Andrew Walker wrote here;
American Culture Is Broken. Is Theonomy the Answer? (thegospelcoalition.org)
“The eternal law, evident in the natural law, comes to be expressed in divine law. While the Decalogue is, I believe, a timeless representation of natural law, its contents existed before they were formally codified.”
Mark Chambers responds,
What exactly does that say? There is
(1) Eternal Law
(2) Natural Law
(3) Divine Law
Since there is one God, the creator of all things, who is both timeless and omniscient
(1) exactly what is the distinction/difference between “eternal law” and “divine law” and for that matter “natural law” whatever one conceives that to be since each is the product of the One Divine Mind?
(2) And being that Divine Law it is evident in natural law [I hate even writing the term] what is the need for codification?
The Decalogue, he suggests, is a timeless representation of natural law.
(1) Codification abrogates any idea of timelessness since codification is temporal having come about at some point in time. He makes it sound nifty but he’s just being stupid. See the next point.
(2) Since he suggests, by implication if not explicitly, that the codified Decalogue functions differently in different times and places one wonders what change codification made in the “ostensible” natural law which is the evident reflection of “The Eternal Law”?
(3) If one were to codify the natural law, which is the reflective evidence of the eternal law, for today’s times, how would it differ from the Decalogue, whose moral content was timeless therefore prior to its codification, as written by the Divine hand on Sinai?
(4) ** How are the moral contents of the Decalogue, which according to him are timeless, to be applied differently in different times and places? What did “you shall not murder, commit adultery, take the Lord’s name in vain” mean then and what does it mean now?
(5) And, just to help me out, how does one get the Decalogue out of natural law which is the evidence of eternal law which the Decalogue is also eternal since its moral content is timeless
(6) Has he been reading Ricouer?
He’s a logical dolt and a moron.
** = And if the meaning changed between then and now how do we know that the meaning changed and how do we know what the new meaning is vis-a-vis the old meaning? (BLMc)
2 thoughts on “I Get By With A Little Help From My Friends; A Different Theonomist Takes Walker to the Woodshed”
I’ve had this conversation so many times with my “Christian” lawyer friends, who are so afraid of someone going into court and doing The Embarassing: quoting Scripture.
They are deathly afraid of Jesus-haters, Christ-killers and covenant-breakers not thinking that they belong to the cool kids’ club.
“Not biblical law, natural law.”
“Okay, what is natural law?”
“The law of nature that God put into creation, and all men’s minds.”
“Okay, what is biblical law?”
“The law that God gave on Sinai.”
“Okay [ignoring the inevitable truncations], what is law?”
“The expression of the moral character of God [if they are really educated].”
“Then how can the natural law differ from the biblical law?”
“Killing disobedient infants.”
Over and over and over.
Very succinct and to the point Clem. Thank You.