The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Towards a Theology of the State

I have moved this post from the "Compatibilism" thread because it has really gotten into a topic all its own. --Kyle

Recapitulation: Since my flippant first post in this thread was rightly rebuffed, I’ve tried to argue on the side of compatibilism while simultaneously defending the apparent motivation of some who either dilute the doctrine of compatibilism or deny it entirely. I’ve contended, based on my understanding of Scripture, that the dilution and denial of compatibilism is wrong, while the concern about the “timeless[-ness]” of traditional Calvinistic theology is legitimate, because failure to find a scriptural bridge between the timeless and the temporal is an impediment to development of a viable Christian “theology of the state”. In agreement with other posts in this thread, I see Terrence Tiessen’s rendition of compatibilism as defective. In apparent disagreement with all posts but mine in this thread, I see the motivation that he claims -- “timeless[-ness]” -- as valid. In this post I hope to develop these ideas further by responding to the most recent posts by Pilgrim and J_Edwards.

To carry on the linkage between (i)the doctrine of compatibilism, (ii)the problem that Terrence Tiessen sees in the “timeless[-ness]” of traditional Calvinistic theology, and (iii)my claim that solving this “timeless[-ness]” problem is crucial to a “Hermeneutical Prolegomena” aimed at discovering a “theology of the state”:

In posts above, I've claimed that discovering a scriptural bridge between the eternal and the temporal is aided by recognizing four different kinds of laws in Scripture, and in life generally: (i)eternal law; (ii)natural law; (iii)divine law; and (iv)positive law. One of these is eternal while the other three are temporal. This relates to compatibilism via the fact that God's Will can be said to be eternal, while human “freedom of the will” (moral free agency) is temporal. Pilgrim indicated that he considered my use of these terms as “self-determined and self-imposed”. I'd like to explain my use of these terms, but first I'd like to address issues relating to the first few chapters of Genesis.

I agree that “God ... put a mark on Cain ... because it was part of His plan from the very beginning”. This is not inconsistent with God allowing a period of anarchy “because it was part of His plan from the very beginning”. God foreordaining a period of anarchy is also not inconsistent with his doing so “reluctantly”. If it makes sense for God to be “sorry that I have made them” (Genesis 6:7) at the end of this period that He foreordained, then it makes equally as much sense that He was perhaps reluctant at the beginning of this period that He foreordained. And if He ended the foreordained period of anarchy with sorrow, then it’s not inconsistent with His foreordination for Him to start a law enforcement epoch after the flood, reluctantly. God’s human emotions of sorrow and reluctance take nothing away from his Divinity and power to foreordain. If it did, then the Human, Jesus Christ, could not be God, because He had emotions. Those of us who are Trinitarian will not tolerate this conclusion, and we will therefore not tolerate the premise that the God Who foreordains everything is not capable of emotions like sorrow and reluctance.

When I said that the Genesis 9:6 “mandate is positive law”, I was taking a verbal shortcut which, for the sake of clarity, I should not have taken. So I’ll try to say the same thing again, but this time without the shortcut: Genesis 9:6 is a command from God. This is clear to anyone who looks at the Hebrew in this verse. All commands of God that are recorded in the Bible are part of the divine law. They therefore fall within the purview of Deuteronomy 29:29 (NASB): When the “sons ... observe” the divine law, they might translate observation of such divine law into positive law, and they might not. When a passage from the divine law is a God-given command to establish positive law, as Genesis 9:6 clearly is, the “sons” who wish to “observe” such passage are under an especially strong calling to translate such passage into positive law. The Genesis 9:6 mandate is NOT positive law, and I'm sorry that I said it is. It is a mandate to promulgate and execute positive law. The existence of a law as eternal law, or as divine law, is not equivalent to promulgation of that law as positive law. I don't believe I'm making such claims arbitrarily, because I'm convinced that there is logic behind such statements that deserves notice.

In Genesis 4:15, as you indicate, J_Edwards, “the Lord appointed a sign for Cain”, saying to him, “whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold.”. It doesn’t say here, and I can’t find anywhere else in Scripture where it says, whether this sevenfold vengeance will be executed directly by God, or by way of human free-agency. If it’s by way of human free agency, then this sevenfold vengeance is certainly a form of positive law. But since I see no clear indication that the sevenfold vengeance is to be executed via human free agency, I see no reason to assume that it’s positive law.

The same basic argument applies to Adam. I agree that Adam was “the covenant head”. But, “in the day that you eat from it you will surely die” (Gen. 2:17), doesn’t clearly indicate who will execute the penalty of death. I suspect that most people reading this believe that death will come on these people because God’s wrath will come on these people. Even though I haven’t read all of it, I suspect that if I claimed that virtually all historically reliable covenant theology posits that the penalty of death comes on these people by way of God’s wrath, not by way of human free agency, virtually no one would argue. So the lack of human free agency in the execution of the penalty in Genesis 2:16-17 means that this is also an unlikely instance of God-mandated positive law.

If Noah refused to impose this law upon his progeny, even though God commanded him to impose it upon his progeny, then the law would certainly exist as “revealed” knowledge, but it would not exist as positive law. The chronicles of the Old Testament are full of instances in which God’s people refused or neglected to translate His commandments into positive law. These stiffnecked people were operating within their nature as fallen creatures, exercising their moral free agency. Since Noah was a moral free agent, he could have done the same. --- When a biblical mandate to establish positive law is actually promulgated as positive law, the act of promulgation is the act of translating the divine law commandment into positive law. As far as human beings are concerned, a law that is not promulgated lacks the force and effect of law, and is therefore not law at all. In the words of Thomas Aquinas, “promulgation is necessary for the law to obtain its force.” (Summa Theologica, “Treatise on Law”, Question 90).

Deuteronomy 29:29 points to a process of revelation. I don’t know of any real Bible-believer who would argue with the claim that eternal law applies to everything and everyone for all times. But like you say, Pilgrim, human nature is so corrupted that we find it difficult to discern what eternal law is. God has condescended to have mercy on our plight by revealing the truth to His people and having them write such revelations for posterity. I agree, “That men were obligated and held accountable to apply God’s law among themselves is indisputable.”. The way you use “God’s law” here I’m taking as synonymous with what I call eternal law. Eternal law is clearly not the same thing as divine law, which is clearly not the same as positive law. The better we understand divine law, the better we understand eternal law. The better we understand eternal law, the better we’re able to implement it as positive law.

I agree that “man’s failure to conform to the ‘Eternal Law’ of God does not negate its existence nor relegate it to some form of ‘Positive Law’.” It appears to me that the sequence of events in the first eleven chapters of Genesis shows clearly that God enforced His eternal law by wiping out everyone but Noah and his family. But humans enforcing such eternal law is extremely problematic, because humans are so flawed that if we attempt to enforce such eternal law, thereby translating such eternal law into positive law, we are likely to become perpetrators ourselves. This is not an argument for anarchy. It’s an argument for meticulous care in the manner in which we see how eternal law is translated into divine law, and how divine law is translated into positive law.

Pilgrim said that my use of these terms, “eternal law”, “natural law”, “divine law”, and “positive law”, is “self-determined and self-imposed”: (i)Regarding induction --- I made a claim that an inductive reading of Scripture makes the distinction between eternal law and positive law undeniable. When I stated that the distinction between eternal law and positive law is readily apparent in an inductive reading of Scripture, I did not mean to imply that inductive readings should be separated from deductive readings. On the contrary, I agree with Roger Nicole that “we cannot accept a challenge to choose between induction and deduction”. I was trying to indicate that their existence in Scripture is evident through induction, i.e., by starting with biblical facts and correlating them into common principles. (ii)I'm not alone --- Each of these terms is used by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. I’m convinced that at the final Judgment, God will not ask me if I was diligent to follow Aquinas, Augustine, Calvin, or any other fallible being. But He will ask me if I was diligent to follow His Holy Word. If Thomas Aquinas points things out in Scripture that make sense to me, then as one of the observant sons (Deut. 29:29), I’ll do my best to incorporate these things as my own conscientious inductions from God’s Word. In fact, my use of “eternal law” and “natural law” is pretty close to Aquinas’s. Differences with respect to “divine law” and “positive law” are bigger.

Substantiation that these types of law are NOT merely “self-determined and self-imposed”: [Disclaimer: Aquinas's presentation of these laws is clothed in Aristotelian garb that I don't recommend. Even so, putting his presentation through a reformed filter can still yield valuable insights.]

• eternal law --- Augustine said, “That Law which is the Supreme Reason cannot be understood to be otherwise than unchangeable and eternal.” (De Lib. Arb. i, 6; quoted by Aquinas at Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, Question 91). As Aquinas notes, see Proverbs 8:22-30 for biblical proof that eternal law exists. The definition that I use (from bjp-tiaj.net) is largely the same.
• natural law --- According to Aquinas (Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, Question 91)
  Quote

  this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law. Hence the Psalmist after saying (Ps. 4:6): “Offer up the sacrifice of justice,” as though someone asked what the works of justice are, adds: “Many say, Who showeth us good things?” in answer to which question he says: “The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us”: thus implying that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature's participation of the eternal law.
  This is a valuable term, but it has a huge amount of historical baggage. To use it without all the baggage, I use this definition: bjp-tiaj.net.
• divine law --- Aquinas gives a reasonable argument for why “Divine law” exists, but he goes on to claim that there are two divine laws, one based on the Old Testament and one based on the New Testament. I believe there is one divine law that's accompanied by a failure by all of us to grasp it completely, and a failure by many to adopt the reliable canon. So I'm forced to use a different definition: bjp-tiaj.net.
• positive law --- Aquinas apparently uses “human law”, “positive human law”, and “positive law” as being largely synonymous. I induce from Scripture that positive law is law imposed by humans upon other humans. Regardless of what nomenclature anyone may use (“man’s law”, “human law”, “positive law”, or whatever), I'm convinced that the concept is valid and consistent with Scripture. It's also largely consistent with Thomas Aquinas, and with modern American law.

Given that the church has generally been abdicating authority to secular governments for many decades, and given that secular governments now encroach on the domain of the church, and into private Christian lives, a reliable “theology of the state” is more needed now than ever. Does this mean that a reliable “theology of the state” will automatically be a “Theocracy”? IMHO, not necessarily. It depends on how “Theocracy” is defined. If theocracy is defined in a way that allows or encourages Christians to cram their “biblical standards of morality” down the throats of non-Christians, then the “theology of the state” that gives rise to such a theocracy, IMHO, is deeply wrong. “[A]s Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5, 6), human law cannot punish or forbid all evil deeds: since while aiming at doing away with all evils, it would do away with many good things, and would hinder the advance of the common good” (Aquinas). But if theocracy is defined in a way that rigorously honors jurisdictions that already exist in Scripture, then many violations of “biblical standards of morality” would be outside the purview of the State’s iron fist, and would instead need to be addressed by Christian ministries.

This looks like a radical (“radical” in the sense of going to the root of a matter) statement to me, one with which I agree, if I understand it correctly. If one’s study of God’s Holy Word leads one to conclude that the secular governments of the world are overwhelmingly the product of “vain ... imaginations”, and not the product of seeking “accord with God’s ‘Eternal Law’”, then this could clearly lead one into civil disobedience.

Could you explain what you think is the "problem" of God's timelessness? Speaking for myself, I'm at a loss what it has to do with anything you're talking about here. God's timelessness is His existence outside the boundaries of time, hence He is without either beginning or end, He is unchanging and no "age" can be assigned to Him.

Tiessen's problem was how such a God can be "relational," on the (apparent) presumption that in a relationship between two persons, both parties must grow in knowledge of each other; however, God has no need to grow in knowledge of anything, and certainly the Persons of the Godhead have never had to "grow closer" to each other--and yet their relationships are the most perfect in existence.

But how does this tie in to a "hermeneutical prolegomena" or a "theology of the state"?

Genesis 4:14-15 "Behold, Thou hast driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from Thy face I shall be hidden, and I shall be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and it will come about that whoever finds me will kill me." So the LORD said to him, "Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold." And the LORD appointed a sign for Cain, lest anyone finding him should slay him.

While I would agree that death of any type is an appointment designed by God (Heb. 9:27), He still uses secondary causes to execute it (i.e. whether it be nature, angels (Gen 3:24) or man, (Rom. 13:4-5), etc.). And since God knew/foreordained the "secondary causes" prior to the fall they are included in His paradigm for death!!! This is seen working itself out in chapter 4, where if you study Cain's response closely you will see that he did not necessarily fear God, but man's retaliation!

The Ten Commandments were in force before Moses. Briefly (very briefly) just how many of the commandments were broken in the Garden? Eve choose to believe Satan—she had another god before God (2 Cor 4:3-4; Ex 20:2-3). Part and parcel of the 2nd commandment includes “who love Me and keep My commandments” (Ex 20:4-6) which both Adam and Eve violated. Eve believed the Lord’s name was vain (Ex 20:7) –“Hath God said.” Adam and Eve dishonored their only Parent (Ex 20:12). The first murder of course occurred in the Garden of Eden (Ex 20:13). Didn’t Adam and Eve commit spiritual adultery—were they not married to God (Ex 20:14; the bride of Christ)? The first theft was in the Garden (Ex 20:15; Gen 3:11) – the fruit. Satan lied to the woman and then the woman lied to herself (Ex 20:16; Gen 3:1-4). And of course there was coveting (Ex 20:17; Gen 3:6). Now the only one I have left out is keeping the Sabbath—but in their sin they could no longer keep the Sabbath—which is communion with God—instead they hid (Gen 3:10)!!! Wasn’t the whole of God’s command to Adam to love Him (2 Kings 23:25; Matthew 22:36-40; Galatians 5:14) and not the tree of KGE? Without obedience to commandments there can be no relationship with God!

If Adam and Eve had a relationship with God prior to the fall, then there was commands prior to the fall ("don't eat" is a command. A positive command that Adam as covenant head was suppose to obey and enforce). However, Genesis 3 is more than just about eating some forbidden fruit, it has to do with the motives behind the eating and those motives violated the 10 commandments and thus, Adam and Eve's (not to mention the human races) relationship with God, et. al. To say there was no positive law before the fall is to say: (1) there was no real relationship between Adam/Eve & God, and (2) that Adam had no way for obeying and enforcing the command not to eat the forbidden fruit, which in turn makes the whole of creation/fall a sham!

I guess that under the circumstances, it's not appropriate for me to do that, since that's apparently a topic that's outside the scope of this "Towards a Theology of the State" thread. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sorry.gif" alt="" />

You will not last long here with such flippant responses. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nono.gif" alt="" />

Since you believe the problem of God's timelessness needs to be dealt with as we try to formulate a theology of the state, my question and the answer to it should be very much on topic and within the scope of this thread.

Now, will you please answer the question?

J_Edwards quoted Genesis 4:14-15 above. J_Edwards, I hope you won't mind if I quote 4:13-15 here again, but in the NASB, which I'm convinced is closer to the original language: I may be overly optimistic, but I'm hoping that we can agree on this much:

• There is an eternal law against murder as surely as there is an eternal law mandating that water freeze into ice when it gets cold enough.
• Cain murdered Abel.
• Cain complained to God that "My punishment is too great to bear!". He made this complaint after God had told him (Genesis 4:10-12; NASB):
  Quote

  "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to Me from the ground. Now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you cultivate the ground, it will no longer yield its strength to you; you will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth."
• As you indicate, a crucial part of Cain's complaint is that "whoever finds me will kill me." Cain is hereby claiming that people will be trying to translate the eternal law against murder into positive law which by definition differs from eternal law (among other ways) in that it has a penalty that's executed by human beings, i.e., through moral free agency.
• I agree: "death of any type is an appointment designed by God (Heb. 9:27), He still uses secondary causes to execute it (i.e. whether it be nature, angels (Gen 3:24) or man, (Rom. 13:4-5), etc.). And since God knew/foreordained the 'secondary causes' prior to the fall they are included in His paradigm for death!!!"

Here's where I suspect we disagree: It looks to me like you're painting with a very broad brush when you speak of God's use of "secondary causes". God certainly uses secondary causes. He could use a refrigerator to make ice. The fact that there's an eternal law against murder doesn't automatically translate into God's use of human free agency as a "secondary cause" in the punishment of murder. The punishment that God indicates to Cain is that the latter will be (i)"cursed from the ground"; (ii)deprived of the "strength" of the "ground" when he "cultivate(s)" it; and (iii)"a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth". Nowhere in Genesis does God point to human free agency as one of the "secondary causes" of Cain's punishment for murder. On the contrary, when Cain complains to God that "whoever finds me will kill me", God doesn't respond by saying, "Yeah! That's right! You're gonna get what you deserve through human free agency.". On the contrary, when Cain makes this complaint, God responds by putting a very severe impediment to the use of human free agency as a "secondary cause" in the punishment of Cain. God responds by saying, "whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold". I have no idea what sevenfold vengeance would look like, but it's obviously something that every human being on the planet would have feared. It's like God said, "I'm going to make ice (punish Cain). If any human tries to assist Me by using their refrigerator (by intervening as a 'secondary cause', by supplying human free agency in Cain's punishment, by translating the eternal law against murder into positive law), I, God, will make sure that such interfering moral free agent will suffer big time.". To make sure that no one dared avenge Abel's murder, "the LORD appointed a sign for Cain, so that no one finding him would slay him".

I agree that Cain feared man's retaliation more than God's punishment. That speaks to how rotten Cain was. But the fact that God impeded the use of human free agency as a secondary cause in Cain's punishment speaks to how rotten the rest of Adam's race was, and is. The impediment that God put in the way of the translation, by any of Cain's contemporaries, of the eternal law against murder into positive law -- the "appointed ... sign" and the stated penalty for ignoring such "sign" -- is a perennial warning to everyone interested in law enforcement, to take extraordinary care in translating eternal law into positive law (i.e., in asserting human free agency as a secondary cause in the punishment of human violations of eternal law).

The strong linkage you make between eternal law and positive law apparently extends to before the fall. This is a point at which I disagree emphatically. You make a case for the existence of the Ten Commandments even before the fall. It looks like a fairly reliable argument, so I'll agree (although not without some reservation) that the Ten Commandments existed as eternal law before the fall. I agree that being obedient to the eternal law is the essence of being in relationship with God. But when you say, I see no evidence in Scripture supporting this. I agree that "don't eat" is a command. As such, it falls within the purview of Deuteronomy 29:29: "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.". By revealing this command, "don't eat", to Adam and Eve, God was translating eternal law into an oral, unwritten precursor to the divine law. The existence of the commandment -- without clearly indicating that it needs to be translated into positive law, i.e., law imposed by people upon other people -- means that Yes!, "Adam as covenant head was suppose to obey". Since he was supposed to obey it, he was supposed to enforce it on himself. Furthermore, as "covenant head", he was supposed to lead his wife by example. But I see no equation of headship and the use of force, anywhere in Scripture. Headship might entail the use of force on other people, and it might not. Prudence demands always erring on the side of NOT using force, rather than on the side of forcing compliance. If it's not spelled out clearly that force against someone else is needed, then it's always best to avoid using it. So I see no reason to believe that "don't eat" is positive law, given that positive law is law enforced by people upon other people. When you say, I'm inclined to suspect that we're using totally different definitions of positive law.

Charles,

Methinks that this is a definite possibility since I too do not agree with your working definition of "Positive Law", which you evidently adopted from Thomas Aquinas, among other ideas. Further, I find a serious problem in your application of "Positive Law" as defined by yourself. For example, (sorry for not wanting to take the time to copy/paste an exact quote), in the matter of Cain who lamented that if caught by other men, he would surely be put to death. You expanded on this and wrote that the death of Cain by the hands of other men would be necessarily a carrying out of a "Positive Law" by virtue of "human free agency". To this I was voice two objections: 1) According to your definition of "Positive Law", assuming I have understood you correctly, "Positive Law" is any law which men may make and then execute upon other men. But the punishment of death upon murderers did not originate with men but with God. Men simply were and are under divine obligation to obey, i.e., to execute that punishment upon murderers according to that Eternal law which God imposed upon all mankind.

I am another among many, both past and present who firmly holds that the Ten Commandments were applicable to all mankind from the very beginning and simply iterated on Mt. Sinai and put into writing; applied to a specific people in a clear and cogent fashion for those present and posterity. None of those Commandments were the product of human cognition, aka: "human free agency". Again, all of God's laws are "Eternal", i.e., they are boundless as to time and as they apply to man, unless they are abrogated and/or fulfilled having served a specific purpose. That these Ten Laws were written on men's hearts before they appeared on tablets of stone does not negate either their pre-existence nor application before Moses. The fact that Cain was concerned that he would be killed by men on account of his murdering his brother speaks clearly of a known law and punishment of that capital crime. To suggest that what Cain feared at the hands of men was simply "human free agency" reacting for some indiscernible reason against murder is sheer speculation and without foundation.

2) I cannot accept your use of the phrase/term "human free agency". The accepted working definition of that phrase is the freedom of man to choose that which is most pressing/desirable to him at any given moment within the bounds of his nature. Your use of this phrase in your argument(s) simply doesn't fit.

Okay... carry on! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

This is a reply to CovenantInBlood's post, (8/25/06) at 7:00pm:

When you say, if you peruse the four kinds of laws that are addressed in the first post above, and especially if you look at Proverbs 8:22-30, I think you'll agree that eternal law has the same attribute that God does with respect to time, specifically, "His existence outside the boundaries of time". So eternal law overarches chronology, whereas divine law, natural law, and positive law exist within time, and are subordinate to eternal law. Some theologians complain that traditional covenant theology has been overly focused on timeless or eternal categories, like the character and attributes of God, the Trinity, Christology, and topics like that, at the expense of subjects that exist in time. Seeing this complaint by such theologians through the template of these four laws, their complaint translates into a belief that traditional covenant theology has been too focused on eternal law, and has not given sufficient consideration to the three time-bound categories of law.

The way I understand it, the "State" is strictly about positive law, because without laws that people enforce against one-another, the State would not exist. If the complaint of these theologians about traditional covenant theology is true, then it appears to me that in order to develop a reliable theology of the state, it's necessary to find harmony between eternal law and these three categories of time-bound law. The complaint of some of these theologians that relates directly to the problem of finding a reliable, Bible-based theology of the state, is that traditional covenant theology has been prone to applying doctrines, precepts, principles discovered late in the biblical chronology, to interpret passages early in the biblical chronology. For example, Genesis 9:6 is clearly a command from God mandating that humans execute retribution against perpetrators of bloodshed. Leviticus 20:13 indicates that homosexual acts warrant the death penalty. Does the latter mean that we should reinterpret Genesis 9:6 so that instead of taking it in its plain meaning, the shedding of human blood, we take it with the expanded meaning it might have in light of Leviticus 20:13? If we have little regard for chronology, then we're not as likely to see a problem in applying later passages to earlier passages. I see this as a problem. Theologians like Tiessen may have their own reasons for speaking of a problem with the "timeless". I'm convinced that we can learn a lot more from Scripture by honoring both (i)the time-sequence of biblical events and (ii)the eternal in Scripture, than we can by honoring one at the expense of the other.

I hope this answers your question. I did not mean to offend. Please pardon me if I did. I'm new here, prone to being clumsy, and still getting my bearings.

Okay. But even God's eternal law has temporal aspects; for example, murder was not possible outside of time and before creation, nor was the sanctification of one day in seven, nor the worship of idols nor the taking of God's name in vain, etc. These laws are eternal not so much because they exist outside of time, but because they are reflections of God's eternal (unchanging) character, and this is where their foundation lies. For a man to murder or break the Sabbath or worship idols or dishonor his parents or lie is to distort and break the image of God in which he was made--but he can't do any of these things except in time.


My confusion then was your use of Tiessen, since his concern about God's timelessness (how does a timeless God relate to human beings?) seems quite different from your concern. I'm not convinced you can translate Tiessen's concern into these categories of law.

However, as far as I'm aware (and granted I'm no seminarian), covenant theology has always been concerned with temporal issues as well--necessarily, since the covenants play out in time. The Covenant of Works was promulgated in time to Adam, the Covenant of Grace was promulgated in time to Abraham, the Covenant of Redemption was fulfilled in time in Christ's death and resurrection, etc. The eternal is the foundation of the temporal; God's eternal decrees are realized temporally.


This is not terribly surprising if we believe in progressive revelation. Do we refuse to understand the didactic meanings of the Mosaic religious ceremonies because they are chronologically earlier than the writing of the Book of Hebrews? Later revelation frequently sheds light on earlier revelation.


Evidently you misunderstand the hermeneutic; or, perhaps, the "theologians" of whom you speak do. It is not as simple as "the later interprets the earlier." We don't reinterpret Gen. 9:6 in light of Lev. 20:13 because the latter has nothing to do with murder.


No doubt; but I can't see this as a legitimate complaint against covenant theology.


Perhaps it will help if I explain more fully my reasons for moving the thread out of "Compatibilism." You were taking the discussion of compatibilism (likewise, timelessness) towards becoming a subordinate part of a larger discussion on a "theology of the state." But that thread's larger discussion was compatibilism in itself. So I created a new thread for discussion on a "theology of the state."

Charles, with all due respect, you are reading the text with preconceived ideas of how it should be translated—i.e. your laws, CR shaded style <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bigglasses.gif" alt="" />. If you begin with a false hermeneutic, then you will not interpret the text accurately.

Besides the arguments I have already made and remain un-refuted, you can see that positive law had to be in effect in Cain’s day simply by looking at these texts:

Now, above you see “tents,” “livestock,” “harps,” “flutes,” “tools,” and materials such as “bronze,” and “iron,” mentioned in the text. Do you think these may have been traded or sold? After all, the people that played the harp or mined ore could not eat the harps and ore. How do you think the “bronze” and “iron” were mined – for free, or sold or traded? Cain even built a whole city (Gen. 4:17). Was this for free? Abel did not always JUST eat from his flock, nor Cain JUST eat from fruits of the soil (Gen 4:2-3). If an economic system existed then it would be consistent that positive laws existed for trade, theft, etc.!!!

And note how did God hold humanity responsible for their lawlessness (Gen 6) without giving in some form a standard ("the law") as a measuring tool? And if there was a standard it can be reasoned that it must have been interpreted and thus positive law existed. Furthermore, while law can exist without grace, grace means nothing without existence of the law? Without law there can't be any right or wrong. What role could grace play in a situation such as that? How did Noah find grace (Gen 6:8) if there was no law?

CR, apparently you have not studied the issue of Covenant Theology very closely. Adam as covenant head was the KING of the earth. KINGS do more than lead by example — they enforce laws of a KINGDOM. To ENFORCE means that there has to be laws to enforce in the first place (in Gen. 2:15 we see yet another command, to keep the Garden (shamar, i.e. defend, watch, preserve, etc.)). Besides the actual text itself, this may be argued in various ways:

First, there are TWO main ADAMS in Scripture. We have ADAM in the Garden and we have the second man ADAM, or the last ADAM – Christ!

Now, Paul could have made this argument only going back to Moses (if he was so inclined to agree with CR <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bigglasses.gif" alt="" /> hermeneutics), but under the guidance of the Holy Spirit he makes it going all the way back to Adam #1. What ADAM #1 failed to do, Christ (ADAM #2) did – he kept the law. What is noteworthy here is that not only did He keep the law as God, but also as MAN – as ADAM. Christ kept the law as MAN and thus “positive” law (which has already been shown to come from divine law, et. al.) was fulfilled by Christ (Matt 5:17) …. Christ obeyed the 10 commandments (and much more) as Adam #1 was suppose to, but failed!!! To say that ADAM #1 was not suppose to fulfill the 10 commandments is to say that Adam #2 was not either? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />

Please note, Christ DID MORE than just lead by example, He came as KING to conquer — the way that Adam was suppose to rule (Gen. 2:15, shamar — enemy snake, Satan)!!! Just as Jesus, the covenant head of the new covenant (Heb 8:6-13, et. al.) had the authority to say, “thus saith the LORD …,” so Adam #1, as covenant head (Hos 6:7; Rom 5:12f), had the authority and obligation to say, “Thus saith the LORD, don’t eat.” Clearly, Adam had rules for what he and humanity were suppose to eat (Gen. 1:29-30 and Gen. 2:16) and do (Gen. 2:15). Adam was the King of God’s Kingdom – he was to rule! To misrepresent Adam’s responsibility and authority is to undermine Christ’s own rule in His Kingdom! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/3stooges.gif" alt="" />

Second, this same general principle is seen in the text(s) of:

As David was the king under the KING (LORD said to my Lord), so Jesus was the King of the KING, and so Adam was the king under the KING. There is an under-shepherd and a CHIEF SHEPHERD.

The point is KINGS rule and enforce covenants – and Adam was the initial covenant head of the earth (Hos 6:7). Any study of covenants requires a look at covenant stipulations and restrictions. Thus, Adam, as a man, fulfills even your definition of positive law (i.e. positive law which by definition differs from eternal law (among other ways) in that it has a penalty that's executed by human beings). Though the covenant came from God its stipulations were to be enforced by man upon man (God uses secondary causes, et. al.)! If Adam was not to be King of the earth then you would also have to deny that Christ was to be King of His Kingdom. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/heavy.gif" alt="" /> When the God-Man returns He will enforce the Kingdom not only as God upon man, but man upon man as well!!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ClapHands.gif" alt="" />

Third, sin is not imputed when there is no law (Rom 5:13). But, original sin came into being with the fall – prior to Moses. However, Adam and Eve violated the 10 commandments, though they were yet unstated in Scripture (which does not prove they were un-written elsewhere, stated verbally by God, or upon the heart’s of Adam and Eve (Rom 1:19; 2:14-15)). But death reigned from Adam to Moses (Rom 5:14) because by one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned (Rom 5:12). Thus, the law was in existence in Adam’s time. Later, the law came in besides, that the trespass might abound; but where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly (Rom 5:20). As William Hendriksen (New Testament Commentary : Exposition of Paul's Epistle to the Romans), states:


Lastly, concerning positive law and eternal law. Eternal law when foreordained by God included positive law as a secondary cause. Thus, you cannot fully isolate them when discussing the Bible as they require one another for definition and operation. Positive law could not exist except by the sovereign will of God and eternal law necessarily depends on the interpretation and application (resulting in positive law) of the law for it to be effectual. Thus, if there was eternal law in the Garden (which as it has been shown there was) then there was necessarily positive law in the Garden (Adam as covenant head was to enforce law upon humanity and to do this he had to interpret and apply the eternal law(s) of God).

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hello.gif" alt="" />

Pilgrim, where have I gone wrong in these beliefs?
I believe that ...

• All of creation, including all human beings, human laws, and human cognition, are first and foremost the product of God’s will, i.e., His “eternal law”. God is both transcendent and immanent. Nothing happens in the universe unless it has been foreordained by Him.
• (based on biblical evidence and evidence from traditional covenant theology) A “covenant of redemption” exists. It is a covenant between the Persons of the Trinity in which the Son agreed to become a man. This means that Christ agreed with the other Persons of the Trinity to descend from the realm of the eternal into the realm of the time-bound, from the realm in which death does not exist because sin does not exist, into the realm in which death is the norm because sin is the norm.
• “God has a purpose in all that he does in the world and he providentially governs or directs all things in order that they accomplish his purposes.” (Grudem’s Systematic Theology, p. 331)
• “Though in God his will {(His ‘eternal law’)} is unified, and not divided or contradictory, we cannot begin to understand the depths of God’s will, and only in a small part is it revealed to us {(sometimes called ‘natural law’ when revealed in our hearts and minds, and ‘divine law’ when acknowledged as written into the Book)}. ... On one hand, there is God’s moral will (sometimes called his ‘revealed’ will). This includes the moral standards of Scripture, such as the Ten Commandments and the moral commands of the New Testament. God’s moral commands are given as descriptions of how we should conduct ourselves if we would act rightly before him. On the other hand, another aspect of God’s will is his providential government of all things (sometimes called his ‘secret will’). This includes all the events of history that God has ordained to come about”. (Grudem’s Systematic Theology, p. 332)
• “The decrees of God are the eternal plans of God {(included in the ‘eternal law’)} whereby, before the creation of the world, he determined to bring about everything that happens. This doctrine is similar to the doctrine of providence, but here we are thinking about God’s decisions before the world was created, rather than his providential actions in time. His providential actions are the outworking of the eternal decrees”. (Grudem’s Systematic Theology, p. 332)
• “None of those {Ten} Commandments were the product of human cognition, aka: ‘human free agency’.” I agree with you about this, because the Ten Commandments were “written by the finger of God” (Ex. 31:18; Deut. 9:10). Even so, as expressed on stone tablets, they were “providential ... outworking{s} of the eternal decrees”. As such, they were eternal decrees moving from the eternal into the time-bound. They were moving from a realm in which they are perfectly understood and obeyed into a realm in which they are imperfectly understood and imperfectly obeyed. They were moving from a realm in which they are not subjected to the flawed perceptual skills of flawed human beings, into a realm in which they are most emphatically subjected to the flawed perception of flawed beings. We are such flawed beings that it’s imperative for us to pay close attention to the time-sequence of events. Even in something as simple as boiling an egg, if we don’t pay close attention to following the proper sequence of events, we could end up with a burned-down house. I see nothing in Scripture that indicates that we have somehow graduated from being so flawed, that we no longer need to concern ourselves with chronological order, making it a crucial element in our understanding of everything from the Bible to boiling eggs.
• Prior to the events on Mt. Sinai, the Ten Commandments had the status of eternal decrees. They had not yet undergone the providential outworking that took place on Mt. Sinai. The Persons of the Trinity had not yet translated them, through the covenant of redemption, from their status as eternal decrees, into their status not only as eternal decrees but also as “providential ... outworking{s} of eternal decrees”. They had been promulgated as eternal law, but they had not been promulgated as “providential ... outworking{s} of eternal decrees”.
• Prior to the events on Mt. Sinai, since the Ten Commandments existed as eternal decrees, they existed as embedded in creation. They therefore existed as eternal law, and the people who lived before the events on Mt. Sinai were subject to Paul’s description in Romans 1:18-25. Some people, the elect, were necessarily conscious of such eternal law -- the eternal decrees of the Ten Commandments -- and therefore understood it as natural law, and obeyed it. For example, there’s a possible christophany in Genesis 15 through which Abraham was possibly regenerated, and obedience to the Ten Commandments, as natural law, is certainly required of anyone who is regenerated.
• There are certainly penalties accompanying violations of the Ten Commandments. But the penalties appearing in both the Exodus and Deuteronomy versions of the Decalogue are penalties executed by God. In neither version of the Decalogue is there mention of penalties to be executed by humans. There are certainly penalties to be executed by humans that are indicated in the Pentateuch AFTER God’s giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai. The point at which humans are required to enforce laws with penalties is the point at which human cognition, aka “human free agency”, becomes crucial to the enforcement of such law. And it’s the point at which such law becomes promulgated as positive law (or “human law”, or “man’s law”, or whatever one may want to call it).
• Summarizing: (i)God’s eternal decrees were promulgated as eternal law in the act of Creation. (ii)Because humans are so depraved, the Triune God implemented a plan through the covenant of redemption to promulgate the eternal decrees through “providential ... outworking{s}”. In other words, God implemented a millennia-long, chronology-dependent plan for the redemption of His elect. Because divine law, natural law, and positive law (or whatever you may want to call it) are each time-bound, they are heavily dependent upon this chronological, providential outworking. (iii)Positive law is promulgated when people are made aware of it. (For example, in the “United States”, “federal” laws are promulgated through publication in the “Federal Register”.) Without human cognition, “human free agency”, it’s impossible for positive law to exist, because positive law, “human law”, or whatever one may want to call it, requires at least one human being who is willing, able, and cognizant enough to enforce it. To be implemented as “human law”, the Ten Commandments require human cognition as much as the “federal” statutes of the “United States” require human cognition.

In previous posts I’ve tried to use “human free agency” and “positive law” consistently with these beliefs. If I’ve used these terms inconsistently, then please let me know. If any of these beliefs is wrong, please don’t leave me in the dark.

I am not comfortable with this statement. What I believe is that from the very day Adam was created in the "imago dei" (image of God), the moral aspects of God's "eternal law" were written upon Adam's heart, i.e., they were an integral part of Adam's very being. And since all men are created by God, albeit through human promulgation and not out of the dust of the ground, in His image, they too without exception are conceived bearing that image and that law as part of their soul (cf. Rom 2:13-15; 3:23; 5:12-14). If all men are to be judged, which they infallibly shall be, according to the law and their breaking of it, then surely law existed among men from Adam onward, for all men die due to both their inputed guilt of Adam's sin and their own transgression of the law.

Continuing from the above, again my disagreement must be voiced for similar reasons. But, here it appears that you exclude unregenerate men from the "natural law" with which all men are in possession of by virtue of their being created with the imago dei. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" /> I believe that all men from Adam onward were very much conscious of the moral law of God written upon their hearts and thus suffered in their conscience when they violated it. Even Cain was very much aware that the offering which he brought before the Lord (in partial obedience to a law set forth by God yet not written, aka: assumed from context) was not in compliance with that law. (cf. Gen 4:3-7) I would challenge anyone to try and submit evidence that Cain was regenerate. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Here again I find myself in disagreement. The fact is that the civil laws found in Deuteronomy, e.g., were the application of the Decalogue within the theocracy of Israel. And these civil laws and their commensurate penalties were executed by those in authority within Israel. Further, those leaders who did not apply the law were chided and sometimes punished by God for not doing so. Thus it can be clearly seen that men had a very active and responsible role in carrying out the enforcement of God's revealed law (aka: divine law). I believe that the instances were God brought punishment upon individuals and/or groups directly was to emphasize the profundity of His law and the severity for breaking it upon the people so that by way of example, among other things, they would faithfully strive to keep that law and to punish transgressors.

Allowing for the term "positive law", I would suggest that this would be applicable for all laws created by man without direct command of God. Some would be legitimate in that they are based upon biblical principle (aka: good and necessary consequence), e.g., times of worship, Bible Studies, etc., speed limits, housing codes, etc. which benefit all mankind. Others, which I am sure you will unhesitatingly agree, are not legitimate, e.g., Gay marriage, abortion, prostitution, pornography, etc.

Well, there you have my .

In His grace,

This is a reply to CovenantInBlood's post, Sat Aug 26 2006:


Here’s my perhaps palsied attempt at translating Tiessen’s concern -- “how does a timeless God relate to human beings?” -- into “these categories of law”:

When Tiessen said, he was claiming the existence of a feedback loop in which God responds to the acts of creatures. Within a legal framework, any act of any creature can be treated by a court as a fact. Courts exist to apply laws to facts. Tiessen is claiming that there’s a feedback loop between God and facts that are created by His creatures. To my understanding, in God’s eternal, flawless court, there is little need to distinguish between law and fact. God foreordained everything, so all facts are generated by His laws. So in His perfect realm, there are no facts in operation devoid of the laws that give rise to such facts.

Tiessen continues by saying, Tiessen hereby describes God’s dependency on facts that are created by creatures. Creatures have the illusion (or delusion?) of free-will. Their acts that are facts in the creatures’ eyes are outworkings of laws that are foreordained in God’s eyes.

The way that I look at it, “middle knowledge” is unnecessary because God doesn’t need to distinguish law from fact. Humans must recognize a distinction between law and fact (e.g., U.S. Constitution Article III § 2 cl 1) because we are slow to understand how laws apply to facts. We go through a process of contemplating, inducing, deducing, etc., before we recognize how law applies to fact. Since God foreordained everything, there is no split between law and fact in Him. Saying what I think is the same thing in Pilgrim’s words, “God’s ‘foreknowledge’ is inseparably linked and is derived from His eternal decree”. In God, the linkage between the law and fact is automatic, instantaneous, and inseparable. Tiessen’s right in saying that God’s “creatures are not libertarianly free”. Even so, God has no more need for “middle knowledge” with respect to human beings than He needs “middle knowledge” with respect to rocks. Rocks are not morally accountable because they don’t need to figure out how to apply law to fact. Humans ARE morally accountable because we DO need to figure out how to apply law to fact. God already knows how to apply law to fact with regard to everything; so He doesn’t even need to recognize the distinction between law and fact, except for the sake of communicating with flawed creatures like ourselves. So Pilgrim’s response to Tiessen’s “compatibilist account”, IMO, is correct:
God’s desire (not need) to communicate with flawed creatures for the sake of redeeming some is the vehicle through which His “highly relational personal being” appears to such flawed creatures. He appears as a covenant-maker and law-giver. He condescends from the timeless -- i.e., from the realm in which death doesn’t exist because sin doesn’t exist -- for the sake of communicating His priorities in time -- i.e., to creatures with short, sin-soaked lives. Like you say, God is “Lord of Time”. He condescends into our time-bound realm as an outworking of the covenant of redemption. In condescending from the eternal, sinless, deathless realm into the time-bound, sin-filled, death-filled realm, God separates law from fact, not in His own mind, or in His own being, but purely for the sake of expressing His “highly relational personal being” to people who don’t understand sufficiently how law should apply to fact.

By being unwaveringly committed to God’s foreordination of everything, it’s possible to understand God’s “highly relational personal being” by studying the “history of the work of redemption”, rather than by concocting dubious doctrines like “middle knowledge”. God’s knowledge of facts is inseparable from His eternal law, at least from His perspective. But the “history of the work of redemption” is a history of God’s training humans how to apply law to fact, so that at the resurrection of the dead, the relationship between law and fact is as normal and natural to the resurrected as it is to the Almighty.


To which I say, “Amen!”, and thanks for the clarification.

I agree. I’m not trying to smear covenant theology by making the criticisms of it that I’ve made. I’m just trying to fine-tune it for the sake of having it address a set of problems that to date, it hasn’t addressed well.

I think the Book of Hebrews makes it clear that the Mosaic religious ceremonies have an educational value that we should not ignore. I agree that later revelation “sheds light on earlier revelation”. I think the relationship between the later and the earlier becomes crucial when we start considering the jurisdictions of the various covenants. --- In order for a court to establish that it has jurisdiction over a given legal action, it’s necessary for the court to establish (i)that it has expertise in the subject matter, i.e., that it has subject matter jurisdiction; (ii)that it has authority over the given person, i.e., that it has in personam jurisdiction; and (iii)that it has authority within the given venue. --- IMHO, this pattern exists in Scripture as well as in reliable human legal systems. If this is the case, then for a biblical covenant, say, the Mosaic Covenant, to have jurisdiction over a given legal action, it needs to have jurisdiction over the subject matter, in personam, and over the venue. This issue is chronology-sensitive in a way that didactic application of Hebrews to the Mosaic Covenant is not.

When you say, I have to agree. My hypothetical application of Lev. 20:13 to Gen. 9:6 was inappropriate. I should have stayed with the original example, the applicability of Genesis 9:6 to Cain’s murder of Abel. --- If we claim that the didactic value of Genesis 9:6 should be used to reinterpret Cain’s murder, we cannot exercise that claim without violating jurisdictions that are clearly stated in Scripture. According to Genesis 9, the Noachian Covenant applies to the post-diluvian human race (Genesis 9:8-9; NASB):Since the Genesis 9:6 mandate against bloodshed is a term of this covenant, it has the same jurisdictional boundaries as the covenant. Genesis 9:6 certainly has didactic value in its application to Cain’s murder. But to claim that it has jurisdiction, as human law, is to ignore the in personam jurisdiction of the Noachian Covenant.

Sorry to have to voice my disagreement here but I simply cannot let this slide. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />

For Genesis 9:6 to be bound jurisdictionally, as you have suggested above, i.e., it cannot be taken to have been applicable to Cain's murder of Abel, one has to presume that such a law against bloodshed did not exist pre-Noah. However, I did attempt to show in one of my other replies to you that a law prohibiting murder and which had corporal punishment attached to it did in fact exist, else the context of Cain's lament would be senseless. What I perceive here is the same, or at least a similar error, which those embracing the contemporary NTC theology make. They desire to create substantive demarcation lines that result in a radical discontinuity between the old "covenant" (testament) and the new "covenant" (testament). Theonomist/Reconstructionists, on the other extreme, commit a similar error but in such a way that the result is an unwarranted continuity, particularly in relation to the law.

May I suggest that Gen. 9:6 should be understood as an iteration of what was beforehand unwritten and most likely forgotten among men. Likewise, the Decalogue should not be seen as "jurisdictional" in that it only applied to theocratic Israel and to none previously. Again, I believe that the Decalogue was an iteration of what was already established by God among men but with a renewed and detailed exposition. In short, these things are to be seen as expressions and examples of God's "progressive revelation", which carries along the old while adding more and pertinent information for the purpose of revealing God's redemptive purpose and plan in Christ.

Lastly, I'm wondering if you are familiar with the writings of Gary North, in particular, those which deal with "biblical economics". It seems to me he got off on the wrong foot from the beginning by attempting to find in Scripture that which simply is not there, i.e., a full-orbed economic agenda. Indeed, there are principles to be found in Scripture which can and should guide one in the accumulation and use of money. And, this must be so for the Scriptures contain the will of God for every facet of life. However, the Bible is decidedly NOT a textbook on economics, nor jurisprudence, nor government policy, et al. Perhaps it is just the nature of mankind to desire to have life spelled out for them, e.g., a, b, c., such as a Manual of life whereby one can simply open the manual to the right page and follow the detailed instructions. Having such a manual then relieves one of having to make decisions based upon general principles. And, perhaps even more so, with such a "book", there is no culpability involved due to one making a wrong decision. One has a iron-clad defense, or at least so they evidently think, since all one has to do is base their actions on the old exclamation, "Hey, I was just following orders! . . . It's right there in the book." <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

OK. I hope we can still be friends even if we disagree. --- I would follow Gary North and his father-in-law Rushdoony only with extreme caution.