What does it look like to apply the ten commandments? | Tom Hicks

What does it look like to apply the ten commandments? | Tom Hicks

 

In his magnificent work, A Treatise on the Law and the Gospel, John Colquhoun has a chapter titled “Rules for Rightly Understanding the Ten Commandments” (pp 85-98), which is similar to Question 99 of the Westminster Larger Catechism, “What rules are to be observed for the right understanding of the Ten Commandments?” I highly recommend all of Colquhoun’s book, but this chapter is helpful to Christians in understanding how to apply the Ten Commandments in their lives. Let us apply these rules to ourselves and teach them to our children.

 

1. Where a duty is required, the contrary sin is forbidden (Is 58:13), and where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is required (Eph 4:28).

When Paul expounds the Ten Commandments in his letter to the Ephesians (chapters 4-6), he mentions the 8th commandment, “You shall not steal.” Paul explains that not only is stealing forbidden in the commandment, but it requires that he “labor, doing honest works with his own hands, so that he may have something to give to anyone in need” (Eph 4:28).

 

2. Where a duty is required, every duty of the same kind is also required, and where a sin is forbidden, every evil of the same sort is also prohibited.

For example, when the fifth commandment requires us to honor our fathers and our mothers, it also requires us to honor all whom the Lord places in authority over us (Rom 13:1; 1 Pet 2:13). Similarly, when the Lord forbids us to kill, He also forbids us to strike or wound our neighbor, or to harbor malice or revenge (Matt 5:21-22).

 

3. That which is forbidden is at no time to be done, but that which is required is to be done only when the Lord affords opportunity.

This is an important rule. It means that the positive requirements are always our duty, but any particular duty is not to be performed at all times. There is never an appropriate time to steal, for example, and it is always our duty to give, but we are only required to give in particular instances as we have opportunity to give. Galatians 6:10 says, “As we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone.”

 

4. Whatever we ourselves are commanded to be, do, or forbear, we are obliged to do all that it is possible for us to do, according to our places and stations in society, to make others around us to be, do or forbear the same.

For example, those in authority should lead those under their authority to keep the commandments. And we are forbidden to participate with others in their sins, either by example, advice, or other encouragement.  1 Timothy 5:22 says not to “take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure.”

 

5. The same duty is required and the same sin is forbidden, in different respects, in several and even in all the divine commands.

When a single commandment is broken, they are virtually all broken. The commandments are so intimately connected that if God’s authority is slighted in one, it is slighted in all. James 2:10 says, “For whoever keeps the whole law, but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.”

 

6. Where a duty is required, the use of all the means of performing it aright, is required, and where a sin is forbidden every cause, and even every occasion of it, are prohibited.

For example, children are commanded to honor their parents. In order to aid children in honoring their parents, God requires parents to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph 6:4). God forbids murder, which means He also forbids anger and malice, which become occasions to murder. He forbids adultery, and He also forbids drunkenness, gluttony, and idleness, which are often occasions of adultery.

 

7. No sin is at any time to be committed in order to avoid or prevent a greater sin.

We must never “do evil that good may come” (Rom 3:8). We are never under a necessity of sinning. God always provides a way of escape. Therefore, it is not true that one must sin to avoid greater sin.

 

8. The commandments of the second table of the law must give place to those of the first when they cannot both be observed together.

For example, while we are commanded to honor our fathers and mothers, we must prefer Christ in our esteem and affection to our parents (Matt 10:37). If ever the commands of our superiors come into conflict with the law of God, we must obey God rather than men (Acts 4:19).

 

9. In our obedience, we should have a special and constant respect to the scope and final end at which the Lord aims by all the commandments in general or by any one of them in particular.

The greatest goal in the commandments is perfect holiness of heart and life to the glory of God. The commandments are the way to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

 

10. The beginning and the end, as well as the sum, of all the commandments is love.

Scripture teaches, “Love is the fulfilling of the Law” (Rom 13:10). And, “The aim of our charge is love” (1 Tim 1:5). The love of God to man is the sum of the gospel. The love of man to God is the sum of the law.

 

See also the Westminster Larger Catechism, Question 99.

Q. What rules are to be observed for the right understanding of the Ten Commandments?

A. For the right understanding of the Ten Commandments, these rules are to be observed:

  1. That the law is perfect, and bindeth every one to full conformity in the whole man unto the righteousness thereof, and unto entire obedience forever; so as to require the utmost perfection of every duty, and to forbid the least degree of every sin.
  2. That it is spiritual, and so reacheth the understanding, will, affections, and all other powers of the soul; as well as words, works, and gestures.
  3. That one and the same thing, in divers respects, is required or forbidden in several commandments.
  4. That as, where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden; and, where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded: so, where a promise is annexed, the contrary threatening is included; and, where a threatening is annexed, the contrary promise is included.
  5. That what God forbids, is at no time to be done; what he commands, is always our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times.
  6. That under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded; together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto.
  7. That what is forbidden or commanded to ourselves, we are bound, according to our places, to endeavor that it may be avoided or performed by others, according to the duty of their places.
  8. That in what is commanded to others, we are bound, according to our places and callings, to be helpful to them;
The Sources of Theonomic Development | Sam Waldron

The Sources of Theonomic Development | Sam Waldron

 

This blog is part 2 in a series titled: “Theonomy: A Reformed Baptist Assesment.” To read part 1, you can click here: https://cbtseminary.org/theonomy-a-reformed-baptist-assessment-sam-waldron/

 

Theonomy: A Reformed Baptist Assessment

The Sources of Theonomic Development

It is not my goal to provide a thorough overview of Christian Reconstruction. Others have done this well. ((For a personal, interesting, and much more extensive introduction to Christian Reconstruction, see H. Wayne House’s and Tommy Ice’s Dominion Theology: Blessing or Cuse, (Multnomah, Portland, 1988), pp. 13f. )) Something must be said, however, about the basic sources of this movement (and of this assessment) and the major tenets of Theonomy or Christian Reconstruction.

 

I. Basic Sources

A. Rousas J. Rushdoony

Theonomy, or as it is also called, Christian Reconstruction, has for its father R. J. Rushdoony and his prolific pen. Among his many books, the most important ones are, first and foremost, The Institutes of Biblical Law and his brief treatment entitled, The Meaning of Postmillennialism: God’s Plan for Victory. Rushdoony ascribes to Cornelius Van Til the greatest influence on his thinking. Rushdoony is the master influence in three Theonomic organs: The Chalcedon Foundation, “The Journal of Reconstruction,” and a newsletter entitled “The Chalcedon Report.” ((Peter J. Leithart, “An Interview with Dr. R.J. Rushdoony,” The Counsel of Chalcedon  (Sept. 1985): 14-17))

 

B. Greg Bahnsen

It is probably due to Mr. Bahnsen that Christian Reconstructionism owes the name, Theonomy. His Theonomy in Christian Ethics, with a foreword by Rushdoony, is perhaps the single most influential and controversial of the Theonomic literature. He is also well-known for his book, Homosexuality: A Biblical View. This book illustrates what is best from the Theonomic perspective. Mr. Bahnsen is now an Orthodox Presbyterian Church minister in California. He graduated from Westminster Theological Seminary and was formerly the Professor of Apologetics at Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS) in Jackson, Mississippi. Though a fine apologist in the presuppositional school of thought, he was dismissed from RTS in a dispute over Theonomy. The Covenant Tape Ministry distributes tapes of his teaching.

 

C. Gary North

Gary North was formerly editor of the “Journal of Christian Reconstruction.” He is the editor of numerous works, including, The Theology of Christian Resistance and The Tactics of Christian Resistance. He is the author of a popularization of Christian Reconstruction entitled, Unconditional Surrender: God’s Program for Victory, as well as Backward Christian Soldiers and volume 1 of an economic commentary on the Bible entitled The Dominion Covenant: Genesis. He also contributed to The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, edited by James B. Jordan.

These are probably the most well-known Christian Reconstructionists. There are, however, several other prolific spokesmen for the Theonomic movement. Among them may be mentioned David Chilton, Gary Demar, Peter Leithart, Ray Sutton, Joe Kickasola, Joseph C. Morecraft III, and at one time James B. Jordan.

 

II. Major Tenets

The Christian Reconstructionists have defined the major tenets of their system. They are presuppositional apologetics, predestination, their view of the abiding validity of the law in exhaustive detail, and postmillennialism. North writes,

Mr. Clapp lists three key doctrines of the Reconstructionists: presuppositional apologetics, biblical law, and postmillennialism. He left out one crucial doctrine: predestination. These were the four that David Chilton and I listed in our essay. “Apologetics and Strategy” in Christianity and Civilization 3 (1983). ((Gary North, Honest Reporting as Heresy: My Response to Christianity Today (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987), 7. North and the Tyler Theonomists have attempted to add a fifth major tenet, the covenant concept as the key to the Bible, history, and Christian living, but there is not general agreeemtn among Theonomists about this. Cf. the citation in this footnote.))

 

As we begin a preliminary assessment of Theonomy, we will comment further on these self-confessed distinctives of Christian Reconstruction.

Theonomy: A Reformed Baptist Assessment | Sam Waldron

Theonomy: A Reformed Baptist Assessment | Sam Waldron

 

Theonomy: A Reformed Baptist Assessment.

A Preface to the Series

 

Some time around 1990—I do not know the exact year—I was asked to deliver a series of lectures to the old Trinity Ministerial Academy on the subject of Theonomy or Christian Reconstruction. The result was a series of lectures entitled, Theonomy: A Reformed Baptist Assessment. These lectures have been available online for many years if you knew what to search for and where to look. In the few years after I wrote them, I made some feeble attempts to publish them. The Publishers I contacted were not interested in what a Reformed Baptist might think about this subject.

In subsequent years it was my impression that the popularity of Theonomy faded with the fading influence and deaths of its major founders: Rushdoony, North, and Bahnsen. Strangely, or perhaps not so strangely, with the precipitous decline of our culture, a form of Theonomy has been making a comeback in recent years. I regard Theonomy as an overreaction to the degradation of our culture.

It is not an overreaction, let me say, in the condemnation of the sexual perversity and moral madness that is all around us. No condemnation seems too strong for the LGBTQ mania and Transgender wickedness into which our country seems to be descending.

It is, however, an over-reaction in its view of how the church and Christian community should respond to it. It is an overreaction in terms of the theonomic doctrines it is adopting in response to this fall off of a cultural cliff.

And that leads me to say something else …

Theonomy does not just mean God’s law, my young Padawans. If Theonomists were only arguing for a return to the Ten Commandments as the moral law for human life, right-minded Reformed thinkers would not and could not reject it. Theonomy—though it means God’s law literally—means much more and much else theologically.

My impression till recently was that the recent resurgence of Theonomy was actually a somewhat modified form of Theonomy not guilty of certain of the extremes of its original founders.  But now I am informed that some of the very well-known Reformed Christians who have enlisted in this movement are citing with much approval its founders. For instance, Rushdoony himself was recently quoted.

All this makes me feel that I should dust off my lectures on Theonomy. I am sure they are dated in terms of some of the contemporary discussion. Yet, they are solidly based on what the founders of Theonomy—Rushdoony, North, and Bahnsen—actually taught. It may serve the interests of truth in several respects, then, if in the coming weeks I make available in this blog my 30-year old, but I hope still relevant lectures on this subject.

Pin It on Pinterest