The hope of believers after death

On March 16th, I finished reading John Murray's 1955 classic volume Redemption Accomplished and Applied. There is lot of material in this short book to consider and wrestle with, so I anticipate that I will be returning to this book frequently. The subject of the final chapter on Glorification and Murray's particular way of dealing with the subject under consideration, however, immediately drew my interest. Here's why: Murray highlights the difference between glorification and the blessedness that believers enjoy after death.

How many times do we attend funerals for both believers and unbelievers in Christ as their Savior from both the wrath of God and their right standing before God and are told something to the effect that the deceased "is in a better place forever"? Game's over for this person, there is nothing more that needs to be done other then that at some point we will join them again when we die.

However, Murray rightfully points out that this ignores the Second Coming of Christ. It ignores that the last enemy, death, has not yet been destroyed. As a consequence, Murray contends that to:

substitute the blessedness upon which believers enter at death for the glory that is to be revealed when "this corruptible will put on incorruption and this mortal will put on immortality" (1 Cor. 15:54) (pg. 175)

is to dishonor Christ and undermine the nature of the Christian hope. Murray goes on to talk about how

[p]reoccuption with the event of death indicates a deflection of faith, of love, and of hope. (pg. 175)

The teaching of Paul in Romans 8:17-23 is of a eschatological hope, not of hope in this present age by means of death. Paul is looking forward to Christ's second coming, not to his death which is the focus of passages like 2 Cor. 5:8, Heb. 12:23, and Phil. 1:23.

One interesting difference between glorification and death is that at the point of glorification all the people of God will enter together at the identical point in time. Death, however, is a highly individualized event to depart and be with Christ.

Near the end of his chapter (pgs. 179 - 181), Murray addresses two heresies that have afflicted the Christian church about physical matter. The second one views salvation as a release of the soul from the impediments and entanglements of the soul's association with the body. This is a very common heresy which finds expression in lots of entertainment and even otherwise orthodox churches. Science fiction stories, which I love to read and watch, are, in my mind, one obvious place to commonly hear this idea. Murray rightfully calls it "beautiful paganism" (pg. 180). It denies the following two truths:

1. God created man with body and soul and that he [meaning man] was very good.
2. The biblical doctrine of sin - sin has its origin and seat in the spirit of man, not the material and fleshly.

The connection between this heresy and the subject of glorification is that this heresy appeals to the immortality of the soul. The biblical doctrine of "immortality" is the doctrine of glorification and glorification is resurrection. Murray makes this point clear in the following quote:

Without resurrection of the body from the grave and the restoration of human nature to its completeness after the pattern of Christ's resurrection on the third day and according to the likeness of the glorified human nature in which he will appear on the clouds of heaven with great power and glory there is no glorification. (pg. 181)

The Christian's hope recognizes that God's creation was cursed because of human apostasy. Likewise, the creation will be delivered from that curse along with believers in the final act of redemption applied known as glorification.

Therefore, when we morn the death of a loved one we should not think that all they have reached their final state. Yes, they are delivered from the conditions of this present age, but God has one final act of redemption to be applied to them and that is their glorification.

Postscript:

After I finished this post, I remembered the 1969 song by Peggy Lee, Is That All There Is? The question I want to ask other Christians is are we really being faithful to all that God has revealed if we only stop the good news at the point a person dies? I think Professor Murray has made the case that we need to go farther with our explanation of life after death because the Scriptures tell us, and show us, that the dead are still waiting for the Day of the Lord. Here's the Peggy Lee song, by the way:

The Marrow, Romans 3, and multiple Laws?

On the night of March the 5th, the Wednesday night bible study that I am a part of took up Romans chapter 3. Quite separately also I have been rereading The Marrow of Modern Divinity by Edward Fisher first written in 1645 then updated in 1648 with a second part and finally in 1726 Thomas Boston added extensive explanatory notes to the volume to increase its helpfulness to the church of Scotland in his day, and as I hope to demonstrate in this post Boston's notes can also help the church today. The text has been helpfully reformatted by Christian Focus Publications in 2009, or can be read and downloaded through the Chapel Library for free. The note I am summering is found on pages 48 - 50 of the Christian Focus Publications edition.

What follows are my notes so that I could helpfully bring some issues that Paul deals with in Romans 3 to my bible study group.

Notes on Thomas Boston's Note about "the Law of Works", "the Law of Faith", and "the Law of Christ".

Relevant texts: Romans 3:27 ("law of works", "law of faith"); 1 Corinthians 9:21, Galatians 6:2 ("law of Christ").

Meaning of the terms under consideration: Boston gives the following definitions for the three phrase under consideration according to their biblical and systematic usage throughout the Bible:

• Law of Works - The law of the Ten Commandments, as the Covenant of Works.
• Law of Faith - The gospel, or the covenant of grace.
• Law of Christ - The same law of the Ten Commandments, but as a rule of life.

Now that we have our terms down, all from the two biblical texts by the way, and that we have some definitions of these three terms we should ask how they relate to each other and how do they differ from each other. This is one way that Boston, and Fisher, really help.

The use of the term "law".

The term "law" is not used by Paul in these two passages in the same sense in all three instance where the term "law" is used. The "law of faith" is not used in the sense of a law to be obeyed. The "law of faith" is not a properly a preceptive - meaning "instructive" - law. Boston argues the Paul uses the phrase only in imitation of the Jews manner of speaking, who had the law continually in their mouths.

The term "law" as used in the phrases "law of works" and "law of Christ" is used in both phrases to mean preceptive law, but their is a difference, but the terms "law" is used in the same sense with both of these laws.

"The law of Works" vs. "the Law of Faith".

Paul says in Romans 3:27:

Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.

From this statement by Paul, Boston concludes that in the case of Romans 3 where Paul is speaking of his hearers justification before God, Paul states these two laws in opposition to each other.

Boston's Proof: Paul says that the "law of works" says that anyone who keeps it can boast of their ability to keep it; but, the "law of grace" does not allow for any boasting, because by the "law of grace" the sinner is justified before God.

The "law of works" is the law to be done, that one might be saved if they follow it; whereas, the "law of faith" is the law to be believed, that one may be saved.

Similarity between "the law of Works" and "the law of Faith".

Boston really doesn't address any similarities between "the law of Works" and "the law of Faith" in his note, but I can think of one: they both come from God.

"The law of Works" and "the law of Christ".

"The law of works" and "the law of Christ" are in substance one law. That shared substance is called "the moral law". The phrase "moral law" is defined in  all three documents that make up the Westminster Standards in the following places: the Westminster Confession 19.3; the Westminster Shorter Catechism questions 40 - 41; and in the Westminster Larger Catechism questions 92 - 98. For the purposes of this post, I will only quote the question and answer for question 93 of the Larger Catechism, which says,

Q. 93. What is the moral law?
A. The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding every one to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it.

According to Boston, "the law of Christ" is not a new, proper, preceptive law, but the old (a.k.a. moral), proper preceptive law, which was from the beginning, under a new accidental form. The word "accidental" is being used by Boston in a philosophical Aristotelian sense and means that the form of 'the law of Christ' is not the same as the nature of the law.

Therefore, Boston is teaching that the moral law is the nature of the one law that God has given to his creatures. However, from this one law (or property) there are two accidental forms. One form is known in Scripture as "the law of works". The other accidental form is known as "the law of Christ". These two forms point back to the moral law, which is the same property.

Regardless of the form that moral law takes the following points are in common:

• The law is perfect.
• Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of the moral law.
• All commands of God are comprehended under the one moral law, particularly:
• The command to repent is common to all including pagans to turn from sin to God.
• The command to believe in Christ.

The obligation of the law of the Ten Commandments is not weakened by the believer's taking the moral law as "the law of Christ", and not as "the law of works". The sovereign authority of God the Creator in whatever means He uses to give the moral law unto humanity is not weakened by the difference in the forms.

This understanding is in direct conflict with the movement known as the New Covenant Theology movement, which teach that "the law of works" and "the law of Christ" are not only different in their forms, but also different in their substance. In this regard, Boston and Fisher are also very important to 21st-century Covenant Theology.

"The law of Works" vs. "the law of Christ".

"The law of Works" is a covenant of works. Whereas, "the law of Christ" is a rule of life to believers. The law stands under different forms to those who are in a state of union with Christ by faith, and those who are not united with Christ by faith who are still under the covenant of works.

As a result, the following points can be said of those are believers by their union with Christ, which cannot be said of those under the covenant of works by not being united with Christ:

1. Believers are dead to the law of works.
2. "The law of Christ" is an "easy yoke", and a "light burden".

Boston says that the distinction, relating to the moral law (or Ten Commandments), is that as "the law of works" the Ten Commandments came from an absolute God out of Christ unto sinners. Whereas, "the law of Christ" is the Ten Commandments coming from an absolute God in Christ unto sinners.

"The law of Christ" vs. "the law of Faith".

The distinction between "the law of Faith" and "the law of Christ" is that "the law of Christ" severs "the law of Faith".

Relating these three "laws" to each other

In conclusion, "the law of Works" is the law to be done, that one might be saved if they follow it; "the law of Faith" is the law to be believed, that one may be saved; "the law of Christ" is the law of the Savior, binding His saved people to acts of obedience (Gal. 3:12; Acts 16:31).

Every person is under "the law of works" by nature; but by taking the benefit of "the law of faith", by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, they are set free from "the law of works", and brought under "the law of Christ" (Matt. 11:28-29).

The G3N3S1S Debate: A Minor Point Which Was A Missed Opportunity

I finished reading The Genesis Debate edited by David G. Hagopian and published in 2001 by Crux Press. I actually bought this book probably almost ten years ago, but didn't read it until now because I didn't necessarily like the context under which I bought it. However, a few years ago, when I started working for Wal-Mart I decided that one good use of my hour long lunch break would be to read the books I have purchased before buying new ones. It has resulted into a pretty good use of my time. Furthermore, at some point I decided that some of my books fall into similar topical categories, so I decided that would make more sense than just randomly picking a book the night that I need to have a new book. My current category is books that are edited by a general editor. I have worked through books that are collection of essays written "In honor of ..." usually a retired theologian or some other reason. The essays typically on very different topics that may be related to the person's professional career, or something else. The best collected writings volume, from an editing standpoint, that I've read so far has been Always Reformed: Essays in Honor of W. Robert Godfrey. The reason why I enjoyed in was because each author told the reader why he wrote the essay in relation to Dr. Godfrey. I did, however, also enjoy The Faith Once Delivered: Essays in Honor of Wayne R. Spear because of particularly the RP contributions to the volume.

Back to the book pictured. It was on my "books with an editor" list and once I noticed that it was on Westminster Philadelphia's reading list, I decided I should get to my debate books. I wouldn't call what follows a review as much as one or two observations. I may write more about the book later, but I wanted to put the idea's that follow out there and then add if I feel like adding.

The first point is, how do you read a debate book? In the case of this book it has the following structure:

• Forward
• Introduction
• Position 1
• Position 1's main paper
• Position 2's response
• Position 3's response
• Position 1's reply
• Position 2
• Position 2's main paper
• Position 1's response
• Position 3's response
• Position 2's reply
• Position 3
• Position 3's main paper
• Position 1's response
• Position 2's response
• Position 3's reply
• Conclusion
• Index

How do you go about reading it? Do you just plow through one view's entire section and then do it again for two more times; or, do you try to read the main papers of the three views then all the responses then all the replies?

The later approach is what I largely tried to do, because the main papers are ideally written at the same time by the different groups without any kind of input from the other groups about what they are actually writing for this particular volume. I figured it would be safe to read the response papers along with the replies, but I found out after reading Position 1's reply that the reply papers actually are each group's final word after all the responses have been shared.

The second point is actually where the title came from of this post. The Lee Irons with Meredith G. Kline team represent The Framework View and are Reformed theologians. In addition, the J. Ligon Duncan III and David W. Hall team represent the 24-Hour View and are also Reformed theologians. Dr. Kline is now dead, but when he was alive he was very groundbreaking, to say the least, in some of his writings about Covenant Theology in addition to introducing the English speaking world to the Framework View. What was interesting, for me, was how the Framework team explained their view of Genesis 1 in opposition to both the 24-Hour View and the Day-Age View. On page 218, the team says,

Consequently, adherents of those views lose sight of the covenantal and theological burden of the [Creation] narrative.

What's so interesting about this quote is the idea of a covenantal narrative to Genesis 1. Then, on pages 181 and 182 the Framework View in responding to the Day-Age View and their Science-Driven Approach to the Text says the following on page 181:

The Bible was given, rather, as the covenant revelation of God to His people that they might be made wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 3:15). The creation account functions as a prologue to the book of Genesis, indeed to all the canonical Scriptures, laying the presuppositional foundations concerning the doctrine of creation and God's eschtological purpose for the cosmos with man as central to that purpose.

They go on page 182 to say,

Unbridled concordism, on the other hand, errs by obscuring the covenantal and eschatological thrust of the text in the process of treating it as a series of anticipations of future scientific discoveries.

Finally on page 117, in a footnote the 24-Hour View team in their reply says the following,

We reiterate, however, our disagreement with framework interpreters who view Genesis as primarily eschatological and covenantal. Genesis has long been correctly understood as protological and covenantal. To illustrate the point, consider Revelation. Merely asserting or citing a few journal articles claiming that Revelation is protological instead of eschatological (as the Church has read for years) does not make it so.

This point of covenantal aspects to creation, protological and eschatological discussions are a big deal to people who agree with the Framework View. Therefore, I would have like to have seen more dialog on this issue between the various views besides a few scattered references that only vaguely address the issues of covenant and creation; protology and creation; and eschatology and creation.

It's not just the second noun in either phrase that interests me - either "protological", or "eschatological". It's the idea of "covenantal". What do the Irons with Kline team mean by "covenantal"? What bearing might that have on the WCF 7.1 in relation to 7.2? What does the Duncan and Hall team mean by "covenantal"? Do they mean the same thing or something different?

Here's my point, within the Reformed world we are currently having a debate about a doctrine called Republication. An aspect of this debate seems to center around if  WCF 7.1 and 7.2 must mean that God only speaks to His creatures through a covenant; or, if covenant is the primary way, but not the exclusive way God communicates with His creature. The text of WCF 7.1 and 7.2 is,

The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.

The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.

The question is, what is the relationship between the "voluntary condescension" of 7.1 with "The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works"? It seems that one side of the debate is arguing that the "voluntary condescension" has to be exclusively the covenant of works. Whereas, on the other side, they are saying that God's "voluntary condescension" includes the moral law which was communicated to humanity before he was given the first covenant which was the covenant of works. The covenant of works was the "Besides this law written in their hearts, they received a command, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; ..." of WCF 4.2.

The wrong question in this debate is "Was anything republished on Sinai?" The correct question is, "What was republished on Sinai?" Was "it", the Covenant of Works (CoW) "in some sense", which is what one side wants to contend. Or, was "it", the moral law, which was written in their hearts before the CoW?

Another place in the WCF that we need to consider is chapter 19 section 1 - 3, which says,

God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.

The side that contends that the CoW was republished in some sense, makes the argument that the law given to Adam was the CoW, and since according to 7.2 the first covenant made with man was the CoW it must therefore, be the case that the CoW was republished on Mt. Sinai in some sense. This carries the meaning of saying, first covenant is identical to the law given by God that is written about in 19.1.

However, the side that says it was the pre-CoW moral law points to the fact that 19.1 says "God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, ..." and then the rest of section 1 describes the law - which hasn't been named yet - as a CoW. The beginning section II resumes describing how "this [still unnamed] law" functions after the fall and talks about how it "was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, ...". At the beginning of section 3 the unnamed law finally receives a name which is " ... commonly called moral ...." The moral law was also referred to in 4.2 as the "... law written in their hearts ...." So, the Confession is teaching, under this interpretation, that the law given to man by God is similar but not identical with CoW and it is named the moral law.

Now you maybe wondering what is has to do with the book and the four quotes from the book under consideration. I'm going to speculate that the Irons with Kline team are arguing in the Genesis debate book for the same particular understanding of WCF 7.1 - 7.2 and 19.1 - 19.2 that the Republication of the CoW people are arguing for in today's Republication debate.

I'm still gathering information. Oh well, another topic for another day.

On a related note, it seems Dr. J.V. Fesko's Last Things First book gets into this Eschatology and the book of Genesis relationship from a Framework perspective. However, the book is not a debate book so the dialogue still goes without comment.

Now, on to Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond!

Quotable Quotes from interview about the Gospel and Sexual Orientation

In the years 2009 - 2011 the RPCNA was considering how to address the modern issue of Sexual Orientation in light what the Bible says. In 2011, the Synod adopted a paper about the issue, which is very helpful and only 67 pages long. The podcast of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Confessing Our Hope, had Ken Smith and Howard Huizing on the October 14, 2013 program to discuss the report and all the issues surrounding it. The entire interview is very good and worth the 52:54 that it takes to listen to it. There are, however, three quotes - only two of which I'm using in this present post - that I thought were really quotable sound bites. The first is from Howard Huizing about the distinction between the inclination to sin and the acting on the inclination to sin:

The attraction has to be placed within the context of our fallen nature, and fallen nature is sinful. … Temptation is a crossroads, our sinful nature is in conflict with our redeemed nature and the question at that point is ‘where am I going to go?’, ‘where am I going move?’, ‘am I going to resist that temptation, or am I going to give into it?’ and giving into it is the specific action of sinning. Resisting it is the specific action of redemption.

That's a very helpful point. I would just add that the discussion by talking about 'acting on the inclination to sin' includes both the actual acts of sin as committed and the unseen acts of sin which our mind engages in, but nobody but God and us see (WCF 6.4-6; WLC Q. 25; WSC Q. 18). That point is not clear in the interview, but is clear in the report. Also, because of the context of the interview it is assumed by the three men in the interview, but I know that this issue is a point of difference between, at the very least, Rome and Protestants so I thought I would make it clear. I will go into this particular difference latter on when address Romans 5:12.

The second quote is from Ken Smith about two different ways of understanding Scripture:

There are two popular views of the Bible. One is ‘you’ve got to learn the language, and hone your skills’ to find out what in that book is the Word of God. The other approach says ‘learn your language, hone your skills because this is the Word of God. Now what does it mean?

This quote explains the difference between Neo-Evangelicals and historical Evangelicals wonderfully! The report is available at Crown & Covenant for $6.00 and really a good read.

A tale of three responses, but only two different outcomes

For about four years I have been reading various well-known Reformed confessional documents along with the Bible. I do this to remind myself that the Reformed churches do have a way of understanding the Bible that I need to keep in my mind and in my heart. I do not just decide what the Bible means today, but the church also testifies about what the Bible says and what the Bible means for me.

I have chosen a weekly plan which takes me though all seven documents in 52 week segments, called Daily Confessions. This past Friday I read two articles in the Canons of Dordt Head I, Articles 15 and 16. These two articles have to do with the doctrine of Reprobation. However, the way the Synod of Dordt actually talks about the doctrine of Reprobation is actually very pastoral and practical. I mean a really good pastor, not a bad one either, because I have heard of Reformed pastors misusing the doctrine of Reprobation. The part that always strikes me about these two articles is the title of article 16, "Responses to the Teaching of Reprobation". I just didn't expect the Synod to be all that concerned about how a person would respond to the doctrine of Reprobation.

It doesn't stop there, however, it goes on to talk about three responses which lead to two different outcome. Here's how it describes the first response:

Those who do not yet actively experience within themselves a living faith in Christ or an assured confidence of heart, peace of conscience, a zeal for childlike obedience, and a glorying in God through Christ, but who nevertheless use the means by which God has promised to work these things in us—such people ought not to be alarmed at the mention of reprobation, nor to count themselves among the reprobate; rather they ought to continue diligently in the use of the means, to desire fervently a time of more abundant grace, and to wait for it in reverence and humility.

Up to the third comma in this translation we're probably a bit surprised about the first person: this person does not "actively experience within themselves a living faith in Christ"; does not have "an assured confidence of heart, peace of conscience, a zeal for childlike obedience, and a glorying in God through Christ". What's going on with this person? This person is surely a reprobate!

However, let's proceed past the third comma. There's a "but"-how could the Synod of Dordt have a "but"? This person's surely going to hell. The "but" is there is tell us that in spite of not actively experiencing within themselves a living faith in Christ etc., which is a subjective standard, or a person measuring perhaps their enthusiasm now with their past enthusiasm the story of this person's life is not finished. This person in spite of "not feeling it" does what? They "use the means by which God has promised to work these things in us" and the "continue diligently in the use of the means, to desire fervently a time of more abundant grace, and to wait for it in reverence and humility."

What advice does the Synod have for this person based on what they are doing? "[S]uch people ought not to be alarmed at the mention of reprobation, nor to count themselves among the reprobate. ..."  This is Dordt! How could they reach the conclusion that this person isn't a fake? Well, what are they doing? They are still faithfully going to church. They are still waiting in faith that the Lord will not forsake them in spite of them "not feeling it".

Let's move on to the second person:

On the other hand, those who seriously desire to turn to God, to be pleasing to him alone, and to be delivered from the body of death, but are not yet able to make such progress along the way of godliness and faith as they would like—such people ought much less to stand in fear of the teaching concerning reprobation, since our merciful God has promised that he will not snuff out a smoldering wick and that he will not break a bruised reed.

The second person looks a bit better than the first person. They "seriously desire to turn to God," they also desire "to be pleasing to him alone," and lastly "to be delivered from the body of death". All good qualities. However, here comes that word "but", which is really cramping the Synod's whole "stick their nose up to the entire world" image.

The second person is "not yet able to make such progress along the way of godliness and faith as they would like." Their not quite meeting their spiritual goals just yet. What's going to happen to this person? "[S]uch people ought much less to stand in fear of the teaching concerning reprobation. ..." What's going on here? The first person was attending church, and fellowshipping with the saints, but didn't have "an experience within themselves of a living faith in Christ," there was no "an assured confidence of heart," they didn't have "a peace of conscience," nor "a zeal for childlike obedience," and finally there was no "glorying in God through Christ"; and the second person was "not yet able to make such progress along the way of godliness and faith as they would like ...". To both however the Synod said they are not to stand in fear of reprobation.

Okay, so who's this third person. Here he is person number three:

However, those who have forgotten God and their Savior Jesus Christ and have abandoned themselves wholly to the cares of the world and the pleasures of the flesh—such people have every reason to stand in fear of this teaching, as long as they do not seriously turn to God.

The third person forgets all about God and Jesus-"why are you bothering me with that Jesus guy that I worshiped yesterday. Give me now and let me leave God and Jesus alone." You see the first person was still trusting God to use the means by which God has promised to work these things in us. What's the "things"? They are:

• An active experience within themselves of a living faith in Christ
• An assured confidence of heart
• Peace of conscience
• A zeal for childlike obedience
• and finally a glorying in God through Christ

The second person is given slightly different advice. He is told that in spite of how little progress he feels like he's making that they need to remember that our merciful God has promised not to:

• snuff out a smoldering wick
• and that he will not break a bruised reed

As opposed to the doctrine of reprobation causing a believer damage it should lead us to Christ! That's why I really treasure reading the Confessions multiple times.

Theonomy vs. the Westminster Confession of Faith

For the past seven weeks I have been reading David McKay's book The Bond of Love, which I would recommend for anybody who's thinking of going to seminary or just wants to know how the Bible fits together. Today I reached Chapter 8 which is about The Way of Holiness. The last section pages 190 - 193 is about the law and society and talks about Theonomy and questions if its teachings are scriptural and confessional.

Professor McKay says "No!" to Theonomy and helpfully shows how a Theonomic interpretation of the Westminster Confession of Faith 19.4 makes that section have no actual meaning in a chapter end note numbered 60 on page 196. Professor McKay writes,

Theonomists who appeal to the Confession tend to interpret 'general equity' in such a way (i.e. embracing the detail of the laws) that they in effect reverse the Confession's statements about the laws having 'expired' and their 'not obligating any'.

The Confession says at 19.4,

To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

So what is Professor McKay actually suggesting in his end note? Well here's how we should read the section if Theonomists had their way (according to McKay):

To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which though they expired together with the State of that people, the general equity thereof requires obligation of all.

The changed words are in italics, and the meaning of this altered WCF is clearly different than what the Confession actually says. Though what's not so clear is why section four would have existed if the writers were Theonomic? I'll get into the question of if Theonomy is biblical in a later series of posts, but my point for this post is to ask if it's what the RPCNA, or any other church confessing the Westminster Standards actually clearly teaches or can allow? My argument, and the argument of Professor McKay, is an emphatic, "NO!"

Furthermore, over at The Confessional Outhouse, they have a helpful post (Doing Justice to Equity), which suggests the following change to WCF 19.4 as faithful to the original intent of the Standards,

To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the Natural Law thereof may require.

Now I realize the phrase "Natural Law" is can be a bit tricky to figure out. I also don't want to leave the impression that I agree with everything that's promoted at The Confessional Outhouse, but if we could agree that by the phrase "natural law" we mean only the Ten Commandments, also called the moral law (WCF 19.3, WLC Q. 93), and don't confuse the Ten Commandments with the Covenant of Works either, which was added to the moral law (WCF 4.2), we have pretty clear modern statement.

Sinclair Ferguson in his chapter, "An Assembly of Theonomists? The Teaching of the Westminster Divines on the Law of God" published in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, on page 330 offers a slightly different rewording of 19.4 than McKay which is also helpful:

The Mosaic law has actually expired minimally: it remains obligatory and must be applied maximally.

I'm looking forward to having a book review series on Theonomy: A Reformed Critique soon, but it is interesting to note the publication date is 1990. Therefore, for at least over 20 years Ferguson has argued that it would be more honest to modify the Confession and hold to Theonomy than to have a secret meaning to 19.4 and then have to explain what the Confession "actually" must mean.
 
I am suggesting is that the term "general equity" had a long social context which, at least in America, is not easily understood currently. I actually plan to address the term "general equity" in a later post, but for now my best suggestion on understanding section four is,

To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the moral law thereof may require.

This suggestion actually keeps all the terms within the confession because section three defines the moral law. Thanks must go to my dad, Chris Stockwell, for reminding me about how Professor McKay's chapter end note exactly changes the wording of WCF 19.4.