Comments on: Rehabilitating Theonomy (I)W.H. ChellisIt is ha… http://deregnochristi.org/2007/01/30/rehabilitating-theonomy-i-w/ Christ's Kingdom sacred and secular Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:50:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Colin http://deregnochristi.org/2007/01/30/rehabilitating-theonomy-i-w/#comment-275 Sun, 04 Feb 2007 07:02:00 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/?p=72#comment-275 Check out Forrest W. Schultz’s review of Grabill’s book:

http://vantiltool.blogspot.com/2006/10/natural-law-and-reformed-theology.html

]]> By: W.H. Chellis http://deregnochristi.org/2007/01/30/rehabilitating-theonomy-i-w/#comment-276 Sat, 03 Feb 2007 18:39:00 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/?p=72#comment-276 Hi Jared,

Dr. VanDrunen has done a great deal of good work on Natural Law. I think you have hit the nail on the head when you suggest that your original concern about natural law was rooted in your presuppositionalism.

I am a presuppositionalist as well but am not sure that Van Til’s antagonism to natural law necessarily follows. I am really glad for the work of Scott Oliphint at Westminster whose latest book Reasons for Faith is allows Van Til to be in conversation with the Reformed Scholastics.

]]> By: Paul Manata http://deregnochristi.org/2007/01/30/rehabilitating-theonomy-i-w/#comment-277 Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:50:00 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/?p=72#comment-277 I don’t mind the “simplistic” theonomy. In fact, I divide the theonomy debate into two positions: (i) theonomy simpliciter and (ii) austere theonomy. I’ve seen problems with many versions of (ii), but, for me, (i) remains undefeated.

Many times, when someone thinks they’ve refuted ‘theonomy,’ they’ve really refuted (ii), which is, “someone’s version of how theonomy simpliciter might look as it developes into austere theonomy.

In respects to the WCF “problem,” I don’t see how it’s problematic for theonomy simpliciter since theonomy simpliciter agrees that the particular laws, for that body politic have expired. It is interesting to note, though, that the confession uses the term “expire” for the judicial laws and “abrogate” for the cerimonial laws.

best,

PM

]]> By: Jared http://deregnochristi.org/2007/01/30/rehabilitating-theonomy-i-w/#comment-278 Fri, 02 Feb 2007 15:26:00 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/?p=72#comment-278 A couple years ago, David Van Drunen gave a lecture at RPTS’ Westminster Conference on the natural law within the Westminster Standards. It could be added to the reading/listening list in this area. For me personally, it softened the edges of my presuppositionalism…in a good way.

]]> By: W.H. Chellis http://deregnochristi.org/2007/01/30/rehabilitating-theonomy-i-w/#comment-279 Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:23:00 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/?p=72#comment-279 zrim,

Great question. I will through out another post that will hopefully make this more clear.

For now, I would suggest that the general equity refers to universal principles applicable at all times and all places. Where laws contradict the equity of the moral law they are not true laws at all.

Yet, legal codes are not bundles of general principles but of specific applications. This is where the rubber meets the road for Reformed ethics. While general equity is universal its applications must be particular and local. To be effective, the law must not be static but dynamic and tailored to specific historial circumstances. Therefore, there is no one size fits all approach to applications.

Can applications be wrong? Absolutely! They are dependent on the traditions, customs, and reasoning ability of fallen men. This is why Reformed ethics is hard work.

]]> By: Anonymous http://deregnochristi.org/2007/01/30/rehabilitating-theonomy-i-w/#comment-280 Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:05:00 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/?p=72#comment-280 does the paradigm of reformed natural law, then, while disallowing that the template for or substance of general equity can be in conflict, allow for various interpretations for its application? that is to say, for example, it is disallowable to say stealing is right; it is always wrong. but while some may render certain actions as stealing others may not; that conclusions as to application may be wrong? to get even more specific: some reformed argue for homosexual marriage/civil union, some against. does this paradigm allow that both are vulnerable to being wrong in their conclusions, or that even the applications of the moral law can be constant or eternal?

zrim

]]> By: Dave http://deregnochristi.org/2007/01/30/rehabilitating-theonomy-i-w/#comment-281 Wed, 31 Jan 2007 01:22:00 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/?p=72#comment-281 A great post, thank you for that.

Tonight, I providentially received an interesting message in my fortune cookie after consuming my sesame chicken, it read: “Never does nature say one thing and wisdom another.”

Interesting huh?

]]>