Wednesday, November 05, 2014

Matthew 5, divorce and adultery, and the "abiding validity of the Law in exhaustive detail"

Theonomy is the belief that God's Law (which includes the Mosaic Civil Law) has an "abiding validity" in "exhaustive detail." With the impression given of a total reenactment of the Mosaic law-code in today's society, it is not surprising that there is a lot of resistance to the idea, conjuring up images of the Inquisition for example. Now, whether theonomy actually leads to the notion of holy wars is an interesting discussion to have, but for now I would like to look at an argument its foremost proponent, Greg Bahnsen, offered against a critique of theonomy.

In his book Theonomy in Christian Ethics, Bahnsen attempts to put forward his case for theonomy. In dealing with the Sermon on the Mount, Bahnsen notes the argument is offered (against theonomy) that Jesus did away with the punishment of adultery as "prescribed in the Old Testament" (p. 111), thus theonomy, which states that the Mosaic Civil Law continues on in "exhaustive detail," is false. In response, Bahnsen replied that Matthew 5:32 deals with "divorce and its proper ground, not adultery and its proper punishment" (p. 111. Emhasis original). In other word, Bahnsen asserts that nothing is said here in Matthew 5:32 about the punishment for adultery, and therefore one cannot claim hat Jesus did not hold to the death penalty prescribed for adultery in the OT.

Now, on the surface this sounds true. Surely Jesus was focusing on the sin of divorce, and the part about adultery, or rather the broader category of sexual immorality, is the exception clause to his main point. Yet, if we put more thought into it, the argument doesn't seem to hold up.

The OT punishment for adultery is death, with the exception of consensual sleeping with a virgin which then leads to forced marriage (Ex. 22:16). Once the adulterer is stoned to death, the remaining spouse by definition becomes a widow/ widower, and is thus able to remarry. Therefore, if Jesus held to the "abiding validity of the Law in exhaustive detail," then the exception clause becomes just another way to describe the normative situation when the adulterer is dead. How is that an exception clause at all, since everyone acknowledges that remarriage after one's spouse is dead is permissible?

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 deals with divorce because a man found "some indecency" in his wife. Whatever the "indecency" refers to, it cannot be adultery since adulterers are to be stoned, not just divorced. Putting the Deuteronomy passage besides Jesus' teaching on divorce suggest dissimilarities between them. The most that can be suggested is that the "indecent thing" (עֶרְוַ֣ת דָּבָ֔ר ; LXX ἄσχημον) is a broader category of which sexual immorality (πορνεια) is a subset, for the one divorced in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is not an adulterer. The Mosaic code therefore suggests that divorce is permissible for other things than adultery, which is clearly not what Jesus taught in Matthew 5:31-2. Regardless of how one reads the exception clause, one thing that we can agree is that the exception clause gives at most one basis for divorce, that of adultery or sexual immorality. Finding an "indecent thing" does not seem to be an acceptable reason for divorce according to Jesus, whereby it was under the Mosaic code.

So yes, Bahnsen is right that the text deals with "divorce and its proper grounds," not "adultery and its proper punishment." Yet, we have shown that (1) the Mosaic grounds is broader than Jesus' grounds, and (2) the exception clause makes no sense if we assume the penal sanctions of the Mosaic code. A text does not have the topic of importance as its main theme in order to say something about the topic, and we have seen how Jesus' words actually shows dissimilarity with the Mosaic code on the issues of divorce and adultery.

Bahnsen's main thesis is that God's Law, as seen especially in the Mosaic code, has abiding validity in exhaustive detail." It is however seen here that at least on this topic, the details do not have abiding validity, and therefore theonomy is wrong at least with respects to this particular topic.

45 comments:

Gregory S. Gill said...

I still do believe that the death penalty is still the biblical punishment for adultery for governments that is going to operate correctly by the bible. The context of Matthew 5:32, etc. was under a government that was not operating according to the bible. Instead of killing adulterers it granted divorce, and thus in such a context divorce as Jesus showed is to be accepted by the saints.
Just like jail until the saints can biblically change things in their community we just have to accept the jail system.

PuritanReformed said...

Yet Jesus did not have any qualms about forgiving the woman caught in adultery. And before you begin, it matters little whether it was meant to be at the beginning of Jn. 8 or not.

Gregory S. Gill said...

James White, in his book "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?", and on his program as well has shown "the woman caught in adultery" passage was added to scripture, that is not original. Philip W. Comfort, also shows the same thing in his book "New Testament Text and Translation Commentary".
Don't get me wrong I do think a very strong case can be made for your view in your article. Its just that for me this is the side I come down on (at least for now). I have no problem with your view in your article nevertheless for the most part I think Theonomy is very correct, very biblical.

PuritanReformed said...

Yes, I was thinking of posting concerning that, but it slipped my mind.

That it is not original does not hurt my case. At best, it shows us a legend that some in the early church held to, and thus it gives an understanding of how they understood Jesus' teaching concerning sin, law and grace.

But if you wish another example, how about the man engaging in an incestuous relationship with his stepmother in the Corinthian church? I don't see Paul asking the Corinthian church to stone him to death, just excommunicate him.

Gregory S. Gill said...

Concerning the incest case the most Paul could of done is only to recommend excommunication as it is the government that bear the sword not the church, Romans 13. And to the best of my knowledge the Roman government never executed people for incest.

PuritanReformed said...

Actually, according to theonomy, the Church is to petition the government to enforce God's laws, the "OT laws in exhaustive detail." It is not true that that is all Paul could do. He should have asked the Corinthian Church to petition the local government to execute the erring brother.

That Paul didn't do so speaks a lot about what Paul thought about the idea of the "abiding validity of the Law in exhaustive detail."

Gregory S. Gill said...

I don't see the church in the NT at all petitioning the state the punishing evil doers as defined by the bible, and praising those who do good as defined by the bible. Yet that is what the government is suppose to do according to Romans 13.

The Roman government cared nothing about the bible, and they were against executing people for incest, etc. that the bible prescribed the death penalty for. So it would of been useless if not very dangerous for the church to petition that ungodly, antichristian government to apply biblical principles. That government which was oppressing and persecuting the church.

What I see going on is the NT church spreading the gospel and in God's time let God via the power of gospel change the society from top down and vice versa for Jesus.

Even Daniel (as far as where the bible record tells us) while he was in Babylon wasn't petitioning the government to obey the bible, yet God destroy them for not obeying His word. The same with the Canaanites God destroy them for not obeying His word. But Jonah had success. Remember Proverbs 3:5; 14:34, Psalm 9:17, 1 Corinthians 4:6 "..."Do not go beyond what is written..."

Gregory S. Gill said...

In considering Proverbs 3:5; 14:34, Psalm 9:17, 1 Corinthians 4:6 "..."Do not go beyond what is written..." Then without the bible's instructions on how criminals are to be punished, and what is to be punished, how would we know what activities are crimes, and how the criminals are to be punished?

PuritanReformed said...

Theonomy is all about claiming that government ought to enforce the dictates of God's Law which is found in the Mosaic Code. Practically, it translates to social and political involvement, which involves petitioning government to obey God's law.

The American government today is just as wicked and immoral as the Roman Empire, so if petitioning cannot be done because of how immoral the Roman Empire was, then Christians in America should not be petitioning their politicians on everything from abortion to "same sex marriage" to whatever other issues they might be concerned about. So why should American Christians be involved since the government is hell bent on its own godless agenda?

As for punishments, there is this thing called "wisdom," written about in books such as Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

Gregory S. Gill said...

In my second post I said "... for the most part I think Theonomy is very correct, very biblical." I didn't say that they were 100% correct on everything.

I don't see for the most part the saints petitioning gentile ungodly leaders who cared nothing about the bible, to obey and apply the bible. The cases of the prophets to the ungodly kings of Israel and Judah, Jonah, John the baptist, Peter, and Paul before the rulers show nothing is wrong if the saints choose to do such. As a matter-of-fact thinking about it we ought to tell all to repent and obey the word of God.

As far as where all wisdom and knowledge are concerned wisdom and knowledge only come from the bible by the Holy Spirit, Ps.119, 111:10, Proverbs 1:7, 9:10, 111:10, Colossians 2:3, 2 Timothy 3:16-17. So why don't that wisdom and knowledge tell me that applying the God given punishments to crimes as found in the bible is still not the way to go today? I have to conclude logically and biblically that it still is the case today. Or else the questions still stands (as they are still unanswered), in considering Proverbs 3:5; 14:34, Psalm 9:17, 1 Corinthians 4:6 "..."Do not go beyond what is written..." Then without the bible's instructions on how criminals are to be punished, and what is to be punished, how would we know what or which activities are to be crimes, those that are to be decriminalized (if any at all), and those that are to be legal? And how the criminals are to be punished? What are supposed to be the punishments, penalties, or fines of those activities that are to be decriminalized (if any at all)? And where there are disagreements how do we know who is correct from who is wrong? Or how are we to know if all are wrong? For while all disagreements can't be correct, all can be wrong. So how exactly are we to know if we are not going to limit ourselves to the bible only?

Gregory S. Gill said...

I also should of asked you in the post that I sent just before this one, if we don't limit ourselves to the bible only for wisdom and knowledge, then how would we know know that what we consider to be right, correct, and proper today will not be shown to be the complete opposite tomorrow? And what is considered to be right, correct, and proper tomorrow will not shown to be the complete opposite the next day, and so on, and so on?

Without limiting ourselves the bible only for wisdom and knowledge, how can we avoid operating on a pure, 100% trial and error basis which at best is the most expensive, inefficient, ineffective, and dangerous way to go?

Gregory S. Gill said...

Another question I would love to ask is what is the purpose of government? And from where do you get your answer to the question?

PuritanReformed said...

@Greg,

the problem is that you are confusing wisdom that is based upon Scripture as foundation, with the idea of propositions explicitly deduced from Scripture. The former is not the latter, whereas you confuse the two.

Yes, wisdom is from Scripture. We know the rights and responsibilities of government according to Scripture. Does this solve everything? NO! That's the point. Scripture provides guidelines, but it is not a law book for modern times.

Gregory S. Gill said...

How do you know scripture "is not a law book for modern times"?

Gregory S. Gill said...

What are "the rights and responsibilities of government according to Scripture"?

PuritanReformed said...

How do I know that Scripture is not a cooking book for modern times? Simple, because the focus of Scripture is on Christ's plan of redemption in history.

How do I know that Scripture is not a law book for modern times?
Ditto.

Brandon said...

Have either of you considered the parable of the wheat and the tares as clear refutation of theonomy?

PuritanReformed said...

@Brandon,

I doubt it. Theonomy does not depend on whether one takes a postmillennial eschatology or not, although it is ideally suited for postmillennialism

Gregory S. Gill said...

+PuritanReformed...Simply trying to make an association don't prove anything. In logic there is something call a 'false association'.

How the bible not been "a cooking book for modern times" also speaks to the bible not been "a law book for modern times"? How do you know that "the focus of Scripture is on Christ's plan of redemption in history" does not include making the bible "a law book for modern times" as part of God's redemption plan?

I see laws, punishments, etc. stated by God in the bible, not cooking recipes. I see in the bible "the nation that forget God will be turned into hell" Psalm 9:17, "righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a reproach to any people", and in Romans 13 government officials are called ministers of God, and so on. I don't see righteousness exalts cooking, or cooks are called ministers of God, etc. So we a talking different categories here between the running of nations, and cooking. The bible has much to say about the running of nations, laws, punishments, etc. but nothing about recipes for it to also be "a cooking book for modern times".

+Brandon..."The parable of the wheat and the tares" is not about theonomy but about God having a set time for the return of Jesus, and that He has predestine certain people up to that time to be saved. If God's servants (maybe they are His angels) were to separate the human race before Jesus comes back into wheat and tares, they would have to do it on the basis as to who is saved (the wheat) and not saved (the tares). The problem with that is this the wheat is really the elect of God for salvation, and the tares are the nonelect of God. In real time the unsaved elect of God, and the unsaved nonelect both look alike except to God only. So for His servants to be separating for Hell and Heaven wheat from tares based on who is saved from who is not saved before Jesus comes back will result in lots of errors been made. For people who Jesus died for will be ending up in Hell. It has nothing to do with theonomy.

Beside God's laws are infinitely better than man's laws. God's laws and grace are the solution for the nations proper and correct running, and they both converts the soul, Psalms. 19:7-11. While man's laws, etc. at best are part of the problem that leads to death, Proverbs 14:12, 16:25.

Gregory S. Gill said...

I'm not from the USA, and I've never been there. I'm from St. Kitts in the West Indies, and here is where I'm living all my life.

Brandon said...

Historically it was a central text in the 17th century debate over the role of the magistrate. Personally I can't see any way around the clear implication of the text that Christians are to live in a mixed society with "anti-Christians" until Christ returns, and are not allowed to try to root them out.

Brandon said...

I was surprised not to see a discussion of Matt 19:8 here. That would seem to reiterate your point.

PuritanReformed said...

@Greg:

>I see laws, punishments, etc. stated by God in the bible, not cooking recipes


Here is one cooking recipe, for the Passover lamb:

They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted on the fire; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. (Ex. 12:8 ESV)

The Lamb is to be prepared by (1) not breaking the bones but prepare whole, (2) seasoning/ marinating it with Egyptian bitter herbs, (3) roast it over a fire until it is cooked, (4) place unleavened bread at the side of the dish.


> I see in the bible "the nation that forget God will be turned into hell" Psalm 9:17, "righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a reproach to any people",


So yes, you showed me godliness exalts a nation. But do we see what those laws are supposed to look like? NO! That's the point! Any civil law you point out applies to Israel, and Israel only. Ever thought of how to implement the civil law in Deut. 17:14-20?


>The bible has much to say about the running of nations, laws, punishments, etc

Actually, the Bible has a lot to say about the running of ISRAEL. Show me one civil (not moral) law in the Bible that is addressed to the Gentiles?

PuritanReformed said...

@Brandon:

>Historically it was a central text in the 17th century debate over the role of the magistrate.

It is only relevant in the issue over religious freedom and toleration, and whether the magistrate can punish heresy. But it is only relevant for whether the magistrate should impose the civil law IF it includes imposing the same degree of punishment (i.e. death for heresy). But if I read theonomy correctly, it seems to suggest that one can be a nonbeliever, as long as one does not violate the "Christian" civil laws (i.e. no outward violation of the Sabbath, no blasphemy against God, no outwards promotion of other religions(?)). In other words, theonomy promotes external observance of some commands without forcing necessary profession of the true religion.

PuritanReformed said...

@Brandon:

>I was surprised not to see a discussion of Matt 19:8 here. That would seem to reiterate your point.

Not necessary. I did discuss Mt. 19:8 in my paper on the issue of divorce and remarriage though.

Gregory S. Gill said...

The most Ex. 12:8 ESV, tells us is what they ate not how they cooked it. How did you know they marinated it? Meat don't have to be marinated? Base on the passage was the bitter herbs on the meat or eaten separate to the meat? What was the recipe of the unleavened bread? The most we know is that it did not have in leavened, but it had in it flour, and probably water we don't know anything else. What portion or ratio of flour to water to any other ingredient they used we don't know. Was it baked or cooked? For how long? How was it knead? After it was knead how long did it stay before putting it into the fire? Was the fire intense, gentle, or what? We don't know. These are data necessary for recipes so that we can know how to cook something. That and other info we don't have here for such to be considered a recipe.

How do you know the laws were for Israel only? Israel was to be the shining example to all the other nations, Deuteronomy 4:1-8, for them to follow her with her God given laws. Paul said for both Jews and Gentiles Christians we still establish God's law, Romans 3:31. We are to disciple the nations, Matthew 28:18-20

Are you seriously saying that God created and established the institution of government but didn't tell us how that institution should operate, its duties, laws, etc? Only to Israel He told such? Everybody else is to go on guessing, trial and error? Leaning on their own understanding, and doing what seems right in their own eyes where their governments are concerned? Which God created and instituted.

Gregory S. Gill said...

In light of such passages as "righteousness exalts a nation...", "the nation that forget God will be turned into hell", etc. How can righteousness be separated from obeying God's laws? Is righteousness for Jews different to that of the gentiles? If so then what is it for gentiles?

What does it mean for a nation to forget God if it does not mean for that nation to be not obeying God's laws? If it does not mean such then what does it mean?

Remember that God also destroy the gentiles, pagans, for breaking His laws. Sin is breaking God's laws, 1 John 3:4. Thus God's laws also apply to the gentile, pagan, nations for they to do sin, and are punished for it.

Brandon said...

Greg: "In real time the unsaved elect of God, and the unsaved nonelect both look alike except to God only"

That is incorrect. Please re-read the parable.

Daniel: "It is only relevant in the issue over religious freedom and toleration, and whether the magistrate can punish heresy."

Again, that is incorrect. The parable nowhere limits tares to heretics.

PuritanReformed said...

@Greg:

the recipe was for the lamb only. You claim it lacks detail, yet that level of detail the civil law of Israel does not have either. When it says stone to death, did it mention how many stones, what the size of the stones are, and whether if the person survived the stoning (e.g. Paul), whether they are to stone him again? Or how about what the "indecent thing" in Deut. 24:1-4 is? Is it something wrong with a woman's menstrual discharge, and if so what is it? Or maybe it's sensual dancing before other men? Where is the detail for that? Or how about prohibiting two kinds of seeds together (Deut. 22:9)? Does it preclude growing seeds for green grape plants with seeds for black grape plants? After all, you only grow grapes in vineyards.

As for Israel's laws, are you seriously arguing that God intends the Gentiles to know and obey what Moses received on Sinai? Where in Scriptures did the nations are said to have the law of Moses? Where are they called to question for neglecting the civil laws of Israel? Praising God because of his law in Deut. 4:1-8 does not mean that they have that same law!

As for Rom. 3 etc, that is the moral law. Can you stop conflating the categories?

>Are you seriously saying that God created and established the institution of government but didn't tell us how that institution should operate, its duties, laws, etc?

Why should God tell us everything? What are the wisdom books for if God gave us a law book applicable for all ages (which probably should be 20k pages or larger)?


>Only to Israel He told such?

No, he told Israel SPECIFIC civil laws specific for their times

>Everybody else is to go on guessing, trial and error?

When was the last time you read Proverbs and Ecclesiastes?

PuritanReformed said...

@Greg:

>How can righteousness be separated from obeying God's laws?

Who said it was separated from obeying God's laws? I said that it is not obeying Israel's civil laws; there's a difference


>Remember that God also destroy the gentiles, pagans, for breaking His laws. Sin is breaking God's laws

God's MORAL law, not Israel's civil laws.

PuritanReformed said...

@Brandon:

>Daniel: "It is only relevant in the issue over religious freedom and toleration, and whether the magistrate can punish heresy."
>
>Again, that is incorrect. The parable nowhere limits tares to heretics.

In the narrow sense, it refers to those who profess to be believers (and give no one any reason to doubt otherwise) who are nevertheless unbelievers. In the broad sense, it refers to those who profess to be Christians yet are somehow judged to be unbelievers (i.e. false believers, heretics) in society. The parable cannot refer to those overtly of other religions or no religions since the point of the parable is that the wheat and the tares look similar and are in the same field (the sphere of the Church).

Regardless, the fact is that it is inapplicable to theonomy because theonomy does not necessarily promote killing or "removing" those of other religions of false religions. Rather, as long as people externally keep the civil laws (i.e. Sabbath keeping, no blasphemy etc), they are left alone.

Gregory S. Gill said...

+PuritanReformed...I did say Ex. 12:8 ESV lack detail but that is in reference to you saying its a recipe. It doesn't have enough info to be considered a recipe. Only enough to let us know what they ate. For something to be correctly considered a recipe it will need much more info to show us how to prepare it, cook it, etc. So your questions are beside the point which I can answer as well.

>As for Israel's laws, are you seriously arguing that God intends the Gentiles to know and obey what Moses received on Sinai? Where in Scriptures did the nations are said to have the law of Moses? Where are they called to question for neglecting the civil laws of Israel?

God made it they duty to at least know the moral laws (which includes the judgements, and punishments) and to obey them. If that it not the case then why did God destroyed them for disobeying them - for breaking them?

>Praising God because of his law in Deut. 4:1-8 does not mean that they have that same law!

"Praising God because of his law in Deut. 4:1-8" and not obeying it is displeasing God, God hates such praises. Tell me how else will the pagans be blessed by God if they don't obey (at least) the (moral) laws God gave to Israel? What other law(s) are there from God for the pagans to obey God so that they will be bless by God?

>As for Rom. 3 etc, that is the moral law. Can you stop conflating the categories

But the moral law was given to the nation of Israel only yet even the pagans are responsible to obey them.

>Why should God tell us everything? What are the wisdom books for if God gave us a law book applicable for all ages...

In a certain sense the whole bible is the law of God. The law of God can mean different things in different context. The wisdom books let us know the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and its only found in the bible.

>...he told Israel SPECIFIC civil laws specific for their times

The moral laws are for all time, and for all people. The moral law consist of the commandments, statutes, and judgements.

>When was the last time you read Proverbs and Ecclesiastes?

The whole bible is sometime referred to as the law of God, sometimes its in reference to the whole OT.

>Who said it was separated from obeying God's laws? I said that it is not obeying Israel's civil laws; there's a difference

Remember God's laws weren't given to the pagans so that put your arguments in a bind. Because from your stand point since the pagans weren't given the laws they are not responsible for obeying them. Plus the moral law consist of the commandments, statutes, and judgements.

>God's MORAL law, not Israel's civil laws.

I have answered that above.

Gregory S. Gill said...

>Regardless, the fact is that it is inapplicable to theonomy because theonomy does not necessarily promote killing or "removing" those of other religions of false religions. Rather, as long as people externally keep the civil laws (i.e. Sabbath keeping, no blasphemy etc), they are left alone.

It all depends, I guess different theonomists will give you different answers to a certain extent on this point of religious practice, at least to proselytize, or to openly or publicly practice one's false religion would be to very seriously invite the death penalty biblically. But an elect of God can't die in an unsaved condition, God will make sure that will never ever happen. Remember the criminal on the cross with Jesus, and the Ethiopian eunuch as well.

PuritanReformed said...

@Greg:

>But the moral law was given to the nation of Israel only yet even the pagans are responsible to obey them.
&c

The moral law exists independently of the Mosaic law code. See Rom. 2: 14-16. So you have yet to show that the requirement of the moral law = requirement of the WHOLE Mosaic law

Gregory S. Gill said...

>The moral law exists independently of the Mosaic law code. See Rom. 2: 14-16. So you have yet to show that the requirement of the moral law = requirement of the WHOLE Mosaic law

The moral law consist of the commandments, statutes, and judgements. The moral law has different uses and its not just the commandments only, see THE THREEFOLD USE OF THE LAW
by R.C. Sproul http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul/threefold_law.html. See especially the second purpose for the law, and the third point in the Summary section in the article. The judgements for breaking the moral commandments, and statutes are moral judgements, all these make up the moral law.

I don't believe the moral law = the WHOLE Mosaic law. Thus I don't believe the requirement of the moral law = requirement of the WHOLE Mosaic law.

The whole Mosaic law is divided up into the moral law, and the ceremonial law. The moral law consist of the commandments, statutes, and their judgements. The ceremonial law consist of the ceremonial regulations and their judgements as well. So part of the civil laws are moral, and the other part is ceremonial. But the ceremonial laws are not for today only the moral. The cross brought the ceremonial laws to their end and ushered the New Covenant. If a law in the OT has not explicitly, or implicitly, directly or indirectly ended, changed or modified its still for today. The OT is the NT concealed, and the NT is the OT revealed.

Rom. 2: 14-16 clearly says the Gentiles don't have the law, and its "the work of the law written in their hearts" not the law itself. And this is so because they are created in God's image. Even then they at best imperfectly has "the work of the law written in their hearts" because of sin, their fallen nature from Adam. It was Israel that God gave the law (moral and ceremonial) to. Nevertheless God destroyed many gentiles (including nations) for going contrary to His moral law that He gave to Israel.

On "the work of the law written in their hearts" the best treatment of that passage that I have seen to date is "The Bible, Natural Theology and Natural Law: Conflict or Compromise?", by Robert A. Morey.

Gregory S. Gill said...

In relation to my last post see:

"Dr. Morey: Is Gods Law Written on Every Mans Heart? (Romans 2:14, 15)"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=We6HmE4FEI0

"Natural Theology"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEjkHkf4xoU

Gregory S. Gill said...

"Natural Theology and Natural Law"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk0v2Jv1CPs

PuritanReformed said...

@Greg:

>See especially the second purpose for the law

You're assuming that the civil use of the law IS the civil law.


>The whole Mosaic law is divided up into the moral law, and the ceremonial law. The moral law consist of the commandments, statutes, and their judgements. The ceremonial law consist of the ceremonial regulations and their judgements as well. So part of the civil laws are moral, and the other part is ceremonial.

You're assuming what you have to prove, i.e. that there is no distinct category called civil law that is not moral or ceremonial.

And no, I don't see the need to look at Rob Morey's stuff. Just summarize it for me thanks.

Brandon said...

Daniel: "The parable cannot refer to those overtly of other religions or no religions since the point of the parable is that the wheat and the tares look similar and are in the same field (the sphere of the Church)."

Again, you're misreading the text. Your paedobaptist convictions have distorted your reading of the text. Jesus is very explicit that the field is the world, not "the sphere of the Church".

PuritanReformed said...

@Brandon:

He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, (Mt. 13:24)

Note that it is a parable concerning the kingdom of heaven, which is related to the church. It is not the secular kingdom the field is compared to, but the "kingdom of heaven."

Brandon said...

you can't obfuscate what Jesus made explicit. The field is not compared to the kingdom of heaven. The field is the world, says Jesus. The kingdom of heaven exists in the field, that is, the world.

PuritanReformed said...

Just need to nuance it further. The field is the world, but the area within the field covered by the plants is the church. The church is in the world, but not the world

Gregory S. Gill said...

>You're assuming what you have to prove, i.e. that there is no distinct category called civil law that is not moral or ceremonial.

The "civil laws" (ie. the judgements which I prefer to use, and think is more accurate a term to use) either pertains to the moral commands, and statutes or the ceremonial regulations. I do not know of any "civil law" that don't pertain to any of such. If you know please to let me know.

If a person want to call the judgements civil laws then I guess that's their preference. I prefer to use judgenments.

Gregory S. Gill said...

+Brandon...As you correctly said the field is the world (which contains the church since the church is in it). Hence as I posted above in the world the unsaved elect (the wheat) and the unsaved nonelect (the tares) look alike in the world.

Therefore my above post again to you ""The parable of the wheat and the tares" is not about theonomy but about God having a set time for the return of Jesus, and that He has predestine certain people up to that time to be saved. If God's servants (maybe they are His angels) were to separate the human race before Jesus comes back into wheat and tares, they would have to do it on the basis as to who is saved (the wheat) and not saved (the tares). The problem with that is this the wheat is really the elect of God for salvation, and the tares are the nonelect of God. In real time the unsaved elect of God, and the unsaved nonelect both look alike except to God only. So for His servants to be separating for Hell and Heaven wheat from tares based on who is saved from who is not saved before Jesus comes back will result in lots of errors been made. For people who Jesus died for will be ending up in Hell. It has nothing to do with theonomy."

Gregory S. Gill said...

+Brandon...Also in another way the parable of the wheat, and the tares has to do with timing. Lets say God decided that the return of Jesus is in 2021, and God has His elect up to just before that time but the return actually happens in 2018. Then that would mean some of His elect (the wheat) would have to end up in Hell as well.

Also many religious leaders today used the parable of the wheat and the tares to not exercise church's dis-fellowship because they say if you do such you'll uproot, and destroy the wheat with the tares. Thus turning the scriptures on its head in pitting scriptures against scriptures.