The current question regards the role of Christians in enforcing God's law on others. No question that God's law is binding on all men at all times, and the righteous Judge will require an accounting in the fullness of time.
Well, yes and no. There are a lot of Christians, including Ryan, who believe that not only shouldn’t we ‘enforce’ God’s Law, but that God’s law is no longer valid. That is the focus of this particular discussion.
Thank you for your article responding to me Mr. Ohlman. I do want to point out a couple of things here. First, you already conceded in the comments on my previous article that theonomy involves the application of Mosaic laws to modern civil society. Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law are filled with applications of Mosaic law to civil society. You also implied that you agree with doing this.
Second, your article did not address the biblical arguments I presented which refute that position. If you believe in applying the laws within the law of Moses to modern civil society, then the arguments I provided against it from the New Testament still stand, even if you fault the way I described theonomy itself (saying it wasn’t broad enough). I do look forward to seeing how you address those passages, perhaps in another article.
I would encourage you to read the title of this article. I am dealing, here, with ‘definition’. The problem (or one of the problems) that you are having with the theonomic position is one of ‘definition’.
And so you say I ‘conceded’ (interesting word choice) that theonomy ‘involves’ the application of ‘Mosaic Laws’ to ‘modern civil society’. If you compare that statement to the definition that Bahnsen gave, and look at the way that those differences affect the argument involved, you will see why I wrote this article.
I did not write this article to deal with your objections to theonomy, but your implication about its definition. Obviously you cannot find your definition of theonomy anywhere in Scripture, so I had nothing to respond to.
Rushdoony, and Bahnsen, and I, all apply the entire Word of God to all matters… which includes the Mosaic code to civil matters. But it would be the Mosaic code as interpreted by Christ, and civil matters in light of Psalm 2. The false definition you use affects the entire tenor of the argument.
So this article is meant to deal with the issue of definition. Other articles (and I have written several and have a couple more on the burner) will deal with other objections and misunderstandings.
Alright. You said it includes the Mosaic code to civil matters. I have another question regarding this.
If (the key word is “if”) I am correct that Scripture does not allow us to apply the Mosaic code to civil matters, then wouldn’t that still refute Greg Bahnsen’s view on theonomy, since you wouldn’t be applying all of the Word of God to all of life?
That would indeed be a very interesting tack for you to try. If you said OK so the definition of theonomy is that all of scripture applies to all of life, but I’m going to show that the mosaic code by which I mean specifically those things from halfway through Exodus to up until the book of Joshua no longer apply in any way then that would, as I say, be a very interesting tack for you to take from the position that you’re working on.
You should certainly begin with the definition of theonomy by as Greg Bronson put it and then you would have to try to show your position that beginning in mid Exodus. The word of God suddenly has a break where things no longer apply. However, you are then going to have the problem that you yourself apply a lot of those things so you’re gonna have to work out why the specific code beginning in mid Exodus stops working and yet keeps working.
The problem in this particular post the one that it was meant to address is the problem of definitions. It’s that you keep speaking as if the definition of theonomy was the view that holds that the mosaic code specifically applies to civil laws specifically. As if somehow that was the be all and end all of theonony. and that is simply false from beginning to end.
The current question regards the role of Christians in enforcing God's law on others. No question that God's law is binding on all men at all times, and the righteous Judge will require an accounting in the fullness of time.
Well, yes and no. There are a lot of Christians, including Ryan, who believe that not only shouldn’t we ‘enforce’ God’s Law, but that God’s law is no longer valid. That is the focus of this particular discussion.
Thank you for your article responding to me Mr. Ohlman. I do want to point out a couple of things here. First, you already conceded in the comments on my previous article that theonomy involves the application of Mosaic laws to modern civil society. Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law are filled with applications of Mosaic law to civil society. You also implied that you agree with doing this.
Second, your article did not address the biblical arguments I presented which refute that position. If you believe in applying the laws within the law of Moses to modern civil society, then the arguments I provided against it from the New Testament still stand, even if you fault the way I described theonomy itself (saying it wasn’t broad enough). I do look forward to seeing how you address those passages, perhaps in another article.
I would encourage you to read the title of this article. I am dealing, here, with ‘definition’. The problem (or one of the problems) that you are having with the theonomic position is one of ‘definition’.
And so you say I ‘conceded’ (interesting word choice) that theonomy ‘involves’ the application of ‘Mosaic Laws’ to ‘modern civil society’. If you compare that statement to the definition that Bahnsen gave, and look at the way that those differences affect the argument involved, you will see why I wrote this article.
I did not write this article to deal with your objections to theonomy, but your implication about its definition. Obviously you cannot find your definition of theonomy anywhere in Scripture, so I had nothing to respond to.
Rushdoony, and Bahnsen, and I, all apply the entire Word of God to all matters… which includes the Mosaic code to civil matters. But it would be the Mosaic code as interpreted by Christ, and civil matters in light of Psalm 2. The false definition you use affects the entire tenor of the argument.
So this article is meant to deal with the issue of definition. Other articles (and I have written several and have a couple more on the burner) will deal with other objections and misunderstandings.
Alright. You said it includes the Mosaic code to civil matters. I have another question regarding this.
If (the key word is “if”) I am correct that Scripture does not allow us to apply the Mosaic code to civil matters, then wouldn’t that still refute Greg Bahnsen’s view on theonomy, since you wouldn’t be applying all of the Word of God to all of life?
That would indeed be a very interesting tack for you to try. If you said OK so the definition of theonomy is that all of scripture applies to all of life, but I’m going to show that the mosaic code by which I mean specifically those things from halfway through Exodus to up until the book of Joshua no longer apply in any way then that would, as I say, be a very interesting tack for you to take from the position that you’re working on.
You should certainly begin with the definition of theonomy by as Greg Bronson put it and then you would have to try to show your position that beginning in mid Exodus. The word of God suddenly has a break where things no longer apply. However, you are then going to have the problem that you yourself apply a lot of those things so you’re gonna have to work out why the specific code beginning in mid Exodus stops working and yet keeps working.
The problem in this particular post the one that it was meant to address is the problem of definitions. It’s that you keep speaking as if the definition of theonomy was the view that holds that the mosaic code specifically applies to civil laws specifically. As if somehow that was the be all and end all of theonony. and that is simply false from beginning to end.
And I typed all those off voice recognition on my phone, so you might have to translate some of it