On the Theonomy Debate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvCJEGM0WMw&list=PLjGONzvY0sDWijCUXEyN9g-l3NdL-ihdZ


An attempted summary, with some editorial.  I'm missing a substantial amount of McDurmon's comments that I think are important.  I'll dig them out.

It seems to me that theonomy is not the same as the concept of Natural Law, as seen (apparently) in or around the Catholic church.  The difference is apparently that theonomy EQUATES the Mosaic civil laws as THE Natural Law AND that God's promises and curses based on Israel's adherence to those laws apply to all nations, regardless of their religion.

It appears to be closer to Shari'a law.  OK, I'm sure I'm going too far, but that's what I hear in my head.

Executive Summary

Dr. Joel McDurmon (americanvision.com): Mosaic civil laws are obligatory for civil governments today.  Cultures / nations are judged, or will be judged, by God, for disobedience to these laws.

Jordan Hall: Mosaic civil laws serve as an example to all, but is today a pattern for church discipline.

The Issue

Psalm 19:7.

[McDurmon] If the laws are just, perfect, true, righteous, etc, AND they have not been rescinded, explicitly or by natural deduction, then they are not just applicable but obligatory.  To do otherwise is unjust.

[Hall] Halls says that that position goes too far in separating Israel from the church.  Or, perhaps, his point is that the New Testament indeed clearly shows us that Jesus and Paul applied the civil law to the ekklesia, the assembly of believers, the church.

The Pivot

1 Tim 1:3-11.  How does one use the law "lawfully"?

Terms

"General Equity": God's moral law, which is written on everyone's heart, embodied in the Decalogue.  [McDurmon: the moral law is a summary of God's righteous character].

[McDurmon] "Common Equity": Does not spiritualize the law.  That part of the moral law which is written, continues, and applies to all nations at all times.  A detailed application of General Equity.

[McDurmon] "Particular Equity":

The Arguments

 [McDurmon] Per 1 Tim 1, despite nomo didaskoloi "teachers of the law" (Judaizers) and oikonomos "rules of the house", Paul does not throw out the law.  "Paul read [Greg] Bahnsen" (a calvinist theonomist).  The law is "laid down" for the lawless.  McDurmon then says this means the law is not just for the church ( = believers), but for outside the church ( = unbelievers) as well.

This appears to be the foundation upon which McDurmon builds his argument.  He believes that his foundation is so solid that he claims his opponent must be forced to call God's laws unjust in order to hold the opposite position.

Illuminating 1 Tim further is Hall's mention of 1 Cor 6:9-11.  He makes the point that these lists are of sins and crimes against God, used as a means to explain GRACE.  By implication (or perhaps more directly by Paul), church rules and church discipline (and so on) are (therefore?) the "lawful way to use the law".

[Hall] Theonomy is insufficiently Christocentric.  It refuses to see these laws and Israel "tied up in the typological foreshadowing" as the church as the fulfillment of Israel.  The church is spiritual Israel, the reality to which physical Israel is the shadow.  Lev 19:13.  Deut 25:4.  1 Cor 5 (Deut 13:5, 17:7, 17:12, 21:21) ... the NT applies the civil code to the church's obligations.

[McDurmon] The above criticism is not necessarily true.  The desire is for people to "get on board" and take it seriously, and figure out what laws are continuous and abiding, and how.

[Hall] There are judicial laws which are expressions of the moral law which require protection.  Example: child-rearing laws.  How justice is administered changes.

[McDurmon] Does this make God's previous justice unjust today?

[Hall] The civil law is immutable until it accomplishes its divine purpose.  The moral law, tied intrinsically to the character of God, does not change.


Hall summed up with the "Render unto Caesar" passage.  Apparently 1st century Jews treated this coin as a breaking of the first two commandments.  (Is it true that Jesus didn't "expect" Rome to uphold the first table of the law?  In what sense?)  And I don't see how submitting to a relatively blasphemous government is incompatible with desiring a theonomy and pursuing one via legitimate means.

McDurmon claims that the issue is about whether or not civil law faithfully represents God's standard of justice.  Or, perhaps, Justice (with a capital J), as a characteristic of God. But I think that's just one third of his point, the second third being that God's concept of justice is embodied or implemented in the Mosaic civic laws, and the third third being that God judges nations which do not do this.