Category: God’s Abiding Law

4. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word.(*h) Nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties …

*h = Lev. 18:6–17, 24–30. None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD. The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness. The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.… Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God. Lev. 20:19. And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister, nor of thy father’s sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.

Notice that it is the case law to which the Westminster Divines appeal in order to support prohibition against incestuous marriage. Now, according to R2Kt and the Klinean intrusion ethic principle the idea that God’s law should be applied to public policy regarding consanguinity and marriage is a improper hermeneutical move on the part of both the Westminster divines and on the part of those who would do the same today. If R2Kt aficionados were consistent they would take exceptions to WCF 24:5 when ordained or would report back to their Presbyterys that they can no longer, in good conscience, support WCF 24:5.

WCF 24:6 makes this move again when it cites the case law of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as procedurally binding in cases of divorce.

“For it cannot be shown that any part of that power which magistrates had under the Old Testament is repealed under the new, neither can any convincing reason be brought, why should it be of narrower extent now or then. Are not blasphemies, heresies and errors dishonorable to God, and destructive unto souls as well now as of old?”

George Hutcheson — 17th Century Reformed Theologian
The Gospel of John — pp. 158

Christ frees us from the law, but not the Judicial Punishment

” For 1.) If there be no bodily punishment to be inflicted on false teachers and blasphemers, then must Christ by his blood repeal all those laws in the Old Testament; but the Scripture shows us all our parts of Christian liberty in these places of Scripture, Ti.2:14; Rom. 14:4; I Thess. 1:10; Gal. 3:13; Gal. 1:4; Col. 1:13; I Joh. 4:18; Acts 15:10-11; Heb. 4:14, 16; Heb. 10:19,21,22; Col. 2:15-16; 2 Cor. 3:13, 17, 19; Jam. 4:12; Rom. 14:4; Act. 4:9; Act.5:29; 1 Cor. 7:23; Matt. 23:8,9,10; Matt. 15:9; and elsewhere; in all which places nothing is hinted of the false teachers patent under the seal of the blood of the eternal Covenant, that he is freed from the Magistrates sword, though he destroy millions of souls.”

Samuel Rutherford
A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience etc. — pp. 233-234

Note how careful that Rutherford is in defining liberty of conscience. Rutherford does not allow the catch phrase “liberty of conscience,” to be used as a “get out of jail free card” for every licentious behavior imaginable. Liberty of conscience does exist as the passages above indicate but it can not be invoked in order to overturn the clear teaching of God’s law word serving as a standard for social order and the Magistrate. Liberty of Conscience can not be invoked in order to overturn either the 2nd use of the law of to ignore the third use of the law. I go to ends to point this out because often when you deliberate with the R2Kt lads they are screaming “liberty of conscience,” as a garlic mantra to ward of the Dracula of God’s hated vampire law.

“… Our Adversaries are obliged to give us precept, promise or godly practice, why a moral sin forbidden and severely punished in the Old Testament, should yet remain a Moral sin in the New Testament, and yet not be punishable by men or churches.”

Samuel Rutherford
A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience — pp. 332

“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.