Dr Greg Bahnsen - Normative Ethics: Six Necessary Characteristics of a Theonomist (Part 14)

In supplement to my remarks about the discontinuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant regarding the law of God, I'd like us just to review the remarks made by Mr. Frame, his syllabus on pages 57 and following, pertaining to the law of God in redemptive history, law and gospel, and that sort of thing. He begins on page 57 by pointing out that there's little question but that Christ is the center of Scripture. That's often pointed out by biblical theologians. Christ is the center of Scripture. I want you to note that Mr. Frame puts the word center in quotation marks, and I think that's the appropriate thing to do because often that metaphor of Christ being the center of Scripture is ambiguously used by biblical theologians. Christ is the center of Scripture in many ways. Does that mean he's the center? Because that's the most important subject. Does that mean that that is discussed more often than others? Does that mean that Christ is found in every passage of Scripture, either by typology or explicit mention or prophecy? Often that word center does a lot of work for a biblical theologian, being put to a lot of different uses. Nevertheless, the events of Christ's death, resurrection, ascension, and the sending forth of the Spirit on Pentecost are of central importance in the Scriptures, often being reflected upon in the Bible. And then Mr. Fredding goes into discussion of the question, does this imply that Scripture is most basically to be characterized as a redemptive history? And here I think you're going to find a more balanced treatment of that question than you'll find in just about anybody else who is discussing the question in the reformed world today. Mr. Frame has a real appreciation for the many functions of the Bible that we can find, many kinds of literature, the many different sorts of things that the writers of the Bible were trying to do. He says, of course, that the Bible is a history. There's no doubt that it is a redemptive history. That is part of its function. That's one aspect of the total picture. On the other hand, he says, we must remember that it's different from modern histories. It's a history that includes a lot of things that a history book, if you read today, would not include. Law codes and songs and proverbs and letters and all sorts of things which are given, and they aren't given, just as illustrations of historical source material. So the Bible is a history, but it's a much different kind of history. It's history written from a perspective, from an ideological perspective, and with a goal that goes beyond simply the laying out of the facts. This is a gospel history. It isn't written simply to inform us of certain facts, but it's written to bring about faith in us. Obviously, modern histories aren't written with that kind of end in mind. Now, at this point, sometimes the biblical theologian wants to say that his view of history is broad enough to include all of these sorts of functions. And Mr. Frame says, of course, it is possible to redefine history that broadly. One could speak of Psalms and proverbs as in some sense, interpretations of historical events, but it's pretty clear that's not the chief purpose of the Psalms and the proverbs. By calling Scripture a redemptive history, which is true enough, we must resist the temptation to say that is primarily or centrally or only a redemptive history. After all, the Bible is many other things too. It's a normative book, not just a history book. It's a book of norn showing people how they are to live. It's a book that has one of its key functions to rule our lives. Second Timothy 3, 16. So the Bible is not just history, it is equally law. So history and law are equally important characterizations of Scripture, Mr. Frame points out. So the Bible is history, it is law, it is gospel. There are other ways to characterize Scripture. We could say that it's wisdom. We could say that it's comfort. We could say that it's promise. All of these functions have to be taken into account. Now, when you take into account all of these functions, don't think for a moment that you're compromising the emphasis upon Christ, his death, his resurrection, and all the rest. Christ is not only central to history, but he is central to the law. He's central to the promise. He's central to the wisdom. He is prophet, priest and king. And so by emphasizing the law, theonomists are not compromising the redemptive history or the centrality of Christ that we find in the Bible by any means. Well, now, the interesting thing to me as I look at Mr. Fringe syllabus is that when I was student, I could see all of these questions in this debate, you know, developing the biblical theologians and the systematic theologians at Westminster Seminary and other places where people are interested in questions that are being debated, these sorts of things in this back and forth, this dialogue coming about, evolving, if you will, after it's pointed out that you have to do justice to the multi varied functions of the Bible, and in so doing, you don't compromise the centrality of Christ. The question naturally Becomes shouldn't systematic theology, shouldn't ethics be controlled by biblical theology, be controlled by redemptive history? And Mr. Graham's answer to that is right to the point, it seems to me, he says, that theology and ethics should be controlled by everything scripture says, not just controlled by one narrow facet of scripture or even a broad facet, a very important facet, redemptive history. That theology should be controlled by everything in the Bible, not only its history, but its commands, its poetry, its promises, its wisdom and all the rest. And if theology is controlled by everything in Scripture, then of course it's controlled by redemptive history, but not exclusively by redemptive history. You must take into account everything, lest you compromise the whole teaching of Scripture. And so theology should be equally controlled by the law of God. Theology should be equally controlled by the wisdom of God, by the proverbs of God, by the parables and all the rest. Now, having said that, so that we don't have. I know there's one well known biblical theologian writing in our day, Nan, that I have great deal of respect for and learned a lot from. I was talking with him once about this very question of whether biblical theology and redemptive history isn't more central and more important, whether those things must not be the starting point for our theology. And I suggested to him that theology, doing theology on the basis of the Bible is like taking a journey. And a journey can start in any number of places. Obviously, if we want to traverse the United States, we could begin in Denver, we could begin in Seattle, we could begin in Maine, we could begin in San Diego, we could begin in Florida, we could begin in any number of places. A trip can begin just about anywhere. And as our point is to see everything, it doesn't make any difference where you begin as long as you finally get in all the details. And so I was disagreeing. I said theology doesn't begin with, in the sense of being controlled by redemptive history. It's just that what redemptive history teaches us must be taken into account whether you begin with law or with promise, with Old or with New Testament, these sorts of things. And he wanted to say that it isn't really fair to say you could begin just at any place because there is one paradigm in Scripture that must be the controlling paradigm. And I said, well, now, why couldn't you have many paradigms? Why couldn't you have the paradigm, say, of lawgiver, the paradigm of Savior, the paradigm of Father, the paradigm of lover, and these sorts of things? Why is It. When the Bible is so diverse and all of the metaphors that it uses and all the different approaches it takes to the material that has to be presented, why must one paradigm, it turns out to be this particular scholar's favorite paradigm, the one he's worked with the most, why must that be for everybody, the key starting point, controlling paradigm? Isn't it true that if we cover all the points using one paradigm or another, we have done justice to the Bible? And his response was, there has to be a king of the metaphors, a king of the paradigms. There has to be one controlling. Well, I think Mr. Frame has shown just in this short discussion, two or three pages, how really artificial that is. There is no one central paradigm for theology in the Bible. God is presented as a king, but he's presented as a father, he's presented as a husband, he's presented in any number of ways as a shepherd. You can do theologies of promise, theologies of hope, theologies of law, theologies of history. There are many paradigms, many structuring devices in the Bible, and it seems to me prejudicial and artificial to pretend that our approach to theology must be controlled, must put emphasis upon, or must make the starting point necessarily one or the other of these many approaches. Okay? So having laid aside the idea that redemptive history must be the king of the paradigm, must dominate all the rest, nevertheless, we do have to relate the law of God to redemptive history, because that's one of the things we have to take into account. So what do we make of God's law in terms of redemptive history? And one of the ways I have tried to answer that question is by laying out very specifically my theses about the Old and the New covenant regarding the law of God, those points that I've made in my last lecture. Now, there have been other ways of discussing the law in redemptive history, and I think they are worth looking at. One way that has been very important in the history of the Reformed churches is to draw out the contrast between law and gospel. Mr. Frame points out the Lutheran distinction between law and gospel, as he's found in Article 5 of the formula of Concord. Law is presented as properly a doctrine divinely revealed, which teaches what is just and acceptable to God and which also denounces whatever is sinful and opposite to the divine will. Whereas gospel is presented as the doctrine which teaches what a man ought to believe who has not satisfied the law of God and therefore is condemned by the same. Now, the formula of Concord teaches us that even though the gospel preached by Christ and the disciples involves a call to repentance, the gospel, when contrasted in general with law, makes no such demand. And I think that's accurate to the formula of concord. But that's a rather strange way of thinking to say that although the gospel as you see it in actual preached situations in the Bible involves calling men to repent, that properly speaking, that is, in terms of its pure nature, I guess gospel does not involve a call to repentance. And the Lutherans make this distinction between law and gospel the key to understanding scripture. I've read and I've talked to Lutherans who say that if a man doesn't understand the legitimate distinction between law and gospel in the Bible, he cannot understand the Bible at all. Well, the Lutheran sees the law almost explained exclusively as a threat and a terror. But the Reformed churches, Calvin and others, Reformed theologians, have tended to put more emphasis upon the law as a delight and as a gift of guidance from God for the redeemed heart, a gift of grace, a way of life. The Lutherans tend to want to abstract the gospel in the pure sense so that it artificially doesn't involve repentance and law in the pure sense, Whereas the Reformed have tended to want to see law and gospel as constantly working together and not being separable. Both the Reformed and the Lutherans have enumerated three basic uses of the law, the three uses of the law. We have the political use of the law, we have the pedagogical use of the law, and we have the practical use of the law. Politically, the law is used for external discipline, restraining sin in society. God lays down laws for the preservation of good order among men. But secondly, the law internally is used to show men that they are guilty and in need of a savior. So it's pedagogical in the sense that it leads us, like a pedagogue, to Christ. And thirdly, the law has a practical use in that for the regenerate man, it gives him the pattern of godliness. Godliness shows him the way that he can be sanctified, the pattern of his sanctification. There you have the political, the pedagogical, and the practical uses of God's law. Traditional Lutheranism accepts all three uses of these law. Three uses of the law over against many modern Lutherans, who tend to put aside what is called the third use or the practical use of the law, as though today we only need to be led by the Holy Spirit rather than to be led by a written code that would be a form of what I consider mystical antinomianism, that when a man is finally saved, the law's use has been put aside. It's threatened and threatened until he finally comes to Christ, but now he can be led by the Spirit. Totally apart from a written revelation, however, traditional Lutheranism hasn't held that position and is more in agreement with the Reformed on the matter of all three uses of the law being emphasized. The Lutherans, Mr. Frame points out as well, have distinguished between works done under constraint the laws demand, if you will, and works done under the spontaneity of the Spirit out of free love that we have for God. We can agree, of course, that works that are done merely out of constraint and not out of love or gratefulness are not really good works at all. However, we must remember that living in the Spirit is living under constraint as well, is living in response to commands. And it would be, as Mr. Freeman says, somewhat ridiculous to suppose that obeying a command under the Spirit puts us in the sphere of the flesh or living according to law, just because we feel the constraint that the Spirit lays upon us. So there are some artificialities to the formula concourse Distinction between law and Gospel Even though the three uses of the law is a helpful structuring device in our modern setting, the distinctions or the relationship of the law to us in Redemptive History the relationship of the law to God's people throughout redemptive history has been more and more discussed not under the traditional categories of law and gospel discussion, but rather under the question of Old and new covenants. And Mr. Frame then offers the discussion of the differences between Old and New Covenant. And he begins by looking at Meredith Klein's suggestion that the documents of the covenant are canonical documents, and since we are under the New Covenant, not under the Old Covenant, we're no longer under the canon or the canonical document of the Old Covenant. That is to say, the New Testament is canonical but not the Old Testament for the Christian believer. Now, I have attacked this idea appendix in my book Theonomy and Christian Ethics myself. I find it in fact an unbiblical way of speaking, since canon means rule, a guiding rod for life or conduct, and the New Testament says that the Old Testament is binding on us. Everything written in previous ages was written for our edification and guidance according to the New Testament, and consequently the New Testament treats the Old Testament as canonical. However, Meredith Klein wants to suggest a very highly specialized use of the word canon, so that what is canonical is only the document of the covenant under which you Live well, does that mean that Meredith Klein is a radical dispensationalist of sorts, saying that we're only New Testament believers? That'd be a strange thing for an evangelical reformed Old Testament scholar to say, wouldn't it? Well, in fact, he doesn't say it, Mr. Klein. Dr. Klein wants to suggest that although the Old Testament is not canonical, it is authoritative for us at this point, Mr. Frame's patience is stretched beyond its limits. And he says, now what is the difference between, between a canonical document and an authoritative non canonical document? Well, all is said and done. It's the whole authority of the Old Testament that's at stake. And so it's not going to make much difference whether you say that it is or is not canonical. That just becomes something of a trivial or superfluous word for our theological discussion. But of course, Dr. Klein does not want to apply his canonical discussion in a trivial way by any means. He wants to use this discussion of canon to dismiss what he considers the essence of a canonical document, and that is the life norms for the society, so that in defining a canon, the essence of a canon being the community life norms that are laid out in the canonical document, the covenantal document. By doing that, Klein can say that since we live under the new covenant, not the old, we can still have the faith norms of the old covenant and still have the individual life norms, but we don't have to follow the community norms of the old covenant. The difficulty with that, of course, is that that is simply a way of defining your terms so that you can prove your premise rather than getting independently verified premises that will lead to the conflict exclusion that you're interested in. He has simply defined canon and covenant in such a way as to enable him to arbitrarily get rid of the community life norms and not the individual life norms. How is it we can distinguish between faith norms and life norms in the first place? In the Bible, faith is a matter of life and life is a matter of faith. And how is it that you can have individual morality totally abstracted from community morality, or vice versa? In Mr. Frame's discussion later on in the syllabus, he dismisses this whole idea rather quickly as saying that it's preposterous. It's simply preposterous to try to draw those distinctions. And of course it is utterly arbitrary to use those distinctions, make them a matter of definition, so that you can then dismiss some part of the Old Testament that you don't particularly like. Pages 62 and following Mr. Fring, then comes to a discussion of the changes that he sees are brought about by the establishment of the new Covenant. And it seems to me that the changes that he sees here, although they're put in somewhat different order and form, parallel the remarks that I made myself about the discontinuity between the covenants. And then finally we come to a discussion of the moral, the ceremonial and civil law distinction, which has been very common in Reformed ethics. The distinction between moral, ceremonial and civil law, or sometimes called judicial law, In a sense, I believe that the Reformed churches, in drawing this threefold distinction, have really meant a distinction between moral law and ceremonial law, with the moral law itself being broken down into a summary law, the Ten Commandments, and then an illustrative applicatory law called the judicial law. Now, whether that is a proper understanding of the thrust of the meaning of the distinctions or not, we do have to understand what each one of those would apply to. The moral law, according to the Westminster Larger Catechism, is that law which summarily comprehends the will of God as presented to us in the Bible. And the moral law can be found in the decalogue. The decalogue is a summary of all of God's demands. And when you look at the Westminster Larger Catechism in the way in which it expounds or exposits the Ten Commandments, you'll notice that it uses many of the case laws of the Old Testament and other portions of Scripture as well, quite legitimately, to define what each one of the decalogue standards means. So that clearly from the way the Catechism sets forth the Ten Commandments, the Ten Commandments are a summary of all of God's precepts or the entire will of God. What you have in the judicial law would be illustrative applications of that, and that much is clear just from the scriptural citation in Chapter 19, Section 4, of the Westminster Confession of Faith, where we see that Exodus 21:23 comprise the judicial law. The judicial law would be application to cases of the general principles of the moral summary law found in the decalogue. The ceremonial law, on the other hand, gives to us the redemptive types pointing to Jesus Christ and showing how God's people are to live in this world as separate from unbelievers, separate from the Gentiles. The ceremonial law, as I present it in Theonomy and Christian Ethics, has something of a restorative thrust to it. I was led to develop the distinction between moral law and ceremonial law under the pressure of the criticism made by some people Today that that is so artificial to think that you can see in the law two different aspects, ceremonial and moral. And so in studying the question, both historically and exegetically, it seemed to me that as a matter of fact you could find a rule governed rationale, if you will, for distinguishing between one kind or another of the laws. And that the basic difference between moral law and ceremonial law is that moral law defines sin. Whereas ceremonial law deals with a sin, especially in terms of the atonement and how atoned people are now to live as separate from the world, deals with the purity necessary for God's people, purification and continuing purity. It is restorative or redemptive in thrust. Whereas the moral law deals more with the justice of God that defines sin for us. If there were no violations of the moral law, there would be no need for the ceremonial law. I don't believe that's an arbitrary distinction. After all, the Bible does tell us in the Old as well as the New Testament, God says, I desire mercy, not sacrifice. God desires that our lives be righteous more than he desires that sacrifice be given. Sacrifice is there for those who come in faith and with purity of heart to deal with the fact that they have violated God's laws having to do with mercy or justice or righteousness. So there is a basic difference between laws defining sin and laws defining the way of redemption and the way redeeming people are supposed to walk. The difference between the moral law and the ceremonial law. I'd like to show that all three of these laws, all three sorts of these laws, moral in terms of general precept, judicial in terms of illustrative application, and restorative or ceremonial, are held to be binding in the New Testament in one way or another. First of all, the moral law reflecting God's righteousness, defines sin. And judgment as such in terms of its general precepts is always binding. Here's an example of a general moral law of the Old Testament. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Now, when we come to the New Testament, we'll find those very laws are repeated. Jesus tells the rich young ruler, he should not steal. He should not commit adultery. Paul repeats these in Romans 13 when he's showing what love requires. Those general precepts of the moral law are always binding, and the New Testament treats them as such. Now, the judicial law, the case law of the Old Testament, illustrates an application of those general laws, so that if you're not supposed to steal, that means that you don't muzzle the ox. As he treads, you don't defraud your neighbor of the money that belongs to him. These sorts of things Deuteronomy 25:4, for instance, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treads out the grain. It turns out in First Timothy in the New Testament, Paul can quote this verse as applying to his own day, but of course not to oxen. You see that Paul recognizes the illustrative character of the judicial law so that he can apply it to a different case altogether. But what he's applying is the same illustrated principle. First Timothy 5:18 after saying that elders who rule well are counted worthy of double honor, he says, for the Scripture says, thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treads out the corn, and the laborer is worthy of his hire. So Paul enforces the judicial law of the Old Testament, although he applies it to a different circumstance than was originally mentioned in the. In Deuteronomy 22:10, the law says, thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. This seems to be a law showing that you shouldn't put together unequal animals, and that reminds Israel that Israel should not be unequally yoked to the nations. Round about in Second Corinthians 6:14, Paul says, Don't be unequally yoked together with an unbeliever. Deuteronomy 24:14 in the Septuagint says that you should not defraud a hired servant or in the Hebrew, you shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor. In Mark 10, verse 19, when Jesus speaking to the rich young ruler, the rich young ruler wants to know what he must do, what kind of requirement is laid upon him. Jesus cites the Ten Commandments, many of them, but then throws right in there, you shall not defraud, which of course is very appropriate to a man in his position as a rich ruler, Jesus tells him, you shall not defraud. The important thing to notice is that Jesus puts you shall not defraud, which is a case law of the Old Testament, on an equal footing with the Ten Commandments themselves. The illustrative application of the Ten Commandments are as binding as the Ten Commandments themselves, even when they are put to even when they are applied to slightly different cases. So we see that the New Testament uses Old Testament illustrative applications as well as Old Testament general precepts, and accordingly we should hold that both the moral law and the judicial law are binding today, the difference between the two being in their literary character, one is generalized. A summary in its form, whereas the other is particularized and illustrative in its literary form. The third category mentioned in the traditional discussions of the types of laws in the Old Testament is the ceremonial law, what I call the restorative law reflect. In Deuteronomy 22:10 the law says, thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. This seems to be a law showing that you shouldn't put together unequal animals, and that reminds Israel that Israel should not be unequally yoked to the Nations Roundabout. In Second Corinthians 6:14, Paul says, Don't be unequally yoked together with an unbeliever. Deuteronomy 24:14 in the Septuagint says that you should not defraud a hired servant or in the Hebrew, you shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor. In Mark 10:19 when Jesus is speaking to the rich young ruler, the rich young ruler wants to know what he must do, what kind of requirement is laid upon him. Jesus cites the Ten Commandments, many of them, but then throws right in there, you shall not defraud, which of course is very appropriate to a man in his position as a rich ruler. Jesus tells him, you shall not defraud. The important thing to notice is that Jesus puts you shall not defraud fraud, which is a case law of the Old Testament, on an equal footing with the Ten Commandments themselves. The illustrative applications of the Ten Commandments are as binding as the Ten Commandments themselves, even when they are put to even when they are applied to slightly different cases. So we see that the New Testament uses Old Testament illustrative applications as well as Old Testament general precepts. And accordingly we should hold that both the moral law and the judicial law are binding today, the difference between the two being in their literary character. One is generalized, a summary in its form, whereas the other is particularized and illustrative in its literary form. The third category mentioned in the traditional discussion so the title types of laws in the Old Testament is the ceremonial law, what I call the restorative law, reflecting God's covenant mercy and typifying or foreshadowing the redemptive economy that would be brought in by Jesus Christ. These laws either point to Jesus Christ in the way of salvation, or they direct the redeemed community to be separate from the world. Illustrations of both those types Leviticus 17:11. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life. Hebrews 10:1 tells us that the law is a shadow of the good things to come. That law there is typifying a good thing to come. In Hebrews 9:22 24, we learned that it was necessary, just because of that law, for Christ to lay down his life. And according to the law, I may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and apart from the shedding of blood, there is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be cleansed with these. For Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands, like in the pattern of the true, but into the heaven itself. Now to appear before the face of God for us, Hebrews 10:4. For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. So we see the necessity of Christ offering his life. The necessity is built on the ceremonial law of the Old Testament. I think most people today understand that rather clear that the sacrificial law, as part of the ceremonial law of the Old Testament, pointed ahead to the sacrifice Christ would make of himself for our salvation. But let's think of some of the ceremonial laws directing the redeemed community in terms of their separate status from the world. First of all, there is an illustration to be found in the law having to do with Passover. Only circumcised Jews could take the Passover. Only those who had received the sign of the covenant, sojourners in the land of Israel had to keep all of the laws of the Jews, except they could not take Passover until they were circumcised. And so it's clear that Passover was one of these distinguishing marks of the Jew, the redeemed community. Now, are the laws of Passover completely passed away today? No. They have passed away. For in First Corinthians 5:7, Paul tells us specifically that we have a Passover that we keep. It says, purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump even as you are unleavened. For our Passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ. We keep the Passover in Christ. In fact, the redemptive meal today, instituted by our Lord himself on the eve of his own sacrificial death as our Passover lamb. The redemptive meal today is the Lord's Supper, which replaces in our worship and service the Passover as it functioned in the worship and service of the Old Testament Jews. Another illustration would be Leviticus 20:22, 26 deals with the separation of the Jews from the Gentiles in terms of the dietary requirements of the Old Testament. We've already read this in our last lecture, so I won't take the time to read it through completely now. God separates the Jews from the Gentiles symbolically in terms of the dietary restrictions laid upon them. And Paul tells us in 2nd Corinthians 6 that we are to touch no unclean thing either. Even as God says we aren't deed unclean meat, Paul says you are not to touch any unclean thing. However, for Paul, that is applied in a different way today. The redemptive community today now applies the ceremonial distinction in terms of church and world rather than in terms of meats, Jew and Gentile. A third illustration, it seems to me, might be found in Greek. Jude 23. Jude23. And some save snatching them out of the fire, and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garments spotted by the flesh. Jude 23 tells us we are to hate the garments spotted by the flesh. Well, he's making reference here, I think, to the Old Testament laws having to do with leprosy, garments spotted by the flesh. And Judah's not talking about us perpetuating an Old Testament form, these laws having to do with the treatment of leprosy and lepers. He is talking about the realization of what that was, symbolizing that whereas leprosy stood for sin and corruption, we should hate today moral corruption in sin as well. Hate the garment spotted by the flesh is the way he expresses that. So the restorative laws, the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament, are still binding today, even though they are binding in a different way. I mean, the application of them is seen as being somewhat different. The actual thing done by the New Covenant believer is different than what the Old Covenant believer would have done. The Old Covenant believer brought a lamb or an oxen to the sacrifice. We pray to Jesus Christ for salvation. The Old Covenant believer had Passover, we of the Lord Supper. The Old Covenant believer would be separate from Gentiles. We are separate from the world. And so there are changed applications. But the principles even of the restorative law, you see, would still be binding, would still be theologically valid in this day. So then we see both permanence and change. The general principle that is taught in the Old Testament is permanently binding. Every detail is permanently binding. That isn't to say that every detail mentioned in the law is a binding detail of the law, but it means that every detailed law is itself must be taken into account. And I Say that in theonomy to avoid the mistake made by people who want to look only at certain of the laws and not all of the laws don't want to get bogged down in all these little details. Well, I'm not saying that every detail of every law is literally binding today. What I'm saying is that every detailed law must be taken into account. The general principles taught, whether in terms of some reform or the general principles of the detailed illustrative laws, are all binding today. The application changes with cultural differences with respect to the case law illustrations and the manner of observation changes with the history of the. With the progress of the history of redemption with respect to the ceremonial laws in terms of redemptive laws or laws for community holiness. So that's the way I would see the distinction between moral law, judicial law, and ceremonial law. The moral law is always binding as it's stated, because it's first of all moral. And in summary form, the judicial law is always binding, but in terms of the principle that it illustrates. So there's literary difference. Cultural application is altered and the ceremonial law is binding, but is always changed because it is a foreshadowing of a coming reality. And the Bible is the standard that shows us the changed application for the ceremonial laws. Well, we have said enough now in the last lectures that I think we're at a position where we can conveniently summarize what it is to be a theonomist, if you will. That is what the theonomic perspective in Christian ethics, a commitment to God's law, means for us. A lot of people ask that question today. What does it mean to be a theonomist? At what point does a person stop being, or at what point is a person truly committed to the law of God? And I'd like to summarize in six statements what it means to be committed to God's law, to be a theodomist in light of our previous teaching. This would be then my summary of the theonomic thesis. And then I'd like to point out some pitfalls that have to be avoided when people want to dispute the theonomic thesis. First of all, though, the summary of the thesis itself in six separate statements. I suppose that the. In one way, before I get to those six statements, you could put it in the following form. You could say that a theonomist is somebody who is committed to both a covenantal approach to theology and to a Christian world and life view. If you're committed to a Christian world and life view and you have a theonomic approach, excuse me, a covenantal approach to theology. That those two things in themselves will lead you to theonomic conclusions, and that to the degree that people dispute with theonomy today, to that degree, they must either ease their covenantal commitment or reject it altogether, or ease up on the idea of a Christian world and life view. And you can see this illustrated, I think, all around us. On the one hand, you have people who compromise covenant theology. You have Reformed Baptists who aren't theonomic just because they won't be covenantal in their theology. On the other hand, you have people who want to be covenantal, but because they deny a Christian world and life view, don't want to apply the Bible to all areas of life, and therefore don't hold that Scripture, the law of God in its sociopolitical aspects, is binding today. If you hold to a Christian world and life view and to a covenantal approach to theology, and it seems to me you must be a theonomist. So now, six theses that show us what theonomists believe. First, the Word of the Lord is the sole, supreme and unchallengeable standard for the actions and attitudes of all men in all areas of life. The Word of the Lord is the sole, supreme and unchallengeable standard for the actions and attitudes of all men in all areas of life. That's a Christian world light view, the lordship of Christ over all things. And he lords it over all things, directs all things in terms of His Word. Secondly, we should presume that Old Testament standing laws continue to be morally binding in the New Testament until they are rescinded or modified in application by further revelation. We should presume that Old Testament standing laws continue to be morally binding in the New Testament until they are rescinded or modified in application by further revelation. That is, we begin with the operating assumption of continuity and require that God's Word show us discontinuity. Thirdly, in regard to the Old Testament law, the New Covenant surpasses the Old Covenant in glory, power and finality, thereby reinforcing its duties. And the New Covenant supersedes the Old Covenant shadows, thereby changing the application of the sacrificial purity and separation directives, redefining the people of God and altering the significance of the Promised Land. That's a mouthful. But it's intended as one general idea that in regard to the Old Testament law, the New Covenant surpasses the Old Covenant in glory, power and finality, thus reinforcing our moral duty. And the New Covenant supersedes the old Covenant shadows, so that we see a changed application of the sacrificial purity and separation directives, we see a redefinition of the people of God, and we see an alteration of the significance of the promised land. So this is, if you will, the discontinuity thesis in theonomy. Fourth, we would go on now to say that the general continuity which we presume with respect to the moral standards of the Old Testament applies just as legitimately to sociopolitical ethics as it applies to personal or church morality. The general continuity which we presume with respect to the moral standards of the Old Testament, that is the second premise that I've offered you, applies just as legitimately to the socio political sphere as it does to personal or church morality. See, what I'm getting at is that if you hold to the first premise world and life view, and you hold to the second premise that the presumption of continuity in the second premise must be applied to all areas of life spread spoken to by the law of God, including the sociopolitical sphere. So premise four, then developed from one and two is the general continuity which we presume with respect to the moral standards of the Old Testament applies just as legitimately to sociopolitical ethics as it does to personal or church morality. Now, to elaborate and specify or make precise our application of number four, a fifth premise can be added that marks out theonomists from non theonomists. We would go on to say that the civil precepts or standing laws of the Old Testament are a model of perfect justice for today, even in the punishment of criminals. We go so far as to say that the civil precepts of the Old Testament are a model of perfect justice for today, even in the punishment of criminals. And then the last premise, which is really something of an attitudinal premise, having to do with the way we approach the law of God. We would say that our obligation to keep the whole law of God cannot be judged by any extra scriptural standard, such as whether its specific requirements, when properly interpreted, are congenial to modern feelings and practices. Our obligation to keep the whole law of God cannot be judged by any extra scriptural standard, such as whether its specific requirements, when properly interpreted, are congenial to modern feelings and practices. Our attitude is if God's law says it, it must be done, whether it fits in with our traditions or not, with our feelings or not. We must reform our world and our attitudes according to the law of God, and not reform the law of God according to the world and our attitudes. Now, these six premises, or these six attitudes, these six beliefs taken together, it seems to me, mark out the theonomic approach to normative ethics from all other approaches that are found in the evangelical world today. And I'd like to back up each one of them with a particular passage of Scripture. And then we'll be done with this lecture. One passage of Scripture that very nicely gets at the thought of premise one that the word of the Lord is the unchallengeable standard for our actions is Luke 6:46. Jesus says, and why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? If Jesus is our Lord, then we must obey him, and obey him in all areas of life. For the second premise that we should presume continuity with the old testament, Matthew 5:19. Therefore whoever shall break the least of these commandments and teach men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. For the third premise that shows us how the Old Testament is old, we would look at Hebrews 8:13 and Hebrews 10:1. Hebrews 8:13. In that he saith a new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxing aged is nigh unto vanishing away. For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of these things can never, with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer, continually make perfect them that draw nigh. The Old Testament is old in terms of its shadow ordinances, not in terms of every aspect of the Old Testament law. Our fourth premise, that even in socio political ethics the law of God is binding. There's this General continuity. Romans 13:4. For he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid, for he bears not the sword in vain for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. So the magistrate must follow God, be an avenger of God's wrath, and in so doing will bear not the sword in vain. Our fifth premise is that the continuity of the law in the sociopolitical realm even applies to the penal sanctions of the Old Testament. And one particular verse that would tend to back that up would be Hebrews 2, verse 2. For if the word spirit spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward, and the author goes on that points out that even the penal sanctions of the Old Testament were based on the perfect and unchanging justice of God. And then finally, for the idea that the law is not given to us to criticize, but rather to obey. James 4:11. James says, Speak not one against another, brethren. He that speaketh against a brother or judgeth his brother speaks against the law and judges the law. But if thou judgest the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. Okay, the argument is you're not to speak against the brother, because if you do, you're speaking against the law, which forbids that sort of thing. But if you're a judge of the law, then you're not a doer of the law. And that's what God requires, obviously, is that you be a doer of the law. So our attitude According to James 4 should be that of keeping the law rather than finding ways of criticizing the law and escaping its application. Or as Paul says in Romans 3, 4, Let God be true, though all men are liars. This is our theonomic point of view. The word of the Lord governs all areas of life. We interpret the Bible on the presumption of continuity between Old and New Testaments. Until the New Testament says otherwise. The New Testament shows discontinuity with respect to the shadows of the Old Testament. We know that the continuity of the law applies just as much in the sociopolitical sphere as anywhere else, and thus we should be punishing criminals according to the justice of God's Old Testament law. And it's not our place to criticize that. It's simply our place to obey. Thank you.