First the housekeeping complaints: this is one of the most poorly edited books I've read. I'm fairly sure it was self-published or just not read by the editor. I would recommend reading this book but not this version, or just be prepared for random periods and hyphens to break up the flow of your reading.
Now, am I converted to Theonomy? No. I am more aware of the difficulties associated with both sides of the argument. Most of the book is leveled at those who outright reject the Law which I think is an unfair characterization of "non-theonomic" reformed folk. The Holy Spirit teaches us to love the law and it guides us in obedience and righteousness. The rub comes with the application of the political use of the law and its penal sanctions. To make a compelling argument for Theonomy one needs to define the applicable laws (moral vs. religious vs. ceremonial) without grey zones. Is blaspheme a moral offense? Yes a thousand times! Do we put to death blasphemers as was prescribed in the OT? No, nor should we. Do we put to death adulterers? No, and if adultery is lust in the heart then we would all be guilty. It turns a bit Pharisaical because it deals with the letter of the law (some laws) and neglects the bigger purpose of the law (to drive us to Christ).
I see the problem that civil laws then become arbitrarily legislated. I do believe that civil law is founded only on the immutable Word of God. How I can reconcile all this I haven't quite worked out.
No comments:
Post a Comment