Theonomy vs. Contemporary Christian Legal Norms

Using the Bible to define what laws are just and unjust can lead to a number of conflicts with contemporary legal systems and even legal systems favored by Christians today.  This post will mention two that I think are more controversial but under mentioned:

1) No Inchoate Crimes

The general rule of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is a principle of retributive justice.  In a case where a person attempts to knock out your tooth but misses (and doesn't harm you), there is no punishment in this system.  The same goes for attempted murder.  The principle is "he who sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed" rather than "he who tries to shed man's blood ... ."

2) No Conspiracy, Solicitation Crimes

Also, there is no provision in the Bible for punishment of people who merely plot a crime or pay someone else to commit a crime.  Asking someone to kill someone else for you was not itself a crime.

There was one exception.  It was a crime to solicit apostasy (see Deuteronomy 13).

In both of the above examples, contemporary Christians are comfortable with punishing people both for inchoate crimes, like "attempted murder," and for distant participation in crimes, like "soliciting murder."  There are at least two good explanations for this: both of those activities are sinful (and heinously so) and they grew up in a place where those sinful activities are criminal.

-TurretinFan

John Owen on the Theonomy Debate between Joel McDurmon and Jordan Hall

John Owen, Works, Volume 8 ("Sermons to the Nations"), p. 394:

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, under the administration of the gospel, — and that because the magistrate then was "custos, vindex, et administrator legis judicialis, et politiae Mosaicae," from which, as most think, we are freed; — 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, arid what remains upon the general notion of a church and nation must be everlastingly binding.

I wonder if both the debaters would agree with that quotation? If so, then the resolution of their recent debate can be affirmed in one sense (i.e. the civil laws are obligatory as to their moral aspects and analogously) and denied in another sense (i.e. the civil laws are not obligatory in their Judaical form).

I note that Bahnsen himself seems to have felt that he could agree with Owen, since Bahnsen himself quoted it in his interaction with Ian Murray (as can be seen here).

-TurretinFan

Pseudo-Kline Retranslates the Torah

The Pentateuch actually states:

Deuteronomy 4:6-8
Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

However, if one adopts a Klinean "intrusion ethic" principle and if one therefore denies that Israel's civil laws are laws that reflect the natural law given to all nations, then one might expect a very different kind of reaction than that described in the above passage. One might expect something like the following:

[Klinean] Deuteronomy 4:6-8
Keep therefore and do them; for this is your [foolishness and barbarity] in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a [eschatologically overrealized] people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments [that would be so inappropriate, if not for the intrusion of the eschaton and the consequent conflation of the two kingdoms] as all this law, which I set before you this day?

I really do think that some of Kline's spiritual successors (even those who have never read Kline himself) do think that the OT civil laws are barbaric and that it would be totally inappropriate for a country today to have similar laws.  They don't view the OT civil laws as admirable and something to be imitated.

People who think that way have, it seems, drunk too deeply of the well of Enlightenment, Modern, and Post-Modern thought.  Their concept of what constitute good laws are therefore distorted.  Their judgment is faulty.

They ought to reconsider their position and recognize that the statutes and judgments that were righteous - statutes and judgments that had (to use the Confession's expression) general equity that has continuing relevance to all nations.

Kline never re-translated Deuteronomy to fit his misunderstanding of natural law (as far as I know), but his positions seem to imply this kind of view of the Torah.

-TurretinFan

Are Nations Supposed to be Concerned About Righteousness?

Some people seem to think that nations have no business in promoting morality in general or sexual morality in particular. There's not always a cogent reason for this objection, but often the presupposition behind the objection is that there is supposed to be separation of church and state, and that this separation should entail the state being concerned with "secular" things and the church being concerned with "religious" things. Morality is then identified as a "religious" thing, and so the objection concludes that the state has no business addressing issues of morality.

The Bible provides a counter-point. While there is separation of church and state in the Bible's example of the monarchy of Israel (the king was not the high priest, and the high priest was not the king), there is also significant areas of overlapping concern. The king (not the high priest) was supposed to enforce a lot of laws that clearly were designed to regulate morality, while the high priest was supposed to provide for sacrifices for sins.

Some have imagined that the example of Israel is not set forward to be an example for the nations. On one level, that's true. There are certain aspects of Israel's system that have passed out of existence. The old administration of the worship of God has passed away, particularly in view of the coming of the last and greatest priest, Jesus.

Nevertheless, church and state remain. Thus, the question remains - whether the state, as such, should be concerned about righteousness.

The Bible has the answer:

Proverbs 14:34
Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.

My point is not to emphasize the word "any," which is added by the translators, but rather to emphasize that this is presented as a gnomic truth (the point the translators conveyed with "any"). Sin and righteousness are something that leads God to treat nations as nations in a particular way. Thus, nations as nations have an interest in promoting righteousness and suppressing sin.

-TurretinFan

One of the Problems of Pluralism

If you live in a pluralistic society, you are going to have deal with situations like this one (link). Keep in mind that Sikhs are required by their religion to carry a kirpan. Their code of conduct states: "Have, on your person, all the time, the five K's: The Keshas (unshorn hair), the Kirpan (sheathed sword), the Kachhehra (drawers like garment), the Kanga (comb), the Karha (steel bracelet)." (Reht Maryada, Chapter 13 as translated/paraphrased here)

Suppose for the sake of the argument that there is a religious justification for the actions of the "dissident" members who are opposing the "open membership" move of the majority. Must a pluralistic society tolerate this settling of their religious dispute amongst themselves in their own temple? Or must the state step in to enforce the will of the majority? or of the minority (if the minority are right about the requirements of their religion)?

And if a pluralistic society can rightly intervene in religious disputes amongst Sikhs, why not amongst other religions?

And for my Escondido friends, what if a majority of a Christian church were attempting to open communion to everyone who wants it? Does the civil magistrate have a duty to protect the church of our Lord against such violence from a majority?

-TurretinFan

N.B. No Sikh I've ever met would approve of what took place in the Sikh temple in the linked article. Please don't assume that because Sikhs carry the kirpan, they are violent people. Please don't make any other illogical conclusions from what I've written. There, that should avoid about 90% of the comments.

Where in the Golden Rule is That?

Someone (I'd use their name or handle, if they had left one) asked where in "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (sometimes called the "Golden Rule") did Jesus authorize "religious persecution," which (one supposes) is the pejorative term that folks these days us to refer to the Reformed position on the civil magistrate.

The simple answer is that the golden rule is not relevant to the government (I mean of course, the government of the state, though the same could be said of any government, as such), it wasn't intended to be, and we get God's instructions for the government elsewhere.

However, that may sound a bit glib, so let's look at Jesus' words in context first:

Luke 6:30-31
Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

If you think that "as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise" is supposed to be applied to the government, do you think that giving to everyone who asks is also to be applied to the government? Is this the welfare verse? Surely you can recognize that it is not intended that way. Nor is it a uniform principle that we must always give whatever anyone asks from us, nor that we must always do unto others as we would want done to us.

But that's just a start. From the slightly extended context, we learn that this is an exposition of the command to love our neighbour as ourselves:

Luke 6:27-29 & 32-35
But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.
[The passage above]
For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

The whole thrust of the passage is toward doing good to those who personally injure you. It's not an absolute mandate that you can never seek legal recourse, but rather a general principle of how we should treat people who are our personal enemies.

In a parallel account of this teaching in Matthew, we see an additional point which shows that this teaching is part of an exposition on the law: "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Matthew 5:43-44
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

That law was not new. It was an Old Testament law:

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

And yes, the same Old Testament law authorized:

Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Numbers 33:52-53
Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places: and ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it.

Leviticus 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

Exodus 31:14-15
Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Obviously, the government can't make anyone believe (nor prevent them from coveting). Obviously, as well, the government executing witches, destroying idols, stoning blasphemers, and enforcing the sabbath will not, in itself, save anyone (just as punishing rebellious children, murderers, adulterers, and thieves cannot save anyone). Nevertheless, it is consistent for the government to enforce such laws and for the duty of believers to be that they love their neighbor as themselves.

-TurretinFan

The real Francis Turretin on: Continuing vs. Abrogated Portions of Civil Law

One of the areas where I might disagree (with respect to some of the nuances) with the real Francis Turretin, is in his treatment of the Old Testament civil law. Nevertheless, as Andrew Myers has (at Virginia is for Hugenots) kindly provided a quotation from Turretin on this subject (along with other interesting related material), perhaps you'd like to see what he says: (link).

To the glory of our Most High Law-giver!

-TurretinFan

GreenBaggins on Theonomy - A Response

Lane Keister at GreenBaggins has a post in which he argues that "Theonomy is Biblically-Theologically Wrong" (link). I can summarize it thus: "redemptive-historical theology removes the O.T. civil laws while natural law replaces them."

1) Limited Agreement on the Church-State Distinction

I agree that the church and state are not one and the same thing in the New Testament.

a) However, I should note that Mr. Keister (because of his Redemptive-Historical framework) has failed to notice that church and state were not one and the same thing in the Old Testament. A redemptive-historical approach is so focused on the earthly ministry of Christ that it tends to lose sight of the original context of Old Testament passages. While there are redemptive-historical themes and a significant amount of typology in Scripture, we must never permit these themes to prevent us from understanding the literal sense of Scripture.

b) Additionally, I should note that Mr. Keister has failed to notice that even in the New Testament the civil government (whether that be king, governor, or whatever) is considered a "minister of God" (just as in the Old Testament, see Exodus 24:13 and Romans 13:4). In fairness, Mr. Keister does mention Romans 13 (and even mentions that the magistrate is ordained by God), but argues that there is nothing in Romans 13 that cannot be argued on the basis of natural law, which brings us to the second point of limited agreement.

2) Limited Agreement on the Natural Law

I agree that God has provided information about himself through the created order and especially through the conscience, which we can refer to as "Natural Law" and that we must not go contrary to Natural Law any more than to any other divine revelation.

a) However, Mr. Keister overlooks that the Natural Law is necessarily universally applicable. That is to say, God's revelation of himself through Nature and Conscience was also applicable to Old Testament Israel.

b) Additionally, Mr. Keister overlooks that the Natural Law tends not to be propositional. Thus, for example, Natural Law can tell us that crime must be punished, but it may not be able to tell us whether theft should be a capital offense. This actually brings us to a point of disagreement with Mr. Keister.

3) Mr. Keister's Arguments Against Capital Punishment for Violation of Second-Table Commandments are Unsupported and Unsupportable Either from Scripture or Natural Law

Mr. Keister states:

However, it is not the civil magistrate’s job to execute a boy for cursing his parents (as was true in the Old Testament civil laws). It is the church’s job to instruct and to exercise church discipline.

There are two problems with this claim:

a) Mr. Keister is arguing for church discipline to handle the affairs of civil government. Although he doubtless does not intend to do so, Mr. Keister is violating the two-kingdoms principle that civil affairs are within the authority of the civil magistrate: attempting to take this away from the civil magistrate and give it to the church. However, the church is not charged with punishing crime: that is not within its sphere of authority.

b) The issue of insubordination of children to parents is an issue of civil law, as is recognized by the Old Testament and in the Natural Law. The Old Testament explicitly ordains the death penalty for cursers of parents and places it, contextually in this list:

i) Regulation of Slavery (Exodus 21:1-11);
ii) Capital Punishment for Premeditated Murder and Relief for Accidental Homicide (Exodus 21:12-14);
iii) Capital Punishment for Battery of Parents (Exodus 21:15);
iv) Capital Punishment for Kidnap (Exodus 21:16);
v) Capital Punishment for Cursing of Parents (Exodus 21:17);
vi) Restitution for Battery (Exodus 21:18-19);
vii) Application of (ii) and (vi) in the case of slaves (Exodus 21:20-21);
viii) Punishment for Battery of Pregnant Woman (Exodus 21:22-25);
ix) Further application of (vi) in the case of slaves (Exodus 21:26-27);
x) Punishment of Homicide by Chattels (Exodus 21:28-32);
xi) Punishment for Damage to Chattels by Pit-digging (Exodus 21:33-34); and
xii) Punishment for Damage of Chattels on Chattels (Exodus 21:35-46).

Within that context it should be fairly clear that cursing one's parents is part of the civil code of Israel, and it is the responsibility of the civil magistrate (the "judges" mentioned, for example, in Exodus 21:6) to address these issues. It is not a matter governed through the church (i.e. through the priests) and it is not a matter connected with the ceremonial law or with an issue unique to the nation of Israel (as, for example, the land of Canaan).

c) It is worth noting that, in this instance, Mr. Keister has gone beyond even many fairly radical non-theonomists in suggesting that a second table offense should not be governed by the civil government.

d) Mr. Keister does not provide any real argument from the Natural Law in support of his contention that the Natural Law does not suggest such a penalty. On the contrary, Natural Law teaches that men must obey their parents, that parents deserve a special dignity, and that the greater the dignity of the offended party the worse the punishment should be on the offender. In short, while someone might argue that the specific punishment of death for cursers of parents cannot be gleaned from the Natural Law (given the inspecific nature of Natural Law), nevertheless the Old Testament civil law provides an example well within the bounds of Natural Law and fully consistent with it and certainly Mr. Keister's opinion that death penalty is inappropriate cannot be supported by natural law, even if the natural law does not clearly require such a penalty.

4) Mr. Keister's Situation-Specific Dismissal Is Too Unspecific

Mr. Keister asserted: "Now, the theonomist will probably reply that the civil law of Old Testament Israel is of a piece with and is the outworking of the moral law given in the Ten Commandments. True, it is. But it is an outworking of the Ten Commandments for a particular place and people." (emphasis in original)

I certainly agree that it was for a particular place and people. That's a very true statement, and yet it does not follow that therefore the civil law of Israel would not be a good law for other places or peoples. There's nothing in the Bible or in the Natural Law to suggest that the hearts of post-Pentecost men are less hard than the hearts of the Jews from the time of Moses to the time of Pentecost (or till A.D. 70 or whenever it is alleged that the civil law of Israel ceased to have effect by those who reject what they refer to as "theonomy"). Furthermore, the Bible does tell us that the civil laws of Israel were given good laws:

Nehemiah 9:13 Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments:

In fact, they are set forth in Scripture as the paragon of all laws for governing nations:

Deuteronomy 4:8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

In principle, I agree that where the judgments are specific to Israel they are naturally not applicable to us - but judgments like those on honoring one's father and mother are not specific to Israel.

5) Mr. Keister Overstates His Point in Abandoning Old Testament Principles

Mr. Keister stated:

In other words, Jesus Christ is the apex of the trajectory of Old Testament Israel, and the church is in Christ. Therefore, it does not make sense to say that modern-day governments should run themselves according to principles that were given to Old Testament Israel as Old Testament Israel.

Surely, Mr. Keister is right that Jesus Christ is the focal point of the Bible. It does not follow, however, that the good laws given to Old Testament Israel are not based on principles that must be followed by any government that wishes to follow the law of God.

Mr. Keister has plainly overstated his point here, since Mr. Keister acknowledges the role of Natural Law. Nevertheless, since God cannot be inconsistent with Himself, and since the Natural Law is a Creation ordinance (at the latest, upon the Fall and the obtaining of the knowledge of good and evil), therefore the "principles" of the civil law of Israel must be the same principles found in the Natural Law (otherwise the civil law of Israel would not be good laws).

6) Mr. Keister's Redemptive-Historical Framework Causes Him to Conflate Categories

We see a conflation of categories in Mr. Keister's comment:

And yet the principles in the New Testament for church government say nothing of the sword. Instead, the weapons are spiritual, for we fight not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual enemies. Ephesians 6, by the way, is one reason why I believe the application of Old Testament Israel’s holy wars draws a straight line to spiritual warfare today in the church.

(emphasis in original, link omitted)

Mr. Keister is right in one way: the church (either of the Old or New Testament) was not entrusted with the sword. That's the duty of the civil magistrate - the king, governor, judges, etc. depending on the applicable form of government. On the other hand, in both the Old and New Testament the civil magistrate does bear the power of the sword (See Romans 13:4).

The roles and duties of the church and the state are different, just as the roles and duties of the parents and the state are different and the roles and duties of the parents and the church are different (although there are various overlaps at pints).

This leads me to the final point (prior to the conclusion).

7) Mr. Keister's Conflation Actually Undermines the Proper Two(or Five) Kingdoms Distinctives

Elsewhere I've discussed how there are not just two, but actually five, kingdoms (link). Each has its own proper sphere of authority, and the existence of one sphere of authority does not negate or invalidate the other spheres. Mr. Keister's emphasis on the duties of the church with respect to sin (i.e. church discipline) seem to suggest that because the church has some responsibilities with respect to sin "X" that therefore the civil government does not also, and in parallel, have responsibilities.

Specifically (so the argument seems to go), because the church is called on to excommunicate those who curse their parents, the civil government has no responsibility to put such villains to death. This flawed reasoning would seem to destroy the proper multiple kingdoms distinctives and cause the church to usurp the roles of the other spheres, especially the civil sphere.

Let me give some illustrative counter-examples.

Example 1: Man commits adultery, two witnesses observe this, and the offended wife brings the matter before the judges.

Reaction by State: It would be appropriate for the state to punish this man for his crime. I see no reason (notwithstanding the Pericope Adulterae) why that punishment must not be death.

Reaction by Church: Discipline, up to and perhaps including excommunication (upon following the appropriate protocols).

Reaction by the Adulterer's Father: Condemnation of his son's misdeed, and exhortation to repentance.

Reaction by the Adulterer's Spouse: In this case, the offense has destroyed this particular sphere of authority. Thus, the woman is not required to "submit" to the adultery, although she ought to seek to forgive this man who has sinned against her.

Reaction by the Adulterer's Employer: Condemnation of his employee's misdeed, and exhortation to repentance.

Example 2: Man (out of hate) kills someone who works for him, two witnesses observe, and the family of the deceased brings it before the judges.

Reaction by State: Death for the murderer.

Reaction by the Church: Discipline, up to and perhaps including excommunication (upon following the appropriate protocols).

Reaction by the Murderer's Father: Condemnation of his son's misdeed, and exhortation to Repentance.

Reaction by the Murderer's Spouse (if applicable): Exhortation to Repentance.

Reaction by the Murderer's Employees: Exhortation to repentance.

We could go on and on with other examples. The point of these examples would simply be to show that each sphere of authority generally can react to any given sin. That reaction may be different in one sphere of authority or another. Thus, the fact that the state is going to execute the death penalty for murder does not preclude the church from acting to discipline the man, perhaps even excommunicating him if the circumstances warrant. Likewise, a father need not remain silent when his son does something wrong, but can condemn him for his sin and exhort him to repentance.

In some spheres, the ability to exhort to repentance may be limited: for example, one may be able to exhort one's employer or husband to a godly life of repentance largely through example. Nevertheless, each violation of God's law should provoke the appropriate reaction from each of the sphere's of authority.

Conclusion

Accordingly, I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Keister's contention regarding theonomy (in general - as opposed to a specific flavor of theonomy) being Biblically and/or Theologically Wrong. I must, of course, qualify that disagreement. If theonomy causes one to lose sight of the preeminent role of Jesus in the Bible, then theonomy (in that instance) is wrong. If one is so focused on the duties of the civil magistrate that one commits the opposite error from that identified above, and places all the responsibility for reacting to sin in the hands of the state, then that species of theonomy is wrong.

But a true, Biblical theonomy embraces the multiple (two, five, or however many) kingdoms and the ministers of each of those kingdoms: the father has his duties, as does the parent, the spouse, the employer/employee, the elder/deacon/layman, and the king/subject. One does not trump the other, and one does not usurp or supplant the other. The King must be honored, so must the master, the father, the husband, and the elder. Each is to be honored and obeyed and each has certain responsibilities. God has given these spheres of authority, and each should be governed according to the word and law of God, as revealed both in Nature and Conscience but also in Scripture.

-TurretinFan

Homosexuality and Ethiopia

It is reported that religious leaders in Ethiopia are pushing for a constitutional ban on homosexuality (link). While it is great that a nation would condemn sin, governmental action is not enough. The church needs to be active in preaching the true Gospel of repentance and faith in Christ. While the government does have a role in restraining sin, the primary responsibility for transforming the heart of the nation, so that sins like homosexuality will continue to be detestable, is on the ministers of God.

May God give Ethiopia greater reformation of its Christianity,

-TurretinFan

Response to Anonymous Diatribe against Theonomy

Some anonymous person wrote the following diatribe. It's worth reviewing it, since the spirit behind the diatribe walks to and fro and up and down in the Earth, ensuring that this won't be the last time we hear these sorts of things:

theonomists believe in following the OLD LAW rather than the NEW TESTAMENT, and in murdering blasphemers, heretics, idolators [sic]. And yes, its murder, because the New Testament has removed any and all religious authority for this type of action. "Let him that is without sin cast the first stone" condemns all theonomists to hell. Now, TF says he wouldn't kill someone for wearing wool and linen together.....but that's only because the American government won't let him, not because he doesn't want to. Admit it, TF, just like all your buddy theonomists you wish that Calvinists were in control of the government so they could flay Hindus alive, bore the tongues of Arminians through with hot irons, crucify Roman Catholics, and burn people at the stake for "breaking the sabbath" or wearing wool and linen together. Just admit it. Any theonomist is an extreme theonomist, because the New Testament nowhere tells Christians to take control of the government and punish people for not being Christian. Calvinists just love to persecute, however, and convert by threat of death or injury, because they are Judaizing scum on the worst sort.

First of all, it should be clear that I don't endorse anything that this anonymous person (who sounds more or less like Beowulf2k8) has to say. We'll call this poster just "the Accuser" for short. Let's pick apart his rant, piece by piece, expose it to the light of truth, and watch it dematerialize.

Accuser's Accusation: "theonomists believe in following the OLD LAW rather than the NEW TESTAMENT, and in murdering blasphemers, heretics, idolators [sic]."

Answer:
a) One God gave both testaments. There's not a disunity between them. They are two edges of the same sword of the spirit.
b) Blasphemers are worthy of death, according to the law of God. A civil government that executes them (or murderers, or anyone else worthy of death) is not "murdering" them. If the Accuser has a problem with that, he needs to take it up with God, under whose law blasphemers were put to death.
c) Heretics and idolaters, as such, were not subject to capital punishment under the law of Israel. So, one would not expect theonomists to support capital punishment of such folks. A civil government that kills people simply for being heretics and/or idolaters would not seem to have any Biblical justification for their judgment.

Accuser: "And yes, its murder, because the New Testament has removed any and all religious authority for this type of action."

Answer: The Accuser is a bit vague in his accusation here. The question of whether something is "murder" or proper execution is a moral question. Questions of morality are religious questions - or at least have a significant religious aspect. If it was just under the Old Testament law (and it was) for someone to be stoned to death, one wonders whether the accuser imagines that justice itself changed.

Accuser: "'Let him that is without sin cast the first stone' condemns all theonomists to hell."

Answer:
Even if we moderate the Accuser's comment to say that the phrase "contradicts the theonomists":
a) This is not a verse to which a "two kingdoms" kind of person could appeal for that kind of concept, because the punishment of death here was not for a violation of the first table of the law (crimes against God) but the second table of the law (crimes against man).
b) This is not a verse to which those fond of modern textual criticism could appeal for that kind of concept, because most modern textual critics deny the originality of this passage, since it does not appear in the earliest manuscripts that we have today.
c) This is not a verse to which any person who believes that crimes should be punished (but only that capital punishment is out) can appeal to for that kind of concept, because Jesus does not fine the woman, or sentence her to life in prison, but simply lets her go free.
d) This is not a verse to which any person that values consistency of Scripture could appeal to for that kind of concept, because Paul clearly states:
Romans 13:3-4
3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
e) So who could appeal to this kind of verse for that concept? Someone who has only a cursory understanding of the Scriptures and/or someone who wishes to justify his conclusion ex post facto. There are a thousand better ways to understand the comment, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her," than to view it as a condemnation of capital punishment.

Accuser: "Now, TF says he wouldn't kill someone for wearing wool and linen together.....but that's only because the American government won't let him, not because he doesn't want to."

Answer:
a) Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11 both proscribe (forbid) garments made from a mixture of wool and linen. There is not, however, any sentence of death proclaimed on people who violate this law. In fact, the law of Moses doesn't indicate any punishment for violation of this law.
b) The prohibition on garments of mixed fibres was a ceremonial law pointing to separation and physical purity. It was fulfilled in Christ, who was free from impurities.
c) I am in favor of the death penalty, for example, for rape of a married woman, although "the American government won't let" the state governments execute this just punishment for that particular form of the general category of adultery. I do not suggest that Christians should take the law into their own hand in this matter, or the matter of punishment for murder. In short, my position with respect to what is just is framed by the Word of God, not the opinion of the American (or any other) government. If I thought people should be sentenced to death for wearing garments of diverse sorts, I'd just say so.

Accuser: "Admit it, TF, just like all your buddy theonomists you wish that Calvinists were in control of the government so they could flay Hindus alive, bore the tongues of Arminians through with hot irons, crucify Roman Catholics, and burn people at the stake for "breaking the sabbath" or wearing wool and linen together. Just admit it."

Answer: See above. I don't have any problem speaking clearly. I have elsewhere identified what the Old Testament laws were that carried the penalty of death. Simply being a Hindu (pagan) or Romanist (heretic) would not qualify. Wearing mixed garments clearly wouldn't qualify. Breaking the sabbath would qualify as a capital crime. Torture (such as burning holes in people's tongues - even those of "Arminians" who Arminius would not recognize as his followers) is not part of the Mosaic administration of justice.

Accuser: "Any theonomist is an extreme theonomist, because the New Testament nowhere tells Christians to take control of the government and punish people for not being Christian."

Answer:
a) Christians are not commanded to try to "take control of the government."
b) I certainly don't, and I think most theonomists would agree, think that people should be punished "for not being Christian."

Accuser: "Calvinists just love to persecute, however, and convert by threat of death or injury, because they are Judaizing scum on the worst sort."

Answer:
a) Calvinists, in general and especially these days, are not necessarily theonomists. Furthermore, even among Christian theonomists, I've never seen a love of persecution.
b) Calvinists deny the possibility of conversion through threat of death or injury. Unlike Arminians, who imagine that conversion is simply a decision of man, Calvinists believe that it is grace (not the sword) that converts.
d) Conversely, one could deny TULIP and be an Arminian or Amyraldian theonomist. I cannot think of any off hand. There are, however, Federal Visionists (I would not consider them to be Calvinists, because of at least a formal rejection of the "P" in TULIP) who also appear to be theonomists of some kind.

-TurretinFan

The Old Testament Law - Tripartite Analysis

To provide some background for discussion of the law of God, it is important to understand the categories involved:

Categories

The law of God in the Old Testament is of three kinds:

1. Moral

Moral law, because it reflects the character of God, is enduring and immutable. It never was and it never will be permissible to worship any god but God, it never was and never will be permissible to worship God other ways than He ordains, it never was and never will be permissible to dishonor God's name, it never was and never will be permissible to appropriate all seven days of the week for our work, it never was and never will be permissible to dishonor the authorities over us, to kill, to steal, to lie, to covet, and so forth. In short, it is always the case (for all history) that we must love the Lord our God wholeheartedly and love our neighbor as we love ourselves.

2. Ceremonial

Under the Adamaic, Noahic, Abramic, Mosaic, and Solomonic administrations of the covenant of grace, the worship of God was manifested in certain outward ceremonies that were designed to point to Christ. Eminent among these ceremonies were the rite of animal sacrifice, the practice of tabernacle and later temple worship, and in some cases a specialized priesthood. These things all have been fulfilled in Christ, the one true and perfect sacrifice. He is our high priest and his sacrificial work is finished. Consequently there is no more sacrifice and no more priestly class among us. There were other associated ceremonies as well, such as dietary laws and laws related to physical cleanliness as a picture of spiritual cleanliness. All these ceremonial laws, being fulfilled in Christ, have been done away.

3. Civil / Judicial / Juridical

This third category of laws were the laws specific to the Mosaic administration of the nation of Israel. They are the laws by which the country was run. They are not binding on all humanity. Nevertheless, they are important as to their "general equity," by which I mean that they show to us a just system of government. There are moral aspects of the civil law of Israel, and these moral aspects remain significant. There were circumstantial aspects, and these aspects necessarily vary under different circumstances. Finally, there were ceremonial aspects, and these aspects have been fulfilled or supplanted in the New Testament.

Errors Distinguished

There are four major (and numerous minor) errors that arise from holding to expired portions of the law (Judaizers and "Extreme" Theonomists) or to disposing of still-relevant portions of the law ("Extreme" Two-Kingdomists and "Extreme" Dispensationalists / Antinomians).

1. Judaiziers

Judaizers seek to impose part (or perhaps all) of the ceremonial law on Christians. Thus, for example, the Judaizers argue that it is necessary for Christians to be circumcised.

2. "Extreme" Theonomists

The term "theonomist" has a wide range of meanings. In some cases, folks who call themselves "theonomists" will insist that virtually all and every detail of the Mosaic law with respect to the Nation of Israel must be followed. The problem with this approach is that it overlooks the fact that the Mosaic law was tailored to two particular forms of government and accompanied a nation-state that has ceased to be.

3. "Extreme" Two-Kingdomists

I am using the term "extreme" here because I'm not sure all "two-kingdom" folks would say this description applies to them. In some cases, it appears that "two-kingdoms" folk treat the civil law of Israel as though it were entirely ceremonial. Thus, these folks say that the civil law is essentially done-away-with and consequently for instruction on how governments should be just, we must appeal exclusively to "natural law," the light provided by God in general revelation.

4. "Extreme" Dispensationalists / Anti-Nominians

"Extreme" Dispensationalists and also Anti-Nominians take the view that all the laws of the Old Testament are done away with, including the moral law. This error arises from a failure to understand the nature of the moral law, and the relation of God to the law of God. God does not change, and consequently the definition of morality does not change.

Conclusion

The issue of God's law is not a simple one to be handled carelessly or callously. We must be careful to observe to do all that God has commanded us, and yet we need to be careful not to bind men's consciences beyond what the Word of God states. Excess in the first regard leads to legalism, excess in the second regard leads to antinomianism. There is one way to see the path to stay on it, without going either to the left or to the right: that one way is by careful attention to the Word of God in the Holy Scriptures.

-TurretinFan

What If Natural Law Teaches Theonomy?

Let's grant, for the sake of the argument, some of the apparent theses of the "Two Kingdoms" folks, and assent to the idea of "natural law" as being the normative principle for civil governments. What if, just as the light of nature points us to find the revelation from God and read it in things spiritual, so also the light of nature points us to find the revelation from God and read it in the moral aspects of civil law?

Is it possible that natural law leads to theonomy?

-TurrertinFan

P.S. I want to be very clear: I hold to the tri-partite division of Old Testament law: the moral law is constant, the civil law is abrogated but relevant as to its general equity, and the ceremonial law is fulfilled in Christ. This is the "Confessional" position and different from the novel position espoused, it seems, among "two kingdoms" folks that the civil law was essentially ceremonial and consequently fulfilled in Christ.

Part of the Problem of the Label "Theonomy"

For example, I tend to call myself a "theonomist," and yet I reject (for the reasons mentioned in the article) the "theonomy" described in this excellent article (link) by Pastor Sherman Isbell.

UPDATE: (New Link)

-TurretinFan

R. Scott Clark on Theonomy and the Reformed Confessions

R. Scott Clark has a piece that, from its absurd opening, I at first thought was intended as a humorous article (link).

RSC writes, "One of the more interesting ways in which theonomy is contra confessional is its Barthian-like rejection of the classic Reformed doctrine of natural law and implicitly it’s skepticism regarding natural revelation."

I. The Evidence
Let's explore this claim, using the WCF as approved by the PCA. Nature as a revelatory source is mentioned exactly five times in the WCF.

1) I:1

1. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manner, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.

2) I:6

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

3) XX:4

And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account.

4) XXI:1

The light of nature sheweth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.

5) XXI:7

As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.

II. The Analysis
1) Of the five instances, all are fully acceptable to "theonomists," at least in the broad sense of the term "theonomist" (which itself is a problem with RSC's post).
2) Of the five instances, three (numbers (1), (4), and (5)) are fully supportive of the theonomist position that (where it speaks) Scripture is more clear than nature.
3) Of the remaining two instances:
i) The first (number (2)) assigns to the "light of nature" a role in determining the circumstances of worship. If this contradicts theonomy, then it also (and even more clearly - since the section is on the law of worship, not of nations and societies) contradicts the Regulative Principle of Worship. But, however, such a conclusion is absurd. Therefore, the premise that this contradicts theonomy is false. In fact, a better interpretation is to suggest that "light of nature" in this section means that we use "common sense" to govern the circumstances of worship.
ii) The second (number (3)) is negative: it prohibits people from using the pretense of Christian liberty to publish opinions that are contrary to the light of nature. If the meaning of the "light of nature" is roughly the same here as in the other sections, i.e. essentially "common sense," then there is nothing unacceptable to the theonomist here either. Furthermore, this does not relate specifically to the law of nations (to civil law), but to the moral law.

***

A second claim by RSC: "For the divines, as for Calvin, civil government is one thing, salvation is another. Theonomists confuse these two things far too often." This sounds absurd. RSC unfortunately fails to provide any examples to substantiate his over-the-top claim.

***

A third claim by RSC: "Unlike our theonomists, the divines believed that there is a natural law, that it can be and is known, that it contains specific precepts that are revealed with sufficiently clarity to be applied, even by the unregenerate, to specific instances." If, for the sake of the argument, we grant this assertion, that kind of claim is not embodied in the confessions. Instead, quite the opposite. The Confession clearly contrasts the general (it even uses the term "in general" in instance 5 above), vague light of nature with the clear light of Scripture.

Given that the confession appears to contradict RSC's claim that "natural law ... contains specific precepts that are revealed with sufficient clarity to be applied ... to specific instances," and given that the light of nature itself reveals that nature's light provides general principles rather than specific precepts, we can properly reject this RSC's claim.

Furthermore, even if it were not the case that the confession outright contradicts RSC's claim and even if the light of nature did not undermine RSC's "specific precept" assertion, still RSC's indictment would not address theonomy. Why? Because theonomy simply maintains the Reformation hermeneutic that the less clear should be interpreted by the more clear. Scripture is more clear than nature, as it itself teaches and the confession (following Scripture) clearly indicates.

Therefore, I would respectfully call on RSC to revise his posting against "theonomists," or perhaps come up with a new title for those who
a) confuse civil government and salvation (unlike any "theonomists" I know);
b) refuse to accord the light of nature a revelatory role (unlike any "theonomists" I know); or
c) argue that the light of nature is a non-existent thing (unlike any "theonomists" I know).

Or perhaps RSC meant his post as a joke, in which case the pie is on my face for getting at first and then falling for his very out of season April Fools' Joke.

-TurretinFan

UPDATE: From his comment box, RSC adds this sentiment: "I don’t write these posts to convince the invincible theonomists but to provide help to those who know that theonomy is wrong but who are unaware of the alternative offered by an adaptation of the historic Reformed theory of natural law." That's an interesting thought, don't you think?

Death Penalty for Idolatry?

Lane Keister, at GreenBaggins has posed a question:

I know that I have at least two theonomists who regularly read my blog, and so this is a question addressed to them. The sin of idolatry, in the Old Testament, was punishable by death. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Buddhists, Hindus, and many other religions practice idolatry. One can even make the case that Muslims and Jews are idolaters, since they do not worship Jesus Christ as God.

America was founded on a principle of liberty of religion. The issues get complicated in a hurry, of course, but my question is this: if Christian Reconstruction were to win out in America, does that mean that the members of these other religions should be executed? Or is the principle of death for idolatry changed in the NT, according to theonomists?

I answer:
a) I'm not sure if Lane had me in mind - in fact I wouldn't flatter myself to suppose he had thought of me. Nevertheless, since I self-identify as a theonomist, and since I regularly read his blog, I'll take up his question.
b) Lane states, "The sin of idolatry, in the Old Testament, was punishable by death." I had previously (link) discussed the issue of how we know justice. Also, I had previously (link) addressed the issue of what crimes in the Old Testament were subject to capital punishment. I didn't come across the death sentence for idolatry, as such. I wonder if Lane could point me to it.
c) Lane states, "Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Buddhists, Hindus, and many other religions practice idolatry." In order to discover whether this is the case, we'd need to see the specific prohibition on idolatry accompanied by the death penalty that Lane has found. Once we see it, we can confirm or deny this claim. I was a bit surprised that Lane omitted Romanists from his list, but perhaps it was just an oversight.
d) Lane states, "One can even make the case that Muslims and Jews are idolaters, since they do not worship Jesus Christ as God." Muslims and at least traditional Jews are (like Christians) aniconic in their religion: they do not make graven images or likenesses of their god. Thus, they would not be guilty of idolatry within the proper sense of the term. However, perhaps the passage Lane has in mind that prescribes death for idolatry uses the broad sense.
e) Lane states, "America was founded on a principle of liberty of religion." No, it wasn't. Rhode Island was, but not "America." I'm not sure it makes a world of difference, though, to the theonomic question.
f) Lane asks, "The issues get complicated in a hurry, of course, but my question is this: if Christian Reconstruction were to win out in America, does that mean that the members of these other religions should be executed?" Of course, while I consider myself a theonomist, I don't consider myself a reconstructionist. The answer, unless there is Biblical mandate that I have overlooked, would be no. There was a special genocidal command to the Israelites to destroy the nations of Canaan, but that was (i) a specific judgment on the Canaanites and (ii) a means to fulfilling a land promise to Abraham that is fulfilled for us in heaven. If that is all Lane has in mind, then the answer would be a resounding, "no."
g) Lane asks, "Or is the principle of death for idolatry changed in the NT, according to theonomists?" I guess this would depend on the specific command, which apparently I have overlooked. Once Lane points it out, I'll update.

-TurretinFan

Natural Law, Theonomy, and Homosexual Marriage

R. Scott Clark has an interesting blog post up on the issue of Homosexual Marriage (link). RSC approaches the issue from the standpoint of "two kingdoms theology," a viewpoint that I'm not sure I can fully embrace. Instead, I tend to self-identify with "theonomy" (a term that's perhaps even more liable to confusion than "two kingdoms theology"). Accordingly, I've prepared some thoughts on the issue in parallel to those of RSC, but with an emphasis on the civil law of Israel.

Issue: how, from a “theonomic” perspective one should think about the question of whether the state should sanction homosexual marriage? Beyond the ambiguity over what constitutes "theonomic," there's some ambiguity in the question, since "sanction" can mean either "approve" or "enforce a penalty against." Thus, we'll consider the issue as broadly as possible.

1. Explicit Old Testament Law
A. The Old Testament specifically condemns homosexual behavior:

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

B. The Old Testament also specifically prescribes the death penalty to both parties to a homosexual act:

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

2. New Testament Light

A. The New Testament confirms that the disapprobation of homosexual behavior was not merely a matter of ceremony:

1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

1 Timothy 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

B. The New Testament also draws an equivalence between Male and Female homosexuality:

Romans 1:26-27 and 32
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

3. Resolution of the Issue

Therefore, the most fitting rule for the King to implement is not only to prohibit so-called homosexual marriages from recognition as marriage, but also to punish capitally those who engage in these abominable practices.

4. Objections Answered

A. It may be objected: "The moral law of God has been revealed in creation and re-stated, in the context of the national covenant with Israel. For the purposes of deciding deciding post-theocratic civil questions, the national covenant having been fulfilled by Christ and thus having expired and having been abrogated, it is proper to appeal to the natural revelation of the moral law in creation." (source, R. Scott Clark)

We answer: that although the national laws of Israel are expired and abrogated, and though the ceremonial aspects of the national laws of Israel are fulfilled in Christ, the moral aspects of the national laws of Israel remain. As demonstrated above, the prohibition on homosexual behavior is a matter of moral law, not mere ceremony. Furthermore, where the moral law is explicit, there is no need to appeal to the natural revelation of the moral law in creation, since it is not proper to interpret the more clear by the less clear. We acknowledge, however, that general revelation is from God, and that consequently - in principle - natural law, as derived from general revelation, is not rendered completely illegitimate, simply because it is not completely clear.

Furthermore, even examining such a scholarly source as R. Scott Clark, we cannot find a very rigorous argument from natural law alone (i.e. without recourse to special revelation) to determine what path should be taken.

B. It may be objected, that "Some scholars however, e.g. John Boswell, have argued over the last twenty-five years that earlier periods in church history were more approving of homosexuality than once thought." (noted by RSC with disapproval)

We answer: since our rule of faith does not depend on the customs of men, we do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the historical battle over whether previous generations of Christians were more or less approving of homosexuality.

We note, however, that if we are to return to the apostolic and Old Testament periods of church history, the clear evidence is severe condemnation.

C. It may be objected, that "in contrast to our own times, most of the ancient Christian writers were not, by contemporary standards, very explicit about homosexual behavior. Doubtless some will attempt to capitalize on the rhetorical restraint of earlier times as a sort of tacit approval of homosexuality." (noted by RSC with disapproval)

We answer: again, for the same reasons as above, we do not have a vested interest in this historical battle. We note, however, that a reasonable alternative explanation for such guarded language among the ancients is shame because of recognition of the sinfulness of the acts:

Ephesians 5:12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

D. It may be objected, that "Romans 1:27 indicates that those engaging in homosexual activity were 'receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.'"

We answer: it seems most natural to view this phrase as referring not to the reception of the reward for the error of homosexual behavior, but for the error of worshiping the creature more than the Creator. There are several reasons to believe that this reading is more natural and the proper reading:

1) the point of the passage is to emphasize that God is punishing the wicked for sins against himself; and
2) in general, in the passage a system of punishments are laid out for us:
vss. 20-21 punishment for refusing to act on the obvious knowledge of God = darkening of the mind
- further impact: vs. 22-23 punishment for claiming to be wise = that they become fools
-- yet further impact: vs. 24 - punishment for dishonoring God by images = that their own bodies are dishonored among themselves
--- still further impact: vss. 25-27 - punishment for worshiping the opposite of what they should = that their bodies' lusts are unnaturally reversed
- parallel impact vss. 28-32 - punishment for being unmindful of God = a reprobate mind.

Nevertheless, even if the point of vs. 27 is merely to identify the impact of homosexuality, and even further assuming that the impact is simply the laws of nature (sexually transmitted diseases and so forth, as opposed to execution by the King) being applied to homosexual acts, we would not therefore conclude that the King is forbidden to impose a prohibition on the wicked acts of men, since among the list of things resulting from a reprobate mind are murder, which the King must not tolerate.

-TurretinFan

Just Criminal Laws

How can we determine whether a penalty is just, excessively lax, or excessively severe? Considered Biblically, such a question falls into the theological category of "theonomy" - a term that sets off all sorts of red flags in folks' minds these days. As one who adheres to Sola Scriptura as expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, I can think of two options to answer the question:

1) Special Revelation (which at the present time is limited to the Bible, though that was not always the case); and

2) General Revelation.

The light provided by special revelation on this issue is often quite clear: the just punishment for murder is death, for example (Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.).FN! Other times, the light is less clear - is the punishment for theft in the Mosaic economy the only just punishment or simply one just punishment out of several or perhaps the just punishment in that particular culture?

The light provided by general revelation is even less clear. Men's consciences are generally bothered by the idea of putting a simple thief (one who steals to feed his family) to death for his crime, and men are generally pricked in their conscience that it would not be proper to permit a rapist to escape with a fine amounting to less than the price of a postage stamp.

Nevertheless, we interpret the less clear by the more clear.

This is all old news, at least to me. Recently, however, I came across a most peculiar argument, and one that I thought I should address (argument by Ron Henzel found here):

[You] seem to be implying that any punishment for rape other than that prescribed by Moses would be arbitrary, and that for a Christian to support it would be inconsistent. I assume you would apply this reasoning to other criminal penalties as well.

But when Paul wrote, “Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God” (Rom. 13:2), he was referring primarily to the Roman government, which had a different set of punishments than those prescribed by Moses. Even so, he referred to their authority as “the ordinance of God.”

I found this line of argument most surprising.

Certainly, the laws of the Romans were to be honored by the people of the Roman empire. That is what Paul meant. But to convert such honor into an endorsement of the justice of the laws of the Roman empire would seem bizarre to me. The only rational justification would seem to be either that there is no objective standard of justice or that God providentially provides that every human government always is just. But Scripture - at least in the case of murder - seems to insist that there is an objective standard of justice. Furthermore, Paul himself notes that at least the Corinthian government was unjust (1 Corinthians 6:1) and Jesus in Luke 18 makes reference to an unjust judge.

So it would seem that the position that Mr. Henzel has presented lacks foundation.

In fact, if I had to guess at what was going on, I'd say that Mr. Henzel was overreacting to the label "theonomy," without considering (and accounting for) the undeniable facts that:

a) Justice is objective;
b) the Mosiac law was just both in identifying crimes as such and specifically in punishing them (Heb 2:2);
c) there is no other clear standard of justice; and
d) although Christians are to honor the king, that does not mean calling the unjust just, for we should be like the Proverbs 8:7 person: "For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips."

Zechariah the prophet declared the following, which I think applies not only to Jerusalem of his day, but also to Christian democracies (and democratic republics):

Zechariah 8:15-17
15So again have I thought in these days to do well unto Jerusalem and to the house of Judah: fear ye not. 16These are the things that ye shall do; Speak ye every man the truth to his neighbour; execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates: 17And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate, saith the LORD.

-TurretinFan

FN1 It is important to note that capital punishment for murder preceded the Mosaic economy, and consequently cannot reasonably be thought to be a law that was intended to be limited to the Jewish nation.

The Real Turretin on: The Duty of the King Toward Religion

JetBrane at Iron Ink has provide a quotation from the real Francis Turretin on the subject of the duty of the Christian magistrate. (link) JetBrane goes on to make an application to the so-called R2KT (Radical Two-Kingdom Theology) viewpoint. Without getting embroiled (for now) with that topic, I can of course commend Turretin's comments as an interest read.

-TurretinFan

No, He Did Not

According to this article (link), a man followed every rule in the Bible for a year.

No. He did not.

Only Christ ever followed every rule in the Bible for a year. What the man in the article did is mock every rule in the Bible for a year.

While a few men have been scrupulous in their observence of the ceremonial law of the Old Testament (Saul of Tarsus being the prime example), ALL have sinned (including Christ's mother) and come short of the glory of God. Christ alone is sinlessly perfect.

-Turretinfan