Category: God’s Abiding Law

“For the blasphemous and seditious Heretics, both Lutherans and others of the Reformed Churches do agree that they may be punished capitally, that is for their blasphemy of sedition; but the Socinian stands out here also, and denies it; alleging that the punishment of false Prophets in the Old Testament was speciali jure but by special law granted to the Israelites, and therefore you must not look (saith the Socinian) into the Old Testament for a rule proceeding against false Prophets and blasphemers: Nor (saith Calvin and Catharinus) can you find in the New Testament any precept for punishment of Thieves, Traitors, Adulterers, Witches, Murderers and the like, and yet they may, or at least some of them be capitally punished: for the Gospel destroys not the just laws of civil policy or Commonwealths.”

Richard Vines — English Puritan
The Authors, Nature, and Danger of Heresy
Laid open in a sermon preached before the honorable house of Commons…March – 1646 – pp. 64

I wonder what the difference would be between the R2K lads when they talk about their “intrusion ethic” making the case law of no effect today and the Socinian lads when they talked about their speciali jure making the case law of no effect during their time?

Whatever difference there actually is, Richard Vines dealt with the Socianians who insisted that the Old Testament case law was not applicable to civil policy.

“There were three laws among the Jews,the Ceremonial, Judicial, and Moral law. I suppose the Judicial Law as to pains of it, was a fence and guard to the Ceremonial and Moral Law. [In the first place] the [Judicial] law doth aim at obedience to it, and in the second place [at] punishment to its disobedience. I conceive the punishment [for infringement] of the Ceremonial law was not [part] of the law itself, but [a fence] of the purity of the Jews and the punishment [for infringement] of the Moral Law was not part of the Moral law, [but a fence to it]. So far as the Judicial [law] was a fence and outwork to the ceremonial law [it] is fallen with the ceremonial law. So far as it was an outwork of the Moral law it stands with the moral law, and that still binds upon men. So [that part] of the Judicial law was a fence to that, is still the duty of the magistrates.”

Thomas Gilbert — 17th Century Puritan
Puritanism And Liberty
Being The Army Debates

Clearly, quite contrary to R2K, the Puritans believed that there were aspects of the Judicial law which were binding upon the magistrates. When the R2K lads scream, concerning the judicial law, “expired … expired … expired,” they are being the novices and are offering up sui generis readings of Reformed Historical theology.

“Though we have clear and full scriptures in the New Testament of the abolishing the ceremonial law, yet we no where read in all the New Testament of the abolishing of the judicial law, so far as it did concern the punishing of sins against the moral law, of which heresy and seducing of souls is one, and a great one. Once God did reveal his will for punishing those sins by such and such punishments. He who will hold that the Christian Magistrate is not bound to inflict such punishments for such sins, is bound to prove that those former laws of God are abolished, and show some Scripture for it.”

George Gillespie — Westminster Divine
Wholesome Severity Reconciled With Christian Liberty

Westminster Divine, Gillespie, would never have tolerated a hermeneutic that insists that case law can be expunged from the Christian conscience by chanting “expired.”

“But then there were other judicial laws, which were founded on the light of nature, on reason, and on justice and equity, and these remain in full force ; and they must be wise as well as righteous laws, which were made by God himself, thei…r King and legislator, as they are said to be, Deut. iv. 6, 8. And they are, certainly, the best constituted and regulated governments that come nearest to the commonwealth of Israel, and the civil laws of it, which are of the kind last described; and where they are acted up unto, there what is said by Wisdom is most truly verified, By me kings reign, and princes decree judgment; and if these laws were more strictly attended to, which respect the punishment of offences, especially capital ones, things would be put upon a better footing than they are in some governments, and judges, in passing sentences, would be able to do that part of their office with more certainly and safety, and with a better conscience.

And whereas the commonwealth of Israel was governed by these laws for many hundreds of years, and needed no other in their civil polity, when, in such a course of time, every case that ordinarily happens, must arise, and be brought into a court of judicature; I cannot but be of opinion, that a digest of civil laws might be made out of the Bible, the law of the Lord that is perfect, either as lying in express words in it, or to be deduced by the analogy of things and cases, and by just consequence, as would be sufficient for the government of any nation; and then there would be no need of so many law books, nor of so many lawyers; and perhaps there would be fewer law-suits.”

John Gill
Body of Divinity

HT — Darrell Dow

“There is a view among a few Christians today in the United States today called theonomy. It is also called Christian Reconstructionism; sometimes dominion theology. Critics have labeled it dominionism which has echoes of ‘Jihadism.’ I will use the term theonomy which is the general term used in theological critiques of this movement. Theonomists argue that the OT laws God gave to Israel in the Mosaic covenant should be the pattern for civil laws used in the nations today.”

Wayne Grudem
Politics According To The Bible

1.) Theonomy and Reconstructionism are not synonyms. Theonomy is to Reconstuctionism what jet engines are to passenger jet airliners. Theonomy is an aspect of Reconstructionism just as jet engines are an aspect to passenger jet airliners but just as a jet airliner is more than just the jet engines so Reconstructionism is more than just Theonomy. Because this is true it is entirely possible for someone to be a Theonomist without being a Reconstructionist. (Whether they can be so consistently is a entirely different question.) Reconstructionism includes Theonomic principles but it also includes postmillennial eschatology, particular views on culture beyond just theonomy’s guidance on law, set hierarchical convictions on social order considerations, set views on theological issues like common grace and often some kind of patrio-centric views on family.

Grudem clearly is out of his depth here on this quote as seen by his inability to make the kind of distinctions made above. Theonomy is very narrowly concerned about civil law order for society while Reconstructionism has far broader macro cultural concerns. All Reconstructionists are theonomists (I think) but not all theonomists are Reconstructionists.

2.) Critics say all kinds of stupid things. For Grudem to include the jab comparing Reconstructionism to Jihadism in his book is outrageous. How many Reconstructionists do you know of since 1970 who have been suicide bombers? How many Reconstructionists do you know since 1970 who have hijacked Airplanes and have demanded to be flown to the Reconstructionists equivalent of Syria? How many Reconstructionists do you know since 1970 who have killed people for burning a copy of Rushdoony’s Institutes? To include this fatuous comparison to Jihadism (even if it is only “echoes”) is beyond the pale and requires the strongest possible rebuke.

3.) As we have seen theonomy is not the general term. Theonomy is very narrowly concerned with applying the general equity of the case laws of the Old Testament to a Nations civil law order. It is a theology that has been advocated, in one form or another, ever since the Reformation.

4.) The thing that is so maddening about Grudem’s position is that he critiques Theonomy negatively and then later on his book turns around and quotes OT law that prohibits incest. Now, if Grudem views the central premise of Theonomy — the abiding validity of all God’s law for all time unless specifically rescinded at a later point in revelation’s account of the History of Redemption — then how can he consistently appeal to that central premise later in his book in order to find support for the outlawing of incest? If the OT case law is no longer valid then what matters it what the OT says when it comes to incest?

For a discussion on this subject see

Not Imposing Christianity Through National Law