Friday, June 1, 2007

Views on God's Law ...the system.

Sup?

I've been studying away and I found something that might interest some of you. These are the dominant views of the Old Testament Law. I tend to lean toward Luther's view, in regard to the 10 Commandments being primary in that. In my studying I've also realized that I've taken up some of Aquinas' view at times to explain to people why the 10 Commandments are still valid. After some thought on the subject, I've come to a conclusion that is a bit more specific for understanding purposes. In my effort to explain why we used the law in evangelism to a nonbeliever, my zeal forgot the fact that "The law is a system. We are no longer under that system." -Dr. Mal Couch.

That being said, humanity is not under the law as a system, but it is under the fact that God requires perfection and no one is perfect. THAT is what the 10 Commandments show them (Romans 7:13, Galatians 3:24). They aren't given to show someone that they need to live better, but that they have already not lived good enough. So to answer the question... We present the moral commandments not because humanity is under Jewish law as a whole (because the system cannot be divided or compartmentalized), but because it shows someone sin in it's true light. It shows them they aren't "good" enough for God. That IS its' purpose. God used it to show His chosen people they need to run to His mercy in devotion because they weren't perfect... just as we can use it today in breaking ground for the gospel and the same purpose.


Antinomianism (from nomos=law):
Against the law—the Law has no proper role in guiding the life of the believer

Aquinas’ threefold division:
Distinguished between moral, civil, and ceremonial elements within the Law; and viewed the ceremonial as no longer needed in light of the work of Christ

Luther:
Emphasized how the Law points out sin

Calvin:
Emphasized the Law as a guide for Christian living

Theonomy/ Dominion Theology/ Christian Reconstructionism:
Desires to implement Old Testament civil laws in modern government in order to establish a Christian theocracy

Messianic Jewish Halachic Observance:
Some Jewish Christians encourage the observance of rabbinic rules as a measure of their spirituality


Also, I have the online discussion from my Hermeneutics class about the interpretation of women's roles and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 saved on a Word document if anyone wants it. It was a good discussion with a variety of angles on the passage. The teacher comments at the end. Just let me know...

2 comments:

The Schaubing Blogk said...

You state:

Theonomy/ Dominion Theology/ Christian Reconstructionism:
Desires to implement Old Testament civil laws in modern government in order to establish a Christian theocracy


As a theonomist I find multiple problems with this definition. Even the wikipedia puts it better:

theonomy is the idea that, in the Bible, God provides the basis of both personal and social ethics. In that context, the term is always used in antithesis to autonomy, which is the idea that Self provides the basis of ethics. Theonomic ethics asserts that the Bible has been given as the abiding standard for all human government — individual, family, church, and civil; and that Biblical Law must be incorporated into a Christian theory of Biblical ethics.

I know of no theonomist, and I have read many, who would agree with your definition. Firstly it is not a desire, it is a theology. Secondly, it does not merely apply to the civil law but to all of God law. Thirdly, the term 'theocracy' means 'rule by God': which would be wonderful but theology doesn't allow for such a thing at this point.
Instead, theonomy insists that the law of God is binding on all men at all times.

Anonymous said...

The definition came from the materials form my class... blame that author not me.. lol. Also... if the law of God is binding on all men at all times.... have you read Galatians?

I personally wouldn't say that God's law implemented in a the civil government will change the sin problem. That's the issue, really. I honestly know little about Theonomy. the point of my post wasn't to address that topic.

Thanks for the comment though.