Re: ahmanson, etc.

----- Original Message -----
From: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; "Burgy" <jwburgeson@juno.com>;
<asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 5:40 AM
Subject: Re: ahmanson, etc.

> Even among theonomists there is disagreement about what laws to apply.
> And the interpretation of these laws.
>
> Exodus 21:17, "And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be
> put to death."
>
>
> Some interpret this to mean that any disobedence within the family is
> potentially a sin that can be punished by execution, it includes
> homosexuality, and adultery within some theonomists interpretation.

No doubt people can use the idea of "theonomy" as an excuse to condemn a lot
of things that aren't in fact included in the laws of the OT. That's just a
way of invoking God's authority to support one's own opinions. The real OT
law deals with this under "You shall not take the name of YHWH your God in
vain." So perhaps those who try to include homosexuality &c under Ex.21:17
should be stoned!

But seriously, folks - a much more sensible & theologically informed
attitude to the Mosaic Law is described by Luther in his essay "How
Christians Should Regard Moses." (_Luther's Works_, Vol.35). Those
provisions that were the civil law of ancient Israel are in no way binding
upon Christians. That doesn't mean that they are necessarily bad, & states
today may be wise in adopting &/or adapting some of them. But that's no
different from, e.g., the government of the United States thinking that some
Canadian law is good & adopting a similar provision.

& it may be worth noting that the term "theonomy" was used in a sense quite
different from the nutty one we've been discussing by Paul Tillich
(_Systematic Theology_, Vol.I), in distinction from "autonomy" and
"heteronomy."

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Tue Feb 8 08:00:35 2005