[Travis]

Originally Posted by shakeybill

I agree that God's laws don't change (unless the N.T. specifically abolishes them). I am curious if the specified punishments should be just as binding under a theonomic government?

As an example I would agree that since God said sodomy is sin, there should be anti-sodomy laws. But should we still execute homosexuals or just give them a fine or prison time?

Well, if you believe we should use God's laws, on what basis do you think the punishments are any different?

[shakeybill]

Originally Posted by Travis

Well, if you believe we should use God's laws, on what basis do you think the punishments are any different?

Well, That's a fine logical pickle I've got myself into.

Yes, granting the continuation of OT civil law in the strict sense, the punishments should be the same. But are they literally the same? IOW Do we drag the sodomites to the stoning pit or strap 'em into old sparky with all modern decorum ?

All kidding aside I do not believe we should execute people for anything except murder or treason. Theonomically speaking I acknowledge a double standard here so I think I must back out of this for now and do more homework on this.

In Christ, Bill

[Travis]

Originally Posted by shakeybill

Yes, granting the continuation of OT civil law in the strict sense, the punishments should be the same. But are they literally the same? IOW Do we drag the sodomites to the stoning pit or strap 'em into old sparky with all modern decorum ?

Theonomists have disagreed about this. Gary North takes the side that we must still stone, Greg Bahnsen says the principle of the law would merely require death by some means. I haven't seen much argument either way, so at this point I am unsure, although I would tend to agree with Bahnen on this point.

[+Donny]

All kidding aside I do not believe we should execute people for anything except murder or treason. Theonomically speaking I acknowledge a double standard here so I think I must back out of this for now and do more homework on this.

Its very respectable that you admitted it.



As far as the mode of execution, I really don't know. The point of execution was to remove the criminal from the midst of the people and to send him, ultimately, to God's judgment. Of course, this is also the undeniable head-crushing element that North points out, as well as the life for life. I really don't know where I stand. My gut instinct is not to say we have to stone, but I don't feel uncomfortable with just saying "its the principle that we follow" because of the impossibility of defining what "principle" is. I'm sure if I understood the Old and New Covenants better, I would be able to say something useful about it, but I don't, so I can't.

[Mileto]

Yeah, I have a question:

To what extent do you allow for cultural relativity in OT code?

The biggest issue I have with the concept of theonomy is that some OT code is difficult to connect with. I.e., rape kind of gets brushed aside--it's not in the Ten Commandments, and in the Deuteronomic code, under certain circumstances, her rapist has to marry her (married to your rapist? I think I'd kill myself).

The point is, if I apply/interpret these passages with no regard for their relationship to the culture in which they were written, I have a hard time convincing myself that God gives a rat's about rape and other abuses.

Thoughts? Before anyone smites me for not making a convincing biblical argument, let me say that I in no way intend for this to be a refutation of theonomy. It's just a voicing of some concerns that I would have if I had to live with theonomy.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Mileto

To what extent do you allow for cultural relativity in OT code?

The principle behind the laws are binding—not the cultural specifics. For example, in the Mosaic Law there was a law requiring every house to have a railing around the roof. The reason for this is because they had flat roofs and often entertained guests on them and such. The roofs were necessary to prevent people from accidentally falling off and dying; this law was an extension of the 6th commandment.

Well today we really don’t have parties on our roofs or anything. That was a cultural particular to Israel. However, we do have cars, so perhaps speed limits would be in order, or seat belt laws. That’s how we would keep this law today.

As for capital crimes like murder, adultery and so forth, there are really no cultural particulars that make all those laws any different. They would be kept in basically the same way—someone caught doing such things would be executed.

Originally Posted by Mileto

The biggest issue I have with the concept of theonomy is that some OT code is difficult to connect with. I.e., rape kind of gets brushed aside--it's not in the Ten Commandments, and in the Deuteronomic code, under certain circumstances, her rapist has to marry her (married to your rapist? I think I'd kill myself).

God is the law-giver. All the laws He has given are perfectly just. It is not acceptable to look at Theonomy and object to it in the basis of God’s laws not measuring up to your own preconceived notions. We have to subject ourselves unto what God says.

Originally Posted by Mileto

The point is, if I apply/interpret these passages with no regard for their relationship to the culture in which they were written, I have a hard time convincing myself that God gives a rat's about rape and other abuses.

He cares as much as those laws indicate. I fail to see how a cultural particular changes things with regard to rape the way it would about having roofs around one’s fence. Rape is rape; it was then, and it is now. Those laws would probably not be very different when applied today.

[Benny Hicks]

Travis, how would you argue against the idea that, since the OT laws were meant to keep God's people from sin and the harsh punishments were meant to keep sin from corrupting the line of the Messiah, only the Church ought to be legally bound to God's law by a human governing system?

Ben

[+Donny]

Travis, how would you argue against the idea that, since the OT laws were meant to keep God's people from sin and the harsh punishments were meant to keep sin from corrupting the line of the Messiah, only the Church ought to be legally bound to God's law by a human governing system?

Strangers who traveled through Israel were under the same set of laws as everyone else. Judges were repeatedly urged not to change or corrupt justice against or in favor of sojourners. It was not only circumcized Jews that were under the civil Law, but everyone in Israel.

Likewise, everyone in a Christian nation would be under the law of that nation.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by gruveguy

Travis, how would you argue against the idea that, since the OT laws were meant to keep God's people from sin and the harsh punishments were meant to keep sin from corrupting the line of the Messiah, only the Church ought to be legally bound to God's law by a human governing system?

I'd ask for some evidence of those punishments being enacted for the purpose of deterring the Messiah's line from sin. Then I'd ask on what basis that would entail its supposed conclusion--that "only the Church ought to be legally bound to God's law by a human governing system." I don't see how the premise (which is false anyway) entails that conclusion, because we do have Scriptures that tell us The Law is perfect, and therefore deviation from perfection must be imperfection, injustice, and sinfulness.

We don't see an attempt at deterrence in the case laws, we see administration of justice. Look at the laws--they are all about retribution and a system of debt. Thieves pay restitution; murderers forfeit their lives, etc. So, basically, it is not the case that OT laws were meant to keep God's people from sin (that was but one tiny part, I suppose). The main point of the law was to (A) drive us to the cross and (B) deal out justice. But even if the premise was true I would see no reason the conclusion would have to follow. Then you have Donny's citation of the laws in relation to sojourners to come by and give this line of attack another mighty blow. It's just a poor argument all around.