It depends on how you define “exhaustive validity.” If you are defining it as Bahnsen did, then I think the Confession absolutely gives room for it.So what does the Confession teach about the exhaustive validity of the case laws?
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.
It depends on how you define “exhaustive validity.” If you are defining it as Bahnsen did, then I think the Confession absolutely gives room for it.So what does the Confession teach about the exhaustive validity of the case laws?
It depends on how you define “exhaustive validity.” If you are defining it as Bahnsen did, then I think the Confession absolutely gives room for it.
I’ve already addressed this in this thread. Theonomy is hardly the only facet of orthodox Christian theology that requires qualification. Trinitarian doctrine needs qualification. Sacramentology needs qualification. The Westminster Confession is full of qualifications. That’s just what theology is. In my opinion, this repeated complaint seems like an unwillingness to deal with the position on its own terms. I’m more than happy to engage in discussion, you’re just not really giving me anything of substance to work with.This is an example of the "thousand qualifications" mentioned above.
I’ve already addressed this in this thread. Theonomy is hardly the only facet of orthodox Christian theology that requires qualification. Trinitarian doctrine needs qualification. Sacramentology needs qualification. The Westminster Confession is full of qualifications. That’s just what theology is. In my opinion, this repeated complaint seems like an unwillingness to deal with the position on its own terms. I’m more than happy to engage in discussion, you’re just not really giving me anything of substance to work with.
"Essentially Bahnsen accepts the doctrinal orthodoxy of the original text [of the Confession]. Whether or not this is in conflict with the intention of the American Presbyterian emendation of the Confession, it is certainly in keeping with the traditional Scottish Reformed understanding of it."
Gillespie, CXI Propositions Concerning the Ministry and Government of the Church
"47. It is one thing to govern the commonwealth, and to make political and civil laws; another thing to interpret the Word of God, and out of it to show the magistrate his duty, to wit, how he ought to govern the commonwealth, and in what manner he ought to use the sword. The former is proper and peculiar to the magistrate (neither doth the ministry intermeddle or entangle itself into such businesses), but the latter is contained within the office of the ministers.
48. For to that end also is the holy Scripture profitable, to show which is the best manner of governing a commonwealth, and that the magistrate, as being God's minister, may by this guiding start be so directed, as that he may execute the parts of his office according to the will of God, and may perfectly be instructed in every good work..."
Rutherford (and I thoroughly love Rutherford!) is here entangled in the matter of establishment. It is so part of his world and life view; and yet not part of ours, nor a part of Paul the Apostle's. That he appears to speak of secular power is evident, under the term Ruler.Rutherford, A Free Disputation against Pretended Liberty of Conscience
"The word of God is as perfect in teaching for what sins the Ruler should not punish, as for what he should punish.
"The express law of God, and of nature written in the hearts of all, proveth that the seducer should die (Deut. 13). If a prophet or a Dreamer arise, and say, let us go after other gods, he shall be put to death. That is no temporary law obliging the Jews only.
"Our adversaries are obliged to give us precept, promise or godly practice. Why a moral sin forbidden and severely punished in the Old Testament, should yet remain a moral sin in the New Testament, and yet not be punishable by men or churches."
Again, it is important that we define terms. What does it mean that a law is "valid"? Does it mean it is still in force? Does it mean it out to be practiced the same manner as when it was given? Does it mean nothing has changed? Well, it depends upon which type of law of the threefold division we are talking about. The moral, judicial, and ceremonial laws are all valid today, and in exhaustive detail, but each in different ways. The moral law is valid in a completely and uniquely unchanging sense. The judicial law is valid in that it shows us the proper civil application of the moral law, although the precise circumstances and manner in which they are applied may have changed. The ceremonial law is valid in that we still need a priest and a sacrifice. That fact has absolutely not changed. What has changed is who the Priest and Sacrifice is.It starts with the bold thesis of exhaustive validity only to find that it really doesn't mean that.
I have offered substantial responses that go to the heart of the matter. You just disagree with themAgain, it is important that we define terms. What does it mean that a law is "valid"? Does it mean it is still in force? Does it mean it out to be practiced the same manner as when it was given? Does it mean nothing has changed? Well, it depends upon which type of law of the threefold division we are talking about. The moral, judicial, and ceremonial laws are all valid today, and in exhaustive detail, but each in different ways. The moral law is valid in a completely and uniquely unchanging sense. The judicial law is valid in that it shows us the proper civil application of the moral law, although the precise circumstances and manner in which they are applied may have changed. The ceremonial law is valid in that we still need a priest and a sacrifice. That fact has absolutely not changed. What has changed is who the Priest and Sacrifice is.
So, it is not true to say that Bahnsen says on one hand that the law is valid, and then goes on through qualification to render the thesis null. No, the law is valid in exhaustive detail. But that it is not the same thing as saying that the law is binding in exhaustive detail precisely as when the law was given, as if there has been no change in dispensation.
Again, we have to deal with Theonomy on its own terms. The thesis and the exposition of that thesis are simply no contradictory. So far, this has merely been asserted, but not defended. I am willing to entertain that notion but, again, I need more to work with. All I have gotten so far is, "Theonomy has too many qualifications," and, "I'm not cutting my wife's hand off." I haven't gotten anything substantial, brother.
Serious question: Do you then think all Sabbath breakers should still be put to death (Ex. 35:2)? Have you or a loved one ever broken the Sabbath?1) Only God can infallibly distinguish between good and evil, and he has done so in the Bible.2) Only God can infallibly define what is criminal and what is not, and he has done so in the Bible.3) Only God can infallibly define how crimes are to be justly punished, and he has done so in the Bible.
This is a really difficult question, I confess. There's no other way to say it. It really depends on this particular law, whether it was purely judicial, how it filters through the "general equity" grid, etc., etc. I'll admit that just don't know at this point. Of course, I recognize some will read this and perhaps scoff, saying that because of this difficulty the Theonomic thesis does not hold. But the fact that I as an individual am still figuring this out does not invalidate the entire thesis, just as my wildly inferior grasp of the mystery of the Trinity does not invalidate that doctrine. Furthermore, no Theonomist that I am aware of argues that every single law is applied in the exact same way without any nuance whatsoever. I know the critics would make it seem to be that simple, but it's not. That's not what "validity in exhaustive detail means." If that's all it meant, there wouldn't have been a small library of books written on this. Nobody ever said the application of Theonomy is easy.Serious question: Do you then think all Sabbath breakers should still be put to death (Ex. 35:2)?
Of course, I'm sure you recognize that this is an appeal to emotion. That I or a loved one has ever broken the Sabbath (both of which are true) has nothing to do whatsoever with whether or not biblical law should be carried out. Whatever our answer is, and whatever the difficulty we perceive in it, our standard for navigating the matter should not be whether or not we would have this law's sanctions exercised on those we know and love. Rather, the standard is God and his Word alone. What does he say? In the end, if he says something we do not like, whatever it may be, the problem is not with him, but with us. Similarly, I would also urge that we not seek to invalidate anything using the method of "what about this" and "what about that." Again, what does God say? That's all that matters.Have you or a loved one ever broken the Sabbath?
using the method of "what about this" and "what about that."
Yes, but saying, "I'm not cutting my wife's hand off," is not casuistry.That's literally the whole point of casuistry.
Yes, but saying, "I'm not cutting my wife's hand off," is not casuistry.
Are you the civil magistrate?I'll rephrase the issue: in tomorrow's theonomic society, would I have to cut off my wife's hand?
Are you the civil magistrate?
If you could be convinced that God's Word would mandate it, would you resist?I'll rephrase my question: in tomorrow's theonomic society, would I have to let the civil magistrate cut off my wife's hand?
If you could be convinced that God's Word would mandate it, would you resist?
I'll take that as a "yes."To quote Jeeves, that contingency, sir, is a remote one.