I've titled my presentation, in sincerity, The Sufficiency of Scripture and Modern Theology, colon, An Appreciative Critique and Alternative Course. And I do mean appreciative, and I'll try and show that at some points. But then, on the other hand, I do think we have resources in the Reformed tradition and a way of understanding the Bible that is more accurate and superior. I'm going to have a brief word of appreciation, not as much probably as due, then talk a little bit about theonomy and sufficiency. Then I'm going to note a couple of points about the insufficiency of scripture, and I hope I won't scandalize you. When I talk about the insufficiency of scripture, I'll typically have quotation marks around that. You don't see the text, but I'll try and emphasize the word. It'll be a peculiar sense of insufficiency. Then I'll talk a little more about the reformed doctrine of sufficiency in relationship to this issue, and then look at God's purpose for the Old Testament economy and see how, in fact, God's purpose determines the way we ought to look at these matters. And then finally, a word or two about my alternative course. First, let me say that this strikes me as properly an intramural debate. This is brothers in Christ wrestling with the scripture, both seeking to honor and obey their Lord and to see his word reign. In the main, this debate has been among Calvinists, although on the theonomic side, they have gathered some fellow travelers. I'm sure they're not entirely happy to have joined the bandwagon, at least not in their current condition. On the other hand, critics of theonomy have been from various points of view that aren't, I hope, all properly associated with my critique. But the fact is that particularly Steve Wilkins is a much admired brother in Christ. a fine pastor, if the Lord would bless my ministry among the folk that he's given me care for the way he's blessed, Steve, I'd be very grateful. And I especially am grateful, as I had a chance to speak at Monroe, for the opportunity to learn Psalm 98a. That's where I first learned it and heard it sung properly. That congregation can sing like no congregation I've ever been in the presence of, and I'm very grateful for that. Now, the value of the theonomy debate The folk who've been associated with theonomy are clearly concerned to honor the triune God of the Bible over contemporary sensibilities. They're saying, well, the way I feel about things isn't determinative of what the scripture teaches, and that's an important point in our sort of touchy-feely day, and we ought to be grateful for that emphasis. The theonomists have a profound concern for scripture authority and want to see scripture applied to all areas of life. In my judgment, they want to seek to apply it to more areas than the scripture itself permits. But the general impetus is something we ought to be grateful for and to affirm. And in particular, the theonomy movement has a great concern for the law of God. And this surely ought to stir the heart of any reformed Christians. As we're folk who've typically been nourished on the piety of the Psalter, we'd love to join with the psalmist delighting in God's law. These folk are certainly not antinomians. Those who love the little jingle, free from the law, oh blessed condition, I can sin all I please and still have remission. That is surely another gospel. Just as surely as legalism is another gospel. With the psalmist, we delight in the law as a rule of right of what is pleasing to God. It's interesting to note that where the Ten Commandments come in the history of the life of Israel, they weren't lying in bondage in Egypt. And God said, all right, here's the law. Keep it properly and I'll free you from Egypt. God brings them out of Egypt and gives them to the law as a gift. as to how they might live to be pleasing to their Redeemer God. The moral law, our confession asserts, does forever bind all, neither doth Christ in the gospel nor in any way dissolve, but much strengthens this obligation because I'm redeemed by all the more. I'm anxious to live after God's commandments. I'm not under the law, as a covenant of works, the confession goes on, yet it is of great use to those as well as others, that is, those who are redeemed, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God, the further conviction of and humiliation for and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have for Christ and the perfection of his obedience. This is of great use to believers. Neither are these aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it. the spirit of Christ's doing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully, which the will of God revealed in the law requires to be done." Well, in fact, the theonims are wonderfully vigorous anti-antinomians. One wag has spoken of them as the ninjas of the law. I like that image. And finally, the concern of the theonomists for the Old Testament text has stimulated attention to and far more careful exegesis of Old Testament passages in the church today, if for no other reason than to refute some of the more extravagant claims that our brothers have come up with. But nevertheless, that can't help but be a good thing. And in fact, in the main, I'd say that this is a very healthy debate for the church, because it forces us to return to first principles. And in every generation, that's a wholesome business. I love Dabney's description of this dynamic in the life of the church, found in an article called The Ruling Eldership. And I want to read you this quote. It's a longish thing. I hope you'll bear with it. It's so full of insight. all the things that Dabney has to say. It strikes many Presbyterians, this was a debate about the nature of the ruling eldership in roughly 1860 or so, and Dabney said, it strikes many Presbyterians with surprise that the General Assembly, in our leading periodicals in this year, 1860, 150 years after the beginning of our church in America, should largely be occupied in discussing the question, what is Presbyterianism? You can imagine why that might raise an eyebrow. They ask, with displeasure, are fundamentals never to be settled among us? Is the church never to be relieved of these debates, which thus agitate settled questions in our theory? We may answer these indignant questions with an emphatic no. Good brethren, who thus deplore these renewed discussions of the first principles, misconceive the nature of the human mind and free institutions. While man remains the creature he is, such discussions are to be expected and desired. Each generation must do its own thinking and learn for itself the lessons of first truths and general principles. If we insist that this generation of Presbyterians should hold our father's principles on trust and by mere prescription, the result will be that they will not hold them sincerely at all. For, by the very reason that general principles don't lie on the surface, they are to be detected by analysis and induction. They are always, in every science, other than appearances, and first impressions would lead men to suppose. Hence, in every science, the true general principles are at first unpopular and paradoxical. Prior to this act of investigation, in astronomy, for instance, the earth seems to stand still in the heavenly body, smooth. In hydrostatics, it is the empty tube which seems to suck up the water. In theology, it is the Pelagian view which commends itself to the natural mind instead of the Calvinistic. So in church government, the actual first truths of the New Testament are not those which are unreflecting impressions which lead us to suppose. Hence, each generation must correct those first impressions for itself. and be led down to the true principles by the laborious collusion of debate and investigation. Beside this, the human mind loves the concrete, and the labor of abstraction and correct generalization is most irksome to it. Yet it is certain that all general truths that are properly such are abstractions. Hence, most minds never trouble themselves to attain independently to an intelligent view of such truths, but adopt the practical results of them with a sort of imperfect comprehension and conviction. And of many who make such first truths of regulative thinking the source of their practical opinions, their general views are more or less vague and their agreement with them is only approximative. Now we cheerfully grant that both of these classes may be practically very good and honest Presbyterians, and that their detailed opinions and conduct may be much better than the general principles of their theory. But it is nonetheless true that the general principles sooner or later work out their logical details in the public mind, and that it is the men who hold these abstractions, a Plato, a Guston, a Calvin, a Descartes, a Jefferson, a Calhoun, correctly or incorrectly, who in the issue determine the practical opinions of their fellow men for good or evil. Practical opinions can only be kept correct by perpetual recurrence to first truths. Hence, we must expect the perpetual agitation of these first truths. It indicates not, indeed, the perfect health of the body ecclesiastical, a condition not to be expected while Christians are imperfect. but its sanitive tendencies. I think there Dabney has captured beautifully what ought to be our own sensibilities with respect to debates in the church and especially debates which drive us to have recourse to first principles, especially those of us who are officers in the church. It ought to be the case that we're happily prepared to always have recourse to such as it is so true that finally Imperfect principles will lead them their way out logically to imperfect practice. Now, theonomy and sufficiency then. We've already acknowledged some difficulty in trying to determine the true character of theonomy because of a variety of views and a certain dissonance even among the leading authors and so on. The Greg Bonson has, in one place, put it that Christ says that a person's relation to the kingdom of God is determined by meticulous observance of the least details of the law. The breaking of the very least stipulation of the law generates God's displeasure. Taking Heron's teaching position with respect to the details of the law, that is to insist that the exhaustive details of the law no longer bind Christians in this period of history, does the same. So there would be one kind of summary. The opponents of theonomy have summarized it, it seems to me, fairly. The Westminster faculty volume that responded put it this way. Chief among the leading characteristics of the theonomy movement are an emphasis on the Old Testament law, stress on the continued normativity, not only of the moral law, but also of the judicial law of the Old Testament. Israel, including its penal sanctions. Belief that the Old Testament judicial law applies not only to Israel, but to Gentile nations, including modern America, so that it is the duty of the civil government to enforce the law and execute its penalties. Christian reconstruction, hence, has had the appeal of claiming to apply biblical principles to contemporary society in a way that will express the dominion of Christ. The pointed issue is one of fundamental hermeneutical perspective. How is the Israelite theocracy under the Mosaic law to be understood and its typological significance related to the proper role of the church and the state today? That seems to me to be a fair statement of the issue. And in particular, the challenge of theonomy concerning this doctrine of sufficiency of scripture may be found in the slogan theonomy or autonomy. Theonomy or autonomy. Theonomy, it is alleged, is the exclusive normative principle. the only standard of Christian ethics. It is all or nothing, ethic or non-ethic, obedience or sin, so theonomy or autonomy. But my goal here cannot be a point-by-point refutation. Thick books have been written on both sides of this question. I'd be glad to refer you to some of those thick books. Rather, to take the broad outlines of the theonomic scheme and to assess it in relationship to the doctrine of sufficiency, both formally and materially, is my hope this morning. and I will find it wanting and offer something of an alternative. First of all, estatus questionus. There's a great term from Francis Turretin. One of the difficulties I have at home is I sound to our congregation so often like I have lived in the 17th century. And so they are greatly heartened by the fact that I've been doing so much work with Dabney in the 19th century. That brings me into the modern period. But the status questionus, that is the true nature of the question here concerning the doctrine of sufficiency of scripture. Let me say this straight away. This is a doctrine not of speculation, but of exegesis. We don't decide what would be fine to have with respect to the scripture and insist that's its sufficiency. Rather, we learn from the Scripture what its sufficiency is. And I'll just say straight away, it strikes me that, in fact, to a large degree, the theonomic doctrine is a speculative doctrine. It says, well, we'd like to have Scripture addressed thus and so, and therefore it must. the proper ways to learn from scripture, its character, its sufficiency. In other words, the sufficiency of scripture is learned from God in the scripture. It's related to his purposes there and revealed, not devised by man, not according to his imagined means. And to drive this point home, let me notice a couple of points then. Here's where you're going to fill in my quotation marks as I'm speaking here. The scripture is plainly insufficient without the work of the Holy Spirit. to bring anyone to salvation. We're not Lutherans, we don't reckon the word works by itself. In the confession of faith we insist, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the spirit is necessary for a saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word. Scripture alone is not sufficient to bring us to a knowledge of the divine authority therein. Scripture alone is not sufficient to bring us to faith in Christ. But, of course, it's not really insufficient because we learn from Scripture God didn't intend the Scripture to be sufficient in that sense. He intended word and spirit always to be associated and which should be dependent upon His sovereign and immediate action. We have a supernatural religion, not one that's mediated, even through the written word. It's insufficient without reasoning. We insist that much of what Scripture has to say to us is learned by good and necessary consequence, deduced from Scripture, so that there are many things that we would not know were we not engaged in the thinking process. Now, no, it's important. I have to throw this in in passing. Good and necessary consequence. Perhaps we need to have a little more work in the nature of arguments here among us, because, of course, what they have in mind is an argument with a valid form and all true premises drawn from scripture. That's the only way the conclusion is precisely the same thing that God has said. If any of your premises are drawn from the world, your observation of the world, your assessment of the world, of course, you don't have the same level of certainty. You can't say that's what God's word teaches. In any case, insufficient without reasoning. It's insufficient with respect to certain doctrinal questions that we might like to have the answers to. The infra-supra-lapsarian debate, for example. Turretin alleges this is an issue that never should have been asked, that curious minds should have been content to rest with what has been revealed. He says, on the other hand, if you force me to answer, I'm infra-lapsarian and I think all wise folk join in him with that point. creationism, and traducianism. Dabney concludes his wonderful discussion of this, with such difficulties besetting both sides, it's perhaps best to leave the subject as an insoluble mystery. What an opprobrium on the pride of human philosophy that it should be unable to answer the very first and nearest questions of its own origin, or the origin of evil itself. So, Hodge, the origin of sin is a mystery. It is obvious, one, that God has permitted sin, that hence it was right for him to do so, but why it was right must ever remain a mystery demanding submission and defying solution. Does not this remaining mystery lose itself in the abyss which is opened by the fact of the permission of sin, before which all schools of theists on this side of the veil must bow in silence? But of course, it's not insufficient because God didn't intend these things to be known by us in any way necessary for salvation, and perhaps not at all. We say with Calvin, where God hath shut his holy mouth, I will cease to question. It's insufficient with respect to certain aspects of the worship and government and discipline of the church. Notice this, which deficiency is made up for by general revelation. So our confession teaches there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God and government of the Church common to human actions and societies which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence. That is, a wise ordering of means to ends according to the general rules of the word of God. Let all things be done for the edifying. But of course it's not really insufficient because God intended us to gain our knowledge of such principles from another source of his revelation, not his inscripturated revelation. It's insufficient with respect to uniform clarity. We say all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves. Peter said, and all of us join him with respect to the Apostle Paul, some things he wrote are hard to understand. But it's not, of course, insufficient. Here God's purposes are plain. He challenges our pride and so on. It's insufficient with respect to the clarity of such certain matters, with respect to all people. God hasn't addressed it in such that every person can read it alike, nor alike is it clear to all. But it's not really insufficient, because God means us to help one another, and those who have a gift for clear insight are to help and bear with those who do not. It's insufficient with respect to our curiosity. There are many more things we might like to know about. God hasn't seen fit to satisfy. And then finally, it's insufficient with respect to even moral questions. Because, of course, all moral questions require facts and reasoning. In other words, no lucky dipping. We don't open the Bible and come over to Macedonia. Well, I know where I should go in my mission work and so on. Rather, sound ethical decisions rest on right principles applied to proper facts through Valid reasoning. Jesus insists we're to not judge according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment. But it's not really insufficient, of course, because we learn from Scripture that God intended us to be careful observers of the world. Proverbs is full of such counsels. And to be careful thinkers with respect to the implications of Scripture and its application to our actions. Well, so the point is this, that if we were to discover that scripture is not sufficient for the full organization of a state in the world, that of itself wouldn't surprise us. There are many things with respect to which the scripture is insufficient, in quotes, but it's because the doctrine of sufficiency is tied to the purpose of God, not our purposes. You see this stated in 2 Timothy 3, 14. The scripture is able to give us the wisdom that leads to salvation. And however much we might want to broaden 16 and 17 of that, and we don't have time this morning, I think you can see that all of it is ordered to that purpose, wise unto salvation. The reformed understanding of the doctrine of sufficiency of scripture is related to the purpose of God. Scripture is sufficient for God's purposes in every age of redemptive history. A classic exposition of this can be found in Turretin's Elenctica, 1688. The perfection of scripture is the way they talked about it in those days. Does scripture, he says in Locus 2, question 16, does scripture contain whatever is necessary for salvation to the extent that after it was given, there's no need for unwritten traditions? That was the nature of the controversy. And he says in the second section, the question concerns matters necessary for salvation, whether faith or conduct. whether all these are in Scripture so that it can be a full and sufficient rule of faith and practice which we affirm and our adversaries deny. Matters necessary for salvation, that is, matters with respect to which if they're not present and believed you cannot be saved. It's sufficient with respect to those things. The question then, later in the discussion, comes before us as this, does Scripture contain perfectly, not absolutely, everything? But whatever is necessary for salvation, not explicitly and in exact words, but with equal force to explicit statement by valid conclusion, this we uphold. He concludes his discussion. Scripture is called perfect. This is section 34. Scripture is called perfect not always sufficiently with regard to the object, as if it explained perfectly all mysteries which it passes on. There are many things which of themselves cannot be expressed with respect to God and the Trinity. But it is sufficient for its purpose, because it sets forth these mysteries in a way such that they can be understood by us sufficiently for salvation. Hetha, after his discussion of, generally, the Reformed view in the 17th century, says, in relation to the purpose of Scripture, its perfection is exhibited as sufficiency. It instructs man in everything he needs to know in order to obtain eternal life. Now our confession of faith insists on the same thing. Those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of scripture or another that not only the learned but the unlearned by a due use of ordinary means may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. So when we want to think about the sufficiency of scripture in relationship to theonomy, then we have to say, what is God's purpose with respect to Israel and the laws we find there? and learn from the Bible as to whether it ought to have any broader application other than God has made himself. Now, I might say that, again, this is an enormous subject and I'll just be able to barely touch on the matter, but I have found very helpful Verne Poitras' discussion, The Shadow of Christ and the Law of Moses, where he looks at virtually every conceivable configuration of Israelitish life and shows how God's purpose in this was to reveal a Redeemer. But the point is, and as Steve has acknowledged, Israel was a very peculiar people and the law was given to them to determine that peculiarity. God's purpose with respect to Israel was to make a people for himself. Exodus 6 7 I will take you for my people and I will be your God and you shall know that I am the Lord your God who brought you out from under the burden of the Egyptians and I will bring you to the land which I swore to Abraham Isaac and Jacob and I will give it to you as a Possession for I am the Lord The law was given to them to define their peculiar relationship to this Redeemer God, because He was going to dwell in their presence. And dwelling in their presence, there was a peculiar way of life that was absolutely necessary in the purpose of God. You are the sons of Israel, Leviticus 25, 55. My servants, I brought them out of the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God. You shall not make for yourself idols. If you walk in my statutes and keep my commandments so as to carry them out, then I shall give you rains in their season and your lands will yield and so on. Moreover, I'll make my dwelling among you and my soul will not reject you. I'll walk among you so you shall be my God and you my people. But if you do not obey me and carry out these commandments, if you reject my statutes and then the terrible list of curses and so on down in verse 44 in spite of this when they're in the land of their enemies having been cursed I will not reject them nor so abhor them as to destroy them breaking my covenant with them for I am the Lord their God but I'll remember the covenant and bring them out and so on these are the statutes and ordinances and laws which the Lord established between himself and the sons of Israel with Moses at Mount Sinai you see the point I'm you're going to be my particular people I'm going to live in your midst And if you want to enjoy this blessed covenant relationship, here's how it's defined. This order, the entire order, not just the 10 commandments, not just the ceremonial law, not just the civil law, these distinctions, which are helpful for thought, but of themselves are not categories that can sort of neatly parse out the law of Moses. He says, it's this in its entirety that's going to define my relationship with you. And it's because I'm in your presence and you're my people. And if you keep it, you'll find blessing in the land. And if you don't keep it, you'll find a curse. But overall, I'm going to uphold my end of the bargain and preserve the people for myself. God was in the midst of Israel in a way that he was not in the midst of the nations. And that presence required a peculiar sanctity. He was related to Israel in a unique way by divinely imposed covenant. The law, the whole law, moral, civil, and ceremonial, set forth that relationship and described the sanctity necessary. No other nation had such a relationship to God. No other was given a law to define that relation, and no other such a promise of blessings and curses in relation to the law in the peculiarity of the Israelitish circumstances. Now the prophets argue this same point, Jeremiah 7, 21 and following, Ezekiel 37, 21 and following. The dwelling place of God, His worship kept entire, the law, the king, the land, blessing, all tied together. God's purpose in all of this was to teach about the coming one. That Israel might trust Him and be saved. In other words, the whole purpose of this economy was that they might believe God and find salvation. that they might learn of him, that all might learn of him and the things written aforetime. Now when Christ comes on the scene, this is the burden of the gospel to argue this point. Matthew 121, now, it took place what had been spoken by the word of the Lord to the prophet, that it might be fulfilled, saying that a virgin shall be with child and bear a son. The gospel is the fulfillment of the whole Old Testament economy. all that God was doing in Israel, not just little bits of it. The whole of it is designed to this end. And that's Matthew's burden throughout his gospel. In John 1, at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, verse 45, Philip found Nathanael and said, we have found him of whom Moses and the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. Jesus insisted on this point himself. On the road to Emmaus in 2444 of Luke, these are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that the things that were written about me and the law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms might be fulfilled. Then he opened their minds that they might understand the scriptures. He said to them, thus it is written that Christ should suffer and die and so on. Paul's preaching of the gospel in Rome makes this same point, Acts 28, 23, and they had set a day for him. They came to him at his lodging in large numbers, and he was explaining to them by solemnly testifying about the kingdom of God and trying to persuade them concerning Jesus from both the law of Moses and the prophets from morning until evening. Paul wrote to the Corinthian believers in 2 Corinthians 1, 20, as many are the promises of God, they are yes. wherefore also by him is our amen to the glory of God, and so on. The writer of Hebrews insists at length on this point. God, after he had long ago spoke to the fathers and the prophets by many portions and many ways in these last days has spoken to us in his son, whom he appointed the heir of all things through whom he made the world. This is the completion. This is the fulfillment. And throughout, in various ways, the writer of Hebrews proves this point. And typically, folks say, well, this is the ceremonial law. that's being passed by. But here let me offer a little bit of a foreshadowing of a critique of my brother. The fallacy of equivocation is a dangerous fallacy. It's where terms shift in their use in the course of an argument. And it just seemed to me that Steve's thinking may be somewhat troubled by that difficulty, where the word law shifts in its sense. The only way, the only sense that would really have justified that the anonymous claims, if it is used only in the sense of the Mosaic code, each time it's used in this argument, certainly not with respect to the moral law and some of the quotes that he had, at least classically, others applied to the moral law. But in any case, the law, says the writer of Hebrews in 10.1, the law, since it is only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never take, can never, by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who've been drawn near. For we've been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all. Now the point is here, there's a particular part of the law that's in view. But in general, the writer of Hebrews has in view the whole of the law. as that which is used by God to teach us about Christ, and Christ is the fulfillment of it. And thus he says, in Matthew 5, 17, the great disputed text of this controversy and so on, that he has come to fulfill the law. I just say that it has often been alleged. It merely means confirmed. I'll ask you to look at Poitras's appendix, where I think he demonstrates that that lexical argument can't be sustained. Overall, Matthew 28, 18, Jesus comes and he says, All authority has been given to me on heaven and earth. Therefore, go make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Now, just take one point here. We said that the law is a reflection of God's eternal nature, and that's certainly true enough, therefore the law's unchanging, but if the law's unchanging, how is it that it changes? I mean, it certainly does change. Take the requirement of circumcision. Genesis 1710, this is my covenant, which you shall keep between me and you and your descendants after you. Every male among you shall be circumcised, and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. And every male among you as eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations. This is my covenant in your flesh as an everlasting covenant. But the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from my people, for he has broken my covenant." This is an everlasting covenant according to the Word of God. And if you fail to be circumcised, you are cut off from God. And yet, the Apostle Paul forbids precisely this. He says that you cannot have this sign of the covenant And therefore, it must not be everlasting in some sense. Behold, Galatians 5.2, I, Paul, say to you, if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. You will have been severed or cut off from Christ. For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision or uncircumcision means anything but faith working by love. Now, there's a charley horse between the ears. The Bible says this is an everlasting sign, and if you fail to have it, you'll be cut off. And Paul says, if you have it, you'll be cut off. Well, what's the resolution to this? It's just that Christ fulfills the law, not by breaking it, but by entirely keeping it. He is circumcised for us, and we are circumcised in him through baptism. Colossians 2, 11 and 12, in him you were circumcised with a circumcision made not with hands, for the removal of the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism. We are circumcised, it is an everlasting sign of the covenant, because Christ the everlasting man was circumcised for us, and when we are baptized into him, all of the benefits of circumcision belong to us. You see, Christ fulfills the law, and in union with Christ, we are keepers of the whole Old Testament economy, perfectly. because of the perfect righteousness of Christ. And that being true, not any bit of the law is ever cast aside, not one jot or tittle is ever put aside, because it's all absolutely, perfectly kept by Christ. And in our union with Christ, we are such keepers as his righteousness. With respect to that, the whole economy is imputed to us. And thus it's no problem for there to be changes with respect to the details of the law in our practice. Because now God's doing a different thing. Now here, let me scandalize you a little bit. Just in case you're dozing off, this will jolt you back to awareness. Steve, I'm trembling as I do this. Where are you? I want to be able to... You're here somewhere, are you? There you are. I know you don't... It was a moment of zeal for you and so on. You're making a good point. You said anyone who diminishes the law of God as an insulting God or something like that, saying something to that effect, that if you said it wasn't fair or unjust or something, that you were near blaspheming. Now here's brinkmanship. I say the whole of the civic code of Israel was unjust. Every law was unjust. Think with me for a minute. Rapist gets the death penalty. And a guy who rapes 20 women gets the death penalty. Is that just? Twenty and one, same penalty? Now, Steve has warned us, your contemporary sensibilities don't necessarily properly judge the law of God, maybe there's something wrong with your sensibilities, but doesn't something well up in you, something deeper than just contemporary sensibilities, your very moral nature doesn't well up in you and say, there's something wrong with that. Two or three witnesses required for the death penalty. That means if there are two, and how often are there two living witnesses? It means murders must have gotten off very frequently in Israel. Is that just? Well, here's the point. Death penalty is no justice for a murderer. Defacing the image of the infinite God, death penalty is paltry. The man deserves eternal punishment. That's justice. And that's what he'll get if he remains in unrepentance. And a murderer gets off for lack of witnesses? Is he getting off? No. He'll face the all-wise God. John Gershwin used to talk about lucky Luciano. the gangster, you know, he was called lucky because he would never get caught. And he used to say that, you know, it must be part of the agony of Luciano in hell that he thinks of folk here, supposing that he was lucky to continue to add to the measure of his punishment because of his sins. Justice in this world is relative It's with respect to the purpose of God. God determines that for the purposes of a fallen and finite world, sometimes murderers should get off because he wants a higher standard of evidence and so on. The point is we don't look to the law of God, even with respect to the civil realm, for justice. It's with respect to the ordering of this life. It's temporary. It's always tinged by injustice. That's why we long for the return of the true judge. who will judge all the nations." Well, the point is this. There's no trouble then with God changing such laws as were given to Israel because Christ has fulfilled them entirely. Nothing is lost in them. We in Christ come to have his righteousness. And then God can, because these are positive enactments with respect to God's purposes in the world, if he has a different point of view in mind, he can freely change them. Now we're taught to obey all that Christ has commanded. Not Moses. We observe what Christ has called us to observe and unite it to him by faith. The Church now has the presence of Christ. The Church is the true Israel of God. And the Church, living after Christ, fulfills all that Israel but foreshadowed. Let me say that I think then we have to look elsewhere, because if God established Israel for this peculiar purpose, it means that in any given case with respect to the law, you don't know whether it was his historic redemptive purpose that was in view in the enactment of the law, or the common necessities of an Israelitish civil nation. Steve noted, well, rapes occur in Israel, rapes occur elsewhere. Yes, that's true enough. But the fact is, because God has said that it's a peculiar purpose at work here, you never know whether that purpose was the principal impetus in the enactment. Since God himself doesn't happily parse it out for us that way. The sufficiency, in fact, that God has given us concerning the ordering of our public life is found in natural revelation according to the scripture, or general revelation. Dabney, who my brother argued was a theonomist or perhaps a quasi-theonomist or something like that. I just say it reminded me of that debate where I think it was Jack Kent who was talking about Kennedy and his opponent said, I knew Kennedy and you know Kennedy and so on. And I felt like saying, Steve, I know Dabney and Dabney's no theonomist. But Dabney notes that a theocratic The rule of a theocratic state is no rule for a state not theocratic. When a state can be shown where there's one denomination to choose, that immediately organized by God himself, and where there's an assurance of succession of inspired prophets to keep the denomination on the right track, where the king is to be the head of the state church, supernaturally nominated by God and guided in his actions by an oracle, then we'll admit the application of the case. When has the state existed before Moses, the law of Moses, the church is to be the Israel of God, no nation, Not even a nation made up largely of believers can become Israel, cannot become a covenant of nature. You can't engage in the covenant on your part. They cannot be so because only God can establish the covenant. The state continues to exist with the passing of Israel. That there should be government is not merely an accident of cosmic or planetary evolution. Rather, God is the source of government, His will is the ultimate ground of its authority. The living word, of course, had much to say about civil government. At his birth, he was attacked as a threat to Herod's throne. At his death, he was mocked as an impotent earthly king. And throughout his ministry, he was tempted to the goal of mere earthly dominion by Satan in Matthew 4, by the crowds in John 6. His opponents feared, in fact, this was his design, John 11. And yet he revealed to his disciples a kingdom granted to him by his father, Luke 22, a kingdom not of this world, which by his express command could not be established by means of establishing the kingdoms of this world. In the teaching of Christ, there are three assertions about the relation of his kingdom to civil government. One, it's not of the same order as the temporal powers, nor can it be established by political action. John 18, 36, Jesus answered, my kingdom is not of this world. If it were of this world, my servants would be fighting. Well, that's the way this worldly kingdoms are established, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews, but as it is. Jesus answered to Pilate, the Roman governor, you would have no authority over you unless it had been given you by God. Third, the temporal power has rights belonging to its sphere and ought to be acknowledged even by members of the kingdom, which transcends the kingdoms of this age Matthew 22 15 render unto Caesars now we had a comment on this text that it might have been unhappy to Caesar to see his power limited that may be true enough but it still acknowledges that there is a realm which the Lord of glory himself in his incarnation is prepared to submit to while it's in the hands of rank unbelievers The Apostle Paul takes up the same teaching in Romans 13. Why obey the magistrate? Well, he's the servant or minister, the diakonos, of God. Nero. Nero is the minister of God. Paul says unblushingly. An opposer of God. Yet he's a minister of God. Now how can a pagan be God's servant? It's because Paul is talking about the de facto governments under the providential rule of God, not governments that are self-consciously seeking to order their lives after his ways. And he says, nevertheless, these governments, which outwardly are in rebellion against me, nevertheless are my servants. They're ruled over by God's providence. The law is written on the heart of man, even fallen man. His conscience accuses him. And in fact, this world is generally ordered so that virtue prospers and vice is punished so that sinful self-interest leads folk to be guided in general by that law. Let every man be in subjection to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God and those which are established by him. It's an ordinance of God. The magistrate is a minister of God, a minister of God, Paul says. The rulers are servants of God. All government, every government, is by divine appointment. God reigns by his will of decree, not by his will of precept. His purpose is effected. Thasak 17, God who made the world and all things in it, since he's the Lord of heaven and earth, doesn't dwell with temples made by human hands. He's not served by human hands as if he needed anything. He makes from one every nation of the earth and determines their appointed times. He's predestined all things according to the counsel of his own will. Psalm 47.7 God is the king of all the earth. Sing praises. God reigns over the nations. He sits on his holy throne even when they are in disobedience to him. He sets up and takes down governments. The heavens are thine, the earth also. Psalm 89.11 The world and all it contains thou has founded them. Psalm 33, let all the earth fear the Lord, all its inhabitants stand in awe of him. For he spoke and it was done, commanded and it stood fast. The Lord nullifies the counsels of the nations, frustrates the plans of the people. He looses the bonds of kings, Job 12, 18, and binds their loins with a girdle. Jeremiah 27, I have made the earth, the men and the beasts which are on the face of the earth by my great power and outstretched hand, and I will give it to the one who is pleasing in my sight. Notice that He'll give the power to the one who's pleasing in his sight. Sometimes pleasing in his sight means one who is disobedient to me. He raises up Assyria as the rod of his anger. It was pleasing to God. to choose pagan, proud Assyria to be the rod of his anger to punish Israel and then God says, and lo and behold, when I'm finished with this old rod I'm gonna give it a good whacking myself because what he has done has been in his pride and arrogance as a conqueror. This would give pause to anyone who would like to be the rod of God, I think. God's purposes in this are often inscrutable. He raises up adversaries to Solomon, 1 Kings 11, 14, his covenant nation. And as I've mentioned, he often raises up even pagan nations to perform his purposes. He rules over even their evil deeds. The Lord made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil. In Acts 22, we hear of Jesus delivered by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, nailed to the cross. Isaiah 10, Assyria, the rod of God's anger and so on. Well, The point is this, this is God's providential order, not the self-conscious acknowledgement of God according to his law. Augustine put it this way, we do not attribute the power of giving kingdoms and empires to anyone save the true God who gives kingly power on earth both to the pious and the impious as it may please him. whose good pleasure is always just. He therefore who is the one true God who never leaves the human race without just judgment and help. He gave it to the Christian Constantine and he gave it also to the apostate Julian. Manifestly these things are ruled and governed by the one God according as he pleases and if his motives are hid is he therefore unjust. Now if we ask how are these kingdoms established, it's not by the word directly, not by special revelation, by the nature of God and man and the relations and duties that God has appointed. Well, I think I'll press on here and say that the rule or standard of these governments, Steve was very concerned about, The rule or standard of these governments is grounded in the Imago Dei, an intuition of the good sought through a prudential response to providence. Obviously divine revelation takes a principal place insofar as it speaks to this subject and insofar as it is acknowledged by a people. But it's not due to any insufficiency of scripture that we don't find a full ordering of civil government. Because the ordering of civil government itself is not the primary purpose of revelation. Here let me cite Calvin who is also listed as a theonomist. He says, concerning the biblical warrant for waging war. You'd think if we needed absolute divine guidance and so on, there would be a case. He says, express declaration in this matter is not to be sought in the writings of the apostles, for their purpose was not to fashion a civil government, but to establish the spiritual kingdom of Christ. God's government, leaving Calvin now, is established by God in the order of creation, not redemption, through man's natural abilities and interests, not through supernatural grace and true virtue, and is directed primarily by providence, not special revelation. Remember, if scripture is insufficient with respect to certain circumstances of the aspects of worship, government, and discipline in the Church, which deficiency is made up by general revelation? How much more must the general revelation be sufficient for God's ends and purposes in civil government? The ultimate ground of government is God. This refers to government de facto, without necessarily implying endorsement of any particular form of government or administration. The proximate ground of authority is the nature of man and his circumstances. The goal of government is the public good. Government's legitimate means is found in the persuasive power of moral force. in the appeal to its citizens concerning the equity of its laws in their administration and or to the resort to physical force restraining and punishing by the power of the sword in the case of those who reject its moral claims. Thus the challenge concerning the sufficiency of scripture found in the slogan theonomy or autonomy sets before us a false dichotomy and therefore is fallacious for there is a tertium quid. The proper way to phrase this would be theonomy e.g., all God's law in the Old Testament in detail, or general revelation, all God's law revealed in the world and received and affirmed by conscience and blessed and cursed by providence, or autonomy. Those are the choices that we have to make and those choices are not typically referred to in the debate. So the relevance of special revelation guides Christians as they seek, from the instance of the Old Testament law, principles of equity. There is a help. Listen to Cunningham, Scottish theologian of the, I can't say the last century anymore, I can't quite get over that. Civil government was intended to bear, at least principally and most directly, upon the temporal welfare of men, and ought to be chiefly regulated by a regard to the principles of natural reason. God is not prescribed in his written word as the only rule to be followed by nations and rulers in establishing and administrating civil government. He has not given them sufficient materials to guide them authoritatively in determining all questions which, with reference to this matter, may be called upon to entertain and dispose. Yet where the Word of God does speak to these matters, it ought to be authoritative in regulating the opinions and conduct of those who acknowledge such. And you see this at work, for example, in the Apostle Paul. He's dealing with the question in 1 Corinthians 9, for, in this case in a church matter, ought the apostles to be paid for their ministries? Now notice his argument in this text. He doesn't appeal to the law of the tithe. which would have required the payment for these ministries. He appeals, first of all, to General Revelation, who at any time serves as a soldier to his own expense, who plants a vineyard and doesn't eat the fruit of it, who tends a flock and doesn't use the milk of the flock. Am I speaking of things according to human judgment, he says? Well, then does not the law also say these things? And that's where you expect reference to the law of the time. But what does he cite? You shall not muzzle the ox while he's treading. thereafter forever establishing the ox-like character of ministers of the word. He draws a principle of equity from the law. And he says, look, this is eternal and abiding, this principle of equity, and fully applicable to this question. That's the manner in which it ought to be cited. Jesus himself does the same thing. When Paul later talks about this in 1 Timothy 5.17, the elders who rule well worthy of double honor, as Dr. Knight has nicely pointed out to us, this is likely a reference to proper payment and so on, and given the word honor there, and he says you shall not muzzle the ox while he's threading, threshing, and Labor is worthy of his wages. Now this may well be a citation from Luke's gospel where Jesus teaches this point. Jesus himself doesn't claim the right to the tithe. He uses a principle of common sense of general revelation to guide him in this. Now this is fully consistent with the reformed tradition and let me, in the little bit of time I have left, just make reference to it. Now Rushdini charges Calvin with allowing classical humanism to gain an ascendancy over biblical thought and relying on natural law, the common law of nations, to direct government. Rushdini labels this as heretical nonsense. Well, let me share with you a little heretical nonsense then in just a moment or two. Man is under a two-fold government, says Calvin, one of which pertains only to the establishment of civil law and outward morality. But whoever knows how to distinguish between this present fleeting life and the future eternal life will without difficulty know that Christ's spiritual kingdom and civil jurisdiction are completely distinct. It makes no difference whether your condition among men, what it may be under, what nation's laws you live, since the kingdom of Christ does not consist in these things. This distinction does not lead us to consider the whole nature of government a thing polluted. To think of doing away with civil government is an outrageous barbarity. Its function among men is no less than bread, water, sun, and air. He goes on. You may find some who regard magistrates as a kind of necessary evil, but Peter requires something more of us when he commands that the king be honored. Subjects should be led, not by fear alone, to remain in subjection to them as they commonly yield to an armed enemy who sees that vengeance is properly taken when they resist. But because they are showing obedience to God himself, who is given the magistrate's authority since the ruler's power comes from God. Now he goes on, I've undertaken to say what laws a Christian state ought to be governed by, what laws can piously be used before God and rightly administered among men. I would have preferred to pass over this matter in utter silence if I were not aware of many who dangerously go astray, for there are some who deny that a commonwealth is duly framed which neglects the political system of Moses and is ruled by the common law of nations. Let other men, this is Calvin's language not mine, let other men consider how perilous and seditious this is. It will be enough for me to have proved it false and foolish. And so he discusses the threefold division of the law, the judicial law given by them for civil government imparted certain formulas of equity and justice by which they might live righteously, blamelessly and peaceably. The form of their judicial laws, argues Calvin, although it had no other intent than how to best preserve the very love which God enjoined in his eternal law, had something distinct from the precept of love. Therefore, as ceremonial laws could be abrogated while piety remained safe and unharmed, so too these judicial laws were taken away. The perpetual duties and precepts of love could still remain. But if this is true, surely every nation is left free to make laws as it foresees to be profitable to itself. They indeed vary in form, but they have the same purpose. What I have said, Calvin urges, will become plain if we examine this matter In the law, there are two things. The constitution of the law, that is its particular form. applied to a time and place, the constitution of the law, and the equity upon which its constitution is founded. Equity, because it's natural, cannot be but the same for all, and therefore this same purpose ought to apply in all laws, whatever their object. But constitutions, that is the actual enactments, have certain circumstances upon which they depend. It does not matter that they are different, provided they all equally press toward the same goal of equity. It is a fact that the law of God which we call moral is nothing else than the testimony of natural law and of conscience which God has engravened on the hearts of men. Consequently, the entire scheme of this equity of which we are now speaking has been prescribed in it. Hence, this equity alone must be the rule and goal and limit of all laws. Whatever laws shall be framed to that rule, directed to that goal, bound by that limit. There is no reason why we should disapprove of them, howsoever they may differ from the Jewish law or among themselves." So says Calvin. after reviewing laws and penalties from various nations. Yet we see how with such diversity all laws tend toward the same end, for with one voice they proclaim punishment against crimes which God and his eternal laws condemn, namely theft, murder, adultery, false witness, but they do not agree in the manner of punishment, nor is this necessary or expedient. There are ages that demand increasingly harsh penalties. There are nations inclined to a particular vice unless most sharply repressed. How malicious and hateful toward public welfare would be a man who, offended by such diversity, which is perfectly adapted to maintain the observance of God's law. That is, variation of penalties depending upon time and place is not a violation of equity and justice, says Calvin. In fact, it'd be the other way around. For the statement of some, he concludes, that God's law given through Moses is dishonored when it's abrogated and new laws preferred to it is utterly vain. For others are not preferred to it when they are more approved. not by a simple comparison, but with regard to the condition of time, place, and nation, or when that law is abrogated, which was never enacted for us. For the Lord, through the hand of Moses, did not give the law to be proclaimed among all nations and to be enforced everywhere. But when he had taken the Jewish nation into his safekeeping, defense, and protection, he also willed to be the lawgiver especially to it. And as a wise lawgiver, he had special concern for making its laws. Well, I would allege that the Westminster Confession of Faith is in fact precisely in line with Calvin's analysis in Chapter 19. If we had the time, I would have offered a brief commentary on that section. But to skip to matters less familiar to you, that this is in fact the teaching of the Confession of Faith is clearly evident in the earliest commentary on it, David Dixon's Truth's Victory over Error, 1648. Did the Lord by Moses give the Jews body politics under judicial laws which expired together with their state? Yes. Do they oblige any now further than the general equity thereof may require? No. Well then, do not some heir who otherwise are orthodox maintain that the whole judicial law of the Jews is yet alive and binding on all of us who are Christian Gentile? Yes. By what reason are they confuted? Because the judicial law was delivered by Moses to the Israelites to be observed as to a body politic first. Because that law in many things are of particular right was accommodated to the commonwealth of the Jews and not to other nations also. Third, because other things are not of peculiar right and therefore not under the law of nature obliging by reason. Neither is to be pressed upon believers under the gospel to be observed. Believers are appointed under the gospel to obey the civil law and commands under those governments wherein they live, providing that they be just and that for conscience sake. Well, the American Presbyterian tradition, I think, beautifully advances this whole area of thought. I don't think Calvin, myself, I cited him in my favor, of course, and I want to note that I don't entirely agree with everything that Calvin says. He thought there ought to be a state church. the Westminster Divines I think gathered his insights and advanced them more profoundly but I think the American Presbyterians advanced their insights and I'm particularly grateful for coming to learn of the old school tradition in American Presbyterianism and especially the literature of the old school South and here I want to acknowledge Gene Case who first introduced me to that literature and I'm forever Grateful to him and his wonderful little newsletter that he used to print out and to Dr. Smith who helped me to understand more fully and direct me to the resources. But it's a rich and wonderful tradition and in my judgment in part the debate about theonomy. today is singularly crippled for lack of familiarity with the resources of this tradition, largely because our seminarians are never exposed to them and so on. But let me say that In this tradition, in closing, we have both a powerful understanding of the nature of the state in the Christian age. Stuart Robinson in his book, The Church of God, which Greenville Seminary, the church would be eternally grateful for their willingness to republish his Church of God, and also Peck's notes on ecclesiology. If you go home without those two paperbacks, you will fail in understanding. one of the great traditions of the church. But Stuart Robinson insisted that church and state have nothing in common except that both powers are of divine authority. Both concern the race of mankind. Both were instituted for the glory of God as their final end. But with respect to all else, their origin, their nature, their immediate end, and their mode of exercising their power, they differ fundamentally. And he goes on to spell all of that out, which I haven't time to do this morning. Thornwell, clearly in this old school tradition, and I'll just say that if you'd like to, Thornwell was cited here in a note especially that urged the General Assembly to acknowledge Jesus Christ in their constitution. That came at the end of that assembly and there was such a wailing and rending of clothes at the proposition that he withdrew it. And he died. thereafter and it was never put before the assembly again but there was a wonderful exchange between Adger who was one of Thornwell's great students and last year I had to put in a word for Adger since last year at this conference Adger was beat up a little bit as if he was some degenerate Thornwellian he was one of Thornwell's principal students and advocates and oversaw the production of our Book of Church Order along Thornwellian lines he was no fly-by-night degenerate or something like that but In this case, I'm opposed to this, dear man. Thomas Peck and Adger had a wonderful exchange about that proposal that Jesus Christ should be acknowledged. In my judgment, Peck demonstrably showed how that would have been a catastrophic error for the Confederacy. But Thornwell, I think, is speaking according to his best judgment and warmly embraced by the General Assembly. They rent their clothes over the proposition about Jesus Christ because they had just affirmed Thornwell's language that you find here. The provinces of church and state are perfectly distinct and one has no right to usurp jurisdiction over the other. The state is a natural institute founded upon the constitution of man as moral and social. and designed to realize the idea of justice. It is the society of rights. The church is a supernatural institute founded on the facts of redemption and is designed to realize the idea of grace. It is a society of the redeemed. The state aims at social order. The church at spiritual holiness. The state looks to the visible and outward. The church is concerned with the invisible and inward. The badge of the state's authority is the sword by which it becomes a terror to evildoers and a praise to them who The duel, the badge of the church's authority is the keys by which it opens and shuts the kingdom of heaven according as men are believing are impenitent. The power of the church is exclusively spiritual. That of the state includes the exercise of force. The constitution of the church is a divine revelation. The constitution of the state must be determined by human reason and the course of providential events. The constitution of the church is a divine revelation. The constitution of the state must be determined by human reason and the course of providential events. The church has no right to construct or modify a government for the state. The state has no right to frame a creed or polity for the church. There are planets moving in different orbits, and unless each is confined to its own track, the consequences may be as disastrous in the moral world as the collision of different spheres in the world of matter. Unless they're confined to their own track, it would be as catastrophic as two planets running into each other. Dabney noted, one of the problems we have here is we want to look to the state as if it's everything. He says it's not the all of social organization, but limited by God and nature to the regulation of one segment of social rights and duties. It's not responsible for all righteousness. In fact, he urged, in order to keep the civil government just and free, it should be clothed with as few powers and functions as possible, namely those necessary to social order and relative justice. Relative justice, while all other functions of civilized life should be left, if possible, to the individual and to the family. With respect to this view of the state, on the other side is the view of the church, a spiritual kingdom established by Christ with its own government ruled over by God's Word, which is fully sufficient for its purposes. And that church was not to intermeddle in matters political. The fundamental insight is found in the Confession of Faith, Chapter 31, Section 4. Senates and councils are to handle and conclude nothing but that which is ecclesiastical, and not intermeddle with civil affairs concerning the Commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary, or by way of advice for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate. Not to intermeddle in civil affairs, the church courts. That's not Christians. Christians should be fully engaged in civil affairs. But not to intermeddle in civil affairs as a church, as a government, an alternative government established by God. Now, one of the most glorious statements of this point was written, of course, in 1860. The General Assembly meeting in Philadelphia, that the war had begun. and there was a great frenzy of concern and activity and so on and for all intents and purposes it was proposed in the Garner Spring Resolution that the Presbyterian Church insist that to be a good Christian, to be a good Presbyterian, you had to endorse the federal government. That was passed by resolution. And Charles Hodge penned an extraordinary protest to that action. He said this, we deny the right of the General Assembly to decide the political question to what government the allegiance of Presbyterians as citizens is due. You see, the Church could declare absolutely, God appointed the powers that be, you must obey your government. But the Church had no authority to say what government in this dispute was the one God had appointed. It had no prerogative there. We deny the right and to make this decision a condition of membership in our Church. The General Assembly in deciding this political question and in making this decision practically the condition of membership in the Church has, in our judgment, violated the Constitution of the Church and usurped the prerogative of its Divine Master." And of course this was very much in the minds of the Southern men when they gathered together. And the statement I read from Thornwell comes out of that context. Benjamin Morgan Palmer was picked to preach the first sermon at that assembly, a sermon on Ephesians 1, 22-23, and if you want to see an absolutely masterful exposition of the doctrine of the headship of the Lord Jesus Christ, turn to that sermon in Palmer's biography. But there he preached on the supreme dominion of Christ as the exalted head of the church and insisted precisely that that church could not be engaged in such questions as the assembly had engaged in. In fact, later on, it's interesting, I was just up at Montreat doing some research before I came down here and I came across a letter of Palmer to Vaughan and in that Palmer repented of his political preaching and he said it was brought on by this unhappy practice of political Sabbaths You see, after the war, the Northern Church insisted that the South's doctrine of spirituality was just a guise and that they weren't ever consistent with it. And the Southern men were so exercised by that that they went through all of their records, assembly after assembly, and any action during the wartime period transgressed the principle. They publicly repudiated and repented of it. and reasserted the principles that had guided the founding of that portion of the church and really were the proper principles of old school Presbyterianism. Well, let me conclude then very briefly. I'd say this, a summary propositions of this alternative. To be faithful to their king, believers are called to understand the nature of and be rightly related to civil government. First, they have to know that all civil government is by divine appointment. Second, to know that civil government is founded in the relation we bear to God as Creator, not Redeemer, through the nature and calling we have as creatures, not as Christians. Thirdly, to consider that the kingdom of Christ is distinct from the kingdoms of this world, and that his peoples are therefore alien citizens of the nations. Fourthly, that the Lord Jesus Christ is the king and head of his church as Redeemer and his mediatorial kingship is precious and to be acknowledged and he is appointed a government through his word in the hands of church officers that is distinct from churches from the civil magistrate. Fifthly, that it's lawful for Christians to serve in civil governments, even pagan civil governments, that this is a noble calling and that in fact they are specially fitted to act for the well-being of the people and the glory of their king. Sixthly, that the Christian citizen who understands his calling is to be most valued by good government and to be most feared by bad government. And finally, that the Christian's true citizenship nevertheless is in heaven, from which he eagerly awaits a savior and in which hope he now stands firm. Now, finally, the dangers of theonomy. It seems to me that this is a mistake. A mistake that is full of zeal for the glory of God and the honor of his word, but in its misdirected zeal to honor God's glory and to affirm the sufficiency of scripture, it fails to grasp and thus undermines the sufficiency of the work of Christ as the one who fulfills the Old Testament as such. In a zeal for the sufficiency of scripture, My fear is that theonomy undermines the sufficiency of Christ. His work as the one who fulfills the Old Testament as such, narrative law, moral, civil, ceremonial, prophets, and wisdom. And secondly, it seems to me, and I was very pleased to hear some of the things that Steve was saying last night, it's just that they didn't strike me as truly theonomic. But especially his comments about the role of the magistrate in suppressing false religion. The Deuteronomy 13 and 17 seem to me to be passages that would be acutely difficult for the theonomist to deal with, who wanted to assert that. And as I understand it, in the first edition of Dr. Bonson's book, he cited those passages as part of the magistrate's work, and in the second edition then he excised them, and I'd like to know why that's the case. But in particular, it seems to me that theonomy threatens religious liberty, which is a precious gift, especially granted to us by God's grace through our own tradition. In advocating the death penalty for false worship, it seems to me that on the one hand, you'd have this weird situation where the missionaries are in a race with the civil magistrate to see who can first get to the unbeliever. And you know, the theonomists generally have been very strong in favor of the market and capitalism and competition. I wonder if it was kind of a competitive way of setting up the work of reaching the lost one way or the other. But at its root, it seems to me that it utterly neglects the first principles of religious freedom and liberty. And for neglecting those first principles, we'll soon lose them. Presbyterians were at the foundation in this country of asserting those principles. Peck said that some people allege that Thomas Jefferson is responsible for the separation of church and state. Peck said that infidel Jefferson learned everything he knew from Samuel Davies and the Hanover Presbytery on this subject. And I think he's right. Dabney, concluding, put it this way, the history of human rights is such that their intelligent assertors usually learn the true grounds of them in the furnace of affliction. So are Presbyterian forefathers. That the posterity who inherit these rights hold them for a while in pride and ignorant prescription. That after a while, when the true logic of these rights has been forgotten, and when some plausible temptation presses them to do so, The next generation discards these precious rights bodily and goes back to the practice of the old tyranny. You may deem it a strange prophecy but I predict time will come in this once free America when the battle for religious liberty will have to be fought all over again and will probably be lost because the people are already ignorant of its true basis and conditions. And here it is in most places I think Dabney's foresight is quite extraordinary. I'll stop there except with this footnote about sources. There are folk here today who I know think that reference to natural law is virtually like speaking about beating on your mother or something like that. But I'll say that I'd be glad to provide to you an annotated bibliography on natural law in the Protestant and particularly the Reformed tradition, which demonstrates, I think, if you go to those sources beyond question, that that is an integral part of our tradition. It's not Roman Catholic natural law. It's not a natural law that supposes any true virtue is associated with it. But nevertheless it is a natural law theory that it's a foundation both of the allegation that general revelation is sufficient to convict the unbeliever for his unbelief and yet be used by God as a part of the restraining force in a fallen world. So too on the spirituality doctrine, sources are much harder to come by there and I've prepared an annotated bibliography on that great doctrine and I do hope that if nothing else comes out of this it will stir you to go to these sources and begin to have recourse again to what I think is probably the greatest contribution that the old-school American Presbyterians, particularly South, have made to the history of the Church. Thank you very much.