Can you cite any historical records where the Puritans, who appear to be at least a large part of your attempt to justify your extremist use of the Israelic judicial law, practiced the execution of individuals who violated such laws as pertained to homosexuality, adultery, errant children, etc.. ?? It should have been assumed that capital punishment for murder was not intended to be included since that mandate predated Moses by thousands of years and is rarely something contested. I am more interested in the application of those laws which most biblical Christians find most abhorrent, for various reasons and which most Theonomist/Reconstructionists seem most fervent to espouse and defend.
As to Remillard's attempt to make the meaning of "General Equity" fit into the mold mould of Reconstructionism, I find it quite inadequate among other things. I also reject his attempt to make a major distinction between "abrogated" and "expired", and then use that to try and further his Reconstructionist presuppositions. The section in question is more than perspicuous when it says:
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 . . .
This much is understood by most to mean that the judicial law is no longer binding due to the fact that Israel as a theonomic nation is also no more. To try and then reverse what the author's have clearly stated with the exception clause is almost humorous.
And again I ask, Can you cite any records of the Puritans which show that they practiced, upon political polity, by virtue of "General Equity", the execution of homosexuals, adulterers, errant children, etc.?
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]As is typical of your replies, you have tried to circumvent the question and offer nothing in reply but rhetoric.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>But at least I didn't resort to using rhetorical words like "extremist", "Abhorent", "inadequate", "fervent", "humorous" like you chose to do in your reply. And I do take exception to your characterization of my replies as being typically "circumvent" and "nothing but rhetoric". I wonder if you had even fully read my last post, since you barely interacted with it.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Can you cite any historical records where the Puritans, who appear to be at least a large part of your attempt to justify your extremist use of the Israelic judicial law, practiced the execution of individuals who violated such laws as pertained to homosexuality, adultery, errant children, etc.. ??</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Actually, I am surprised that you, an admirer of the puritans, is even asking such a question. Its like asking if there are any historical records showing that they believed in calvinism. But perhaps your lack of knowledge is due in part to the neo-puritan publishers like The Banner of Truth who have systematically suppressed this historical aspect of the Puritans in order so that potential readers like yourself would not be scared off from the so called "extremism" of the Puritan's view of civil law. It would certainly explain why the Banner of Truth rarely discusses Oliver Cromwell and his Puritan Commonwealth or John Winthrop's historical account of puritan Massachusetts. <br><br>The documented history of these two major puritan figures will alone answer your question. Just read The Journal of John Winthrop, 1630-1649 or a historical account of Oliver Cromwell and the period surrounding him, and you will find abundant information on the kind of civil laws enforced during those times. In some cases, the Puritans even went beyond what Theonomists advocate, such as making Sabbath breaking and heresy a capital crime. And in Winthrop's Journal he cites an account of some persons who were executed for having sex with a cow. Another was executed for the crime of Witchcraft in 1648 (This was 44 years before the infamous Salem Witchcraft Trials of 1692).<br><br>And how can you read WCF XXIII:3 and its proof texts used? Or for example, the proof texts used to the Larger Catechism and Deut 21:18-21 (Q128) and Deut 22:8 (Q135) and Exodus 22:2-3 (Q136) and LC Questions 139 which cites Lev 18:1-21 and Lev 20:15-16?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]It should have been assumed that capital punishment for murder was not intended to be included since that mandate predated Moses by thousands of years and is rarely something contested.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Well you did specify "Old testament law". And BTW the pre-Mosaic law against Murder makes no distinction between murder and manslaughter. That distinction is found only in the case laws. So even if you hold to a view of capital sanctions only against the sixth commandment, you still have to confront the moral issue of accidental homicide when it occurs. And the Decalogue itself stipulates no civil penalties, so without the case laws, you have no way of knowing how they should be properly applied today. <br><br>And to say that "capital punishment for murder is rarely contested" while you are presently living in Canada which has no death penalty for murder is a very odd statement to make. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I am more interested in the application of those laws which most biblical Christians find most abhorrent, for various reasons and which most Theonomist/Reconstructionists seem most fervent to espouse and defend.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>One might well ask, why do most modern "biblical Christians" find "most abhorrent" the very idea of applying God's law today? Was it also "abhorrent" in the days of the Old Covenant too? And if those laws were "just" under the OT (Heb 2:2) , how then are they now "unjust" today?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]As to Remillard's attempt to make the meaning of "General Equity" fit into the mold mould of Reconstructionism, I find it quite inadequate among other things.</font><hr></blockquote><p> <br><br>He wasn't trying to do that. And is your use of the word "mould" another attempt at rhetoric? <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I also reject his attempt to make a major distinction between "abrogated" and "expired", and then use that to try and further his Reconstructionist presuppositions.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>He doesn't have any "Reconstructionist presuppositions" AFAIK. He is not even a Christian Reconstructionist. But the distinction is still valid since the word "abrogation" is never used in the WCF regarding the Judicial laws as it is used for the ceremonial laws.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The section in question is more than perspicuous when it says:<br><br>"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 . . ."<br><br>This much is understood by most to mean that the judicial law is no longer binding due to the fact that Israel as a theonomic nation is also no more. To try and then reverse what the author's have clearly stated with the exception clause is almost humorous.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>So you admit that Israel was once in fact, a "Theonomic nation"? But my point is that you cannot quote this section without also citing the additional words regarding the required general equity of those Judicial laws. Thus, whatever laws "expired" with the passing of OT Israel, does not include the general equity of those judicial laws. So your attempt to suppress what the Westminster Divines fully wrote in this section appears to be abit disingenuous as if you do not even want to deal with the issue of the required general equity at all.<br><br>And Theonomists accept the WCF view that the judicial laws as worded and given to the OT Israelites have indeed "expired" with the passing of OT Israel, but that the underlying moral principles of them (the general equity) remains binding today. What is so "abhorrent" about that? Is Legalised abortion and Legalised sodomy somehow less abhorrent for today?<br><br>And how do you view Chapter XXIII:3 regarding the duty of the civil magistrate to "suppress all heresies and blasphemies"?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Can you cite any records of the Puritans which show that they practiced, upon political polity, by virtue of "General Equity", the execution of homosexuals, adulterers, errant children, etc.?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I've already cited some records, but even if no puritans ever did, that would not undermine the Biblical case for Theonomy. It would only undermine one single historical case for it. But any honest historical research will support Theonomy and its puritan and Calvinistic heritage.<br><br>Also, keep in mind that there are some puritan views that Theonomists do not accept such as Wage and Price controls and compulsory State education and a state established church, primarily because we do not see any biblical justification for them.<br><br>Colin
Two references to one obscure Puritan and another well-known, Cromwell, certainly doesn't make your case. Cromwell is well-known also for his extremism in certain practices.<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]One might well ask, why do most modern "biblical Christians" find "most abhorrent" the very idea of applying God's law today? Was it also "abhorrent" in the days of the Old Covenant too? And if those laws were "just" under the OT (Heb 2:2) , how then are they now "unjust" today?</font><hr></blockquote><p>Again, the typical Recontructionist "strawman" charge against biblical Christians who object NOT to God's moral law nor to God's law given to Israel, but rather the objection is and always has been against Reconstructionism's attempt to ignore the uniqueness of the nation of Israel as a Theonomic nation and to impose the Israelic civil law upon the world. The WCF states this clear enough to which you consistently dismiss.<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]And how do you view Chapter XXIII:3 regarding the duty of the civil magistrate to "suppress all heresies and blasphemies"?</font><hr></blockquote><p>Erroneous! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Also, keep in mind that there are some puritan views that Theonomists do not accept such as Wage and Price controls and compulsory State education and a state established church, primarily because we do not see any biblical justification for them.</font><hr></blockquote><p>Funny, this is the exact same reason the vast majority of Calvinists, who btw, are NOT worse than Dispensationalists as you have many times charged, reject Theonomy/Reconstructionism.<br><br>What I have been able to conclude from all of the rhetoric which you have posted on this Board is that:<ol>[*]There is no one outside of the Postmil/Theonomy/Reconstructionist camp who has any viable information about this group.</li>[*]Any criticism or critiques which have ever been written against this group is misinformed and/or is fraught with ignorant errors.</li>[*]Everyone who does not embrace this theology is in serious error.</li>[*]Everyone who holds to Amillennialism has departed from the original truth of Postmillennialism, which is said to take historical precedence.</li>[*]No one has successfully read or even read at all, books and/or articles written by those who espouse this view.</li>[/LIST]Lastly, I would offer another article by one of us poor ignorant and unread "backslidden" Calvinists who find Reconstructionism in error.<br><br>The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Theonomic Document?<br><br>BTW, have you done the moral thing and contacted The Banner of Truth Trust and expressed to them that you believe and have publicly stated that they "have systematically suppressed this historical aspect of the Puritans in order so that potential readers like yourself would not be scared off from the so called "extremism" of the Puritan's view of civil law."? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/thinks.gif" alt="thinks" title="thinks[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,<br>
Four questions;<br><br>1) Under a theonomy, who decides proper doctrine?<br><br>2) Wasn't the RCC a theonomy and this was part of the problem the reformationists had was too much power?<br><br>3) Didn't Israel, under that theonomy, have a prophet under direct guidance by God; or basically, wasn't Israel under direct revelation nearly consistently?<br><br>4) If Israel couldn't get it right, what makes Colin think he can?<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william<br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Two references to one obscure Puritan and another well-known, Cromwell, certainly doesn't make your case.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>John Winthrop was hardly an "obscure" figure. He was a major puritan leader in New England and the first puritan Governor of Massachusetts in the early 17th century. His Journal is a major primary source document for New England puritan studies. Your cavaliar attempt to dismiss his weighty testimony amounts to not wanting to be honest with historical facts. And I have also previously cited the Works of John Cotton and Samuel Willard and Nathaniel Ward whom you have totally ignored. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Cromwell is well-known also for his extremism in certain practices.</font><hr></blockquote><p> <br><br>Here is what D. Martin Lloyd-Jones said about Cromwell in 1978:<br><br><blockquote>The great period during Cromwell's Protectorate...was one of the most amazing epochs in the whole history of [England]. To me it was certainly one of the most glorious...Oliver Cromwell is a man whom we do not honour as we should</blockquote><br><br>But keep in mind that Theonomists are not blind followers of men even if they are puritans. Instead they desire to follow the Word of God. I have previously mentioned how Theonomists have dissented from some of the views of the Puritans. But if you want to call the puritans "extremists", perhaps you should write a letter to the Banner of Truth and inform them of that.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]...the objection is and always has been against Reconstructionism's attempt to ignore the uniqueness of the nation of Israel as a Theonomic nation and to impose the Israelic civil law upon the world.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>No Reconstructionist has ever "ignored the uniqueness of the nation of Israel". That is a typical strawman accusation no different than the one raised by the typical Arminian who falsely claims that Calvinism "ignores" evangelism or human responsibility. <br><br>And Reconstructionists do not want to "impose the Israelic Civil Law upon the world". Rather, they believe that according the WCF I:2 that:<br><br><blockquote>Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament....<span style="background-color:yellow;">All</span> which are given by inspiration of God to be <span style="background-color:yellow;">the rule of faith and life</span></blockquote><br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The WCF states this clear enough to which you consistently dismiss.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I don't "dismiss" it, I accept it along with the rest of the quote which you continue to dismiss regarding the required general equity.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]And how do you view Chapter XXIII:3 regarding the duty of the civil magistrate to "suppress all heresies and blasphemies"?<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Erroneous!</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>So why then is not the part in Chapter XIX:4 which you cite also "erroneous"? If XXIII:3 can be in error, so could XIX:4 as it is worded.<br><br>If its ok for you to be selective in your commitment to the WCF, why can't Theonomists also be selective too? But one thing is certain, Chapter XXIII:3 is a theonomic chapter that even goes further than what Theonomists themselves will allow (ie. State sanctions against heresy).<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]the vast majority of Calvinists, who btw, are NOT worse than Dispensationalists as you have many times charged</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Where did I ever say that the "vast majority of Calvinists" are "worse than Dispensationalists"?? <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]What I have been able to conclude from all of the rhetoric which you have posted on this Board is that:<br><br>1. There is no one outside of the Postmil/Theonomy/Reconstructionist camp who has any viable information about this group.<br><br>2. Any criticism or critiques which have ever been written against this group is misinformed and/or is fraught with ignorant errors.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Wrong conclusion. There are plenty of people outside the Theonomy "camp" who have had viable information on it. Let me cite a few:<br><br>1) The New Puritanism: A Preliminary Assessment of Christian Reconstructionism by Robert Bowman Jr. in the Mar/1988 Christian Research Journal<br><br>2) Christian Reconstruction by Dr. Irving Hexham in the Christian Week Feb 5/91<br><br>3) Christian Reconstruction and its Critics by Dr. Irving Hexham in Christian Week Feb 19/91<br><br>4) Great Divides: Understanding The Controversies that Come Between Christians by Dr. Ronald Nash<br><br>5) Heaven On Earth? The Political and Social Agenda of Dominion Theology by Dr. Bruce Barron<br><br>6) A Challenge to Theonomy by D. Clair Davis in Theonomy: An Reformed Critique.<br><br>7) Review of The Institutes of Biblical Law by John Frame in Westminster Theological Journal (1976)<br><br>8) Eulogy for Greg Bahnsen by John Frame (Dec 1995)<br><br>9) Christian Reconstructionism by Rev. Jack Keep (Dispensationalist Baptist)<br><br>10) The Theonomic Postmillennialism of Christian Reconstruction: A Contrast with Traditional <br>Postmillennialism and a Premillennial Assessment by Layton Talbert<br><br>The above all have "viable information" about reconstructionism while giving it fair criticism.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]3. Everyone who does not embrace this theology is in serious error.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>And what do you say about those who do not accept Calvinism or covenant theology?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Everyone who holds to Amillennialism has departed from the original truth of Postmillennialism, which is said to take historical precedence.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>And what do you say about those holding holding to postmillennialism?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]No one has successfully read or even read at all, books and/or articles written by those who espouse this view.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Yes and that includes me[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/read.gif" alt="read" title="read[/img] and probably many other Theonomists too. Just like I haven't successfully read all the writings of all the puritans either. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Lastly, I would offer another article by one of us poor ignorant and unread "backslidden" Calvinists who find Reconstructionism in error.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I've never called you or anyone else "ignorant" or "unread", or "backslidden". The latter term was used by me only to describe the System of Amillennialism and not the person who holds to it.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]BTW have you done the moral thing and contacted The Banner of Truth Trust and expressed to them that you believe and have publicly stated that they "have systematically suppressed this historical aspect of the Puritans in order so that potential readers like yourself would not be scared off from the so called "extremism" of the Puritan's view of civil law."?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>The BoT were informed of that over 20 years ago. I am not the first one to have made that observation. Even the Anti-Theonomist Jon Zens agreed with that observation 20 years ago. <br><br>BTW since you have publicly called Cromwell an "extremist", when are you going to do the moral thing and contact Sprinkle Publications about that, since they are the publishers of a biography on Cromwell entitled, THE PROTECTOR: A VINDICATION by J.H. Merle D'Aubigne?<br><br>And the new Ligon Duncan article can be answered by the fact that he accuses all theonomists of being "anti-Confessional". This accusation is contrary to the PCA's own 25 year old official position on Theonomy which forbids using the WCF to settle the Theonomy issue. And no Theonomist has ever been charged in the PCA for being "anti-Confessional". Nor has any ordained Elder in the OPC been charged either. If Ligon Duncan truly believes in what he writes, then he ought to do the moral thing and bring charges against Theonomists in the PCA for being "anti-Confessional". A failure to do so would be a violation of his own vows as an Elder. <br><br>Furthermore, Duncan relies heavily on Ferguson's 1990 Anti-Theonomy Essay without interacting or acknowledging Greg Bahnsen's 1993 Response to Ferguson or Martin Foulner's 1997 book on [u]Theonomy and the Westminster Confession[/u]. This is a scholarly lapse on Duncan's part. <br><br>But Duncan's entire comments on WCF XIX:4 can easily be rendered moot by simply borrowing your own response to Chapter XXIII:3 [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>Colin
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Under a theonomy, who decides proper doctrine?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Who decides proper doctrine now? The creedally commited Reformed church does. Theonomy, contrary to the Reformers and Puritans, does not allow the State to decide proper doctrine or punish those without it. Only the church has the keys to the Kingdom.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Wasn't the RCC a theonomy and this was part of the roblem the reformationists had was too much power?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>No, the RCC is "anti-theonomy", not only by its [u]rejections of 5 Solas of the protestant reformation[/u], but also by Rome's adherence to [u]Thomas Aquinas' Natural Law theories[/u] and synthesis of law and grace. <br><br>Theonomists are followers of the views of Cornelius Van Til who strongly opposed Aquinas and the RCC on natural law.<br><br>While the reformation did permit a little too much power to the magistrate, it was due to a very slow process of reform. But the more Theonomic the Puritans got (e.g. Lex Rex by Samuel Rutherford and the Scottish Covenanters), the less power the magistrate was given. This is because God's law puts a restraint on all forms of Tyranny, since all tyranny is based on man-made law.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Didn't Israel, under that theonomy, have a prophet under direct guidance by God; or basically, wasn't Israel under direct revelation nearly consistently?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Yes, but Christians under the NT now have the power of the Holy Spirit, with the law of God written upon our redeemed hearts in addition to the law written down in Scripture (which is the same law).<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]If Israel couldn't get it right, what makes Colin think he can?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I am not under the Old covenant, but I am in the new covenant (Jer 31:31-33; Ezek 36:26) with better promises such as are found in 2 Tim 3:16:<br><br>All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:<br>That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. While keeping in mind Galatians 6:14.<br><br>Colin
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)