BY THIS STANDARD-Greg L. Bahnsen

[Amanah]

I am reading this book, and would like to discuss it in the future, as I read it.
I am linking the pdf in case others would like to look at it also.

BY THIS STANDARD The Authority of God's Law Today
Greg L. Bahnsen

The Basic Thesis Fundamental to the position taken herein is the conviction that God's special revelation- His written word- is necessary as the objective standard of morality for God's people. Over against the autonomous ethical philosophies of men, where good and evil are defined by sinful speculation, the Christian ethic gains its character and direction from the revealed word of God, a revelation which harmonizes with the general revelation made of God's standards through the created order and man's conscience.

When we explore what the Bible teaches about the character of God, the salvation accomplished by Christ, the work of the Holy Spirit in making us holy in heart and conduct, or the nature of God's covenantal dealings with men, we see why the believer should take a positive attitude toward the commandments of God, even as revealed in the Old Testament. Indeed, the Bible teaches that we should presume continuity between the ethical standards of the New Testament and those of the Old, rather than abbreviating the validity of God's law according to some preconceived and artificial limit.

Because He did not come to abrogate the Old Testament, and because not one stroke of the law will become invalid until the end ofthe world, Jesus declared: "Therefore, whosoever breaks one of these least commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:17-19). Given this instruction, our attitude must be that all Old Testament laws are presently our obligation unless further revelation from the Lawgiver shows that some change has been made.

The methodological point, then, is that we presume our obligation to obey any Old Testament commandment unless the New Testament indicates otherwise. We must assume continuity with the Old Testament rather than discontinuity. This is not to say that there are no changes from Old to New Testament. Indeed, there are-important ones. However, the word of God must be the standard which defines precisely what those changes are for us; we cannot take it upon ourselves to assume such changes or read them into the NewTestament. God's word, His direction to us, must be taken as continuing in its authority until God Himself reveals otherwise. This is, in a sense, the heart of "covenant theology" over against a dispensational understanding of the relation between Old and New Testaments. '

To this methodological point we can add the substantive conclusion that the New Testament does not teach any radical change in God's law regarding the standards of socio-political morality. God's law as it touches upon the duty of civil magistrates has not been altered in any systematic or fundamental way in the New Testament.

Consequently, instead of taking a basically antagonlstlc view of the Old Testament commandments for society and the state, and instead of taking a smorgasbord approach of picking and·choosing among those laws on the basis of personal taste and convenience, we must recognize the continuing obligation of civil magistrates to obey and enforce the relevant laws of the Old Testament, including the penal sanctions specified by the just Judge of all the earth. As with the rest of God's law, we must presume continuity of binding authority regarding the socio-political commandments revealed as standing law in the Old Testament.



http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/d...s_standard.pdf

[Michael The Disciple]

And this means?

Acts 15:22-29

22Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: 23And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: 24Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: 25It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. 28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I am reading this book, and would like to discuss it in the future, as I read it.
I am linking the pdf in case others would like to look at it also.

BY THIS STANDARD The Authority of God's Law Today
Greg L. Bahnsen

The Basic Thesis Fundamental to the position taken herein is the conviction that God's special revelation- His written word- is necessary as the objective standard of morality for God's people. Over against the autonomous ethical philosophies of men, where good and evil are defined by sinful speculation, the Christian ethic gains its character and direction from the revealed word of God, a revelation which harmonizes with the general revelation made of God's standards through the created order and man's conscience.

When we explore what the Bible teaches about the character of God, the salvation accomplished by Christ, the work of the Holy Spirit in making us holy in heart and conduct, or the nature of God's covenantal dealings with men, we see why the believer should take a positive attitude toward the commandments of God, even as revealed in the Old Testament. Indeed, the Bible teaches that we should presume continuity between the ethical standards of the New Testament and those of the Old, rather than abbreviating the validity of God's law according to some preconceived and artificial limit.

Because He did not come to abrogate the Old Testament, and because not one stroke of the law will become invalid until the end ofthe world, Jesus declared: "Therefore, whosoever breaks one of these least commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:17-19). Given this instruction, our attitude must be that all Old Testament laws are presently our obligation unless further revelation from the Lawgiver shows that some change has been made.

The methodological point, then, is that we presume our obligation to obey any Old Testament commandment unless the New Testament indicates otherwise. We must assume continuity with the Old Testament rather than discontinuity. This is not to say that there are no changes from Old to New Testament. Indeed, there are-important ones. However, the word of God must be the standard which defines precisely what those changes are for us; we cannot take it upon ourselves to assume such changes or read them into the NewTestament. God's word, His direction to us, must be taken as continuing in its authority until God Himself reveals otherwise. This is, in a sense, the heart of "covenant theology" over against a dispensational understanding of the relation between Old and New Testaments. '

To this methodological point we can add the substantive conclusion that the New Testament does not teach any radical change in God's law regarding the standards of socio-political morality. God's law as it touches upon the duty of civil magistrates has not been altered in any systematic or fundamental way in the New Testament.

Consequently, instead of taking a basically antagonlstlc view of the Old Testament commandments for society and the state, and instead of taking a smorgasbord approach of picking and·choosing among those laws on the basis of personal taste and convenience, we must recognize the continuing obligation of civil magistrates to obey and enforce the relevant laws of the Old Testament, including the penal sanctions specified by the just Judge of all the earth. As with the rest of God's law, we must presume continuity of binding authority regarding the socio-political commandments revealed as standing law in the Old Testament.



http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/d...s_standard.pdf

I've read quite a few works by Gary North and Rousas Rushdoony (author of, The Institutes of Biblical Law), and I have to respectfully disagree. These men believe and teach Christian Reconstructionism. This errant doctrine is defined as follows:

Christian reconstructionists advocate a theonomic government and libertarian economic principles. They maintain a distinction of spheres of authority between family, church, and state.[12][13] For example, the enforcement of moral sanctions under theonomy is carried out by the family and church government, and sanctions for moral offenses are outside the authority of civil government (which is limited to criminal matters, courts and national defense). However, some believe these distinctions become blurred, as the application of theonomy implies an increase in the authority of the civil government. Reconstructionists argue, though, that under theonomy, the authority of the state is severely limited to a point where only the judicial branch exists (e.g., a homosexual does not fear of a police force breaking in their house at night, since, under theonomy, there is no executive branch and therefore no police). Reconstructionists also say that the theocratic government is not an oligarchy or monarchy of man communicating with God, but rather, a national recognition of existing laws. Prominent advocates of Christian reconstructionism have written that according to their understanding, God's law approves of the death penalty not only for murder, but also for propagators of all forms of idolatry,[14][15] active homosexuals,[16] adulterers, practitioners of witchcraft, blasphemers,[17] and perhaps even recalcitrant youths[18] (see the List of capital crimes in the Bible). American Vision's Joel McDurmon responded to these criticisms by denying that reconstructionists have promoted coercive means.[19]

Conversely, Christian reconstructionism's founder, Rousas Rushdoony, wrote in The Institutes of Biblical Law (the founding document of reconstructionism) that Old Testament law should be applied to modern society, and he advocates the reinstatement of the Mosaic law's penal sanctions. Under such a system, the list of civil crimes which carried a death sentence would include homosexuality, adultery, incest, lying about one's virginity, bestiality, witchcraft, idolatry or apostasy, public blasphemy, false prophesying, kidnapping, rape, and bearing false witness in a capital case.[20]

Kayser points out that the Bible advocates justice, and that biblical punishments prescribed for crimes are the maximum allowable to maintain justice and not the only available option, because lesser punishments are authorized as well.[21]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ...onstructionism

We are not in a struggle to overthrow and establish a kingdom. Nor to impose the civil law code of ancient Israel on any society. We are advancing an already victorious spiritual kingdom in the hearts and lives of individual men and women throughout all nations and all cultures. A kingdom wherein God's law is written upon the heart, the law of love.

John 18:36 King James Version (KJV)
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Matthew 22:36-40 King James Version (KJV)
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Romans 13:8-10 King James Version (KJV)
8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Galatians 5:14 King James Version (KJV)
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

It's all so very simple. A spiritual kingdom wherein we are called to live our lives loving God with all our being, and demonstrating that love in loving others. The spirit and intent of the entire OT law is fulfilled in simply loving others.

Religion often complicates things, as it grasps for earthly power and authority.

[Amanah]

Bro Chris, I have seen you reference OT law to support social values.

Don't you think that there is a difference between the ethical laws of the OT, and the ceremonial laws, such as circumcision and animal sacrifices.

Jesus said he did not come to do away with the law, but the Holy Spirit would write the law in our hearts.

So, unless the law has been replaced, ie, baptism is now spiritual circumcision, and the blood of Jesus is now for the remission of sins instead of the blood of bulls and goats, OT ethics are still applicable.

(by the way, for the sake of this thread, I am going to attempt to argue from the perspective of the book as a learning exercise)

[Aquila]

If you think about it, it is this doctrine that has gotten so many churches so entangled in the politics of this world to the point that they identify the "true believers" as being strictly those who are Republican. While such a position is good for the Republican Party, I'm not convinced that it is good for the church. Because many cannot support the politics of the Republican Party out of sincere convictions regarding social justice, a nation's responsibility towards the poor, healthcare, wages, concerns over corporate power, liberty of conscience, privacy, separation of church and state, and many other things. There are many who believe in Jesus, but cannot attend a church in good conscience that is focused on advancing Republicanism.

On the flip side, there are churches who wish to advance, Liberation Theology (the liberal equivalent of the conservative doctrine of Christian Reconstructionism). Many who believe in Jesus cannot bring themselves to attend a church in good conscience that advances the liberalism of Liberation Theology.

The church would do well to soar above the fray, declaring itself the eternal and spiritual kingdom, influencing society by influencing individual hearts and minds to serve Christ... regardless of their earthly politics.

I've often told people, no Supreme Court can overrule Christ's Lordship over an individual's life. No legislation can make Christ Lord over individual's lives. Considering the time, effort, and money put into the political process by those who hold to the doctrine of Christian Reconstructionism, the doctrine is a tragic waste of our resources...because souls are not being saved while we wrangle over political policies and approaches to social problems that are actually spiritual in nature.

Many Reconstructionists talk about the "culture war". But, if you think about it, Christian Reconstructionism became the focus of Evangelicals in the late 1970's and 1980's with Pat Robertson and the Moral Majority. After nearly 50 years of focusing on establishing an earthly Christian regime... we've lost the culture. By and large, the average rank and file American has rejected such religious extremism and with it... biblical Christianity altogether, seeing churches as being simply rightwing indoctrination centers. Much of the reason why we're seeing individuals increasingly rejecting the church is because of the political implications established by Christian Reconstructionists. In their struggle to reconstruct conservative American politics into a Christian manifesto, they created a deepening divide between the Christian and the average American, manifesting the very society they feared would manifest. And even the majority of born again Christians who are sympathetic to their fair speeches and eloquent books become rather squeamish when talking about enforcing OT laws and penalties in modern society.

I firmly believe that the Gospel can only flourish in a free and just society void of any religious coercion. For it is only in such a society that individuals can genuinely choose to exercise said liberty to follow Christ purely out of personal desire and devotion. And while such a liberty does allow for individuals to freely choose sin over Christ, one cannot find a more authentic expression of faith within the church. I believe that this is why our Founders focused on civil liberties over religious law. They too understood that genuine faith can only be produced in a just society wherein all men are free to live in accordance to their conscience.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Bro Chris, I have seen you reference OT law to support social values.

I have. But my angle isn't one wherein I'm saying that God's Law must be enforced in modern society. My argument is that such social provisions are not some "socialist dream" that is alien to the Bible. I would never advocate that civil law legally mandate tithing (as the Reconstructionists would). I would point out that the poor tithe (an agrarian land tax) in the OT, and gleaning rights for the poor, sets the precedent that God cannot be said to be averse to the idea of taxation to fund provisions such as TANF, Social Security, SCHIP, Medicare etc. The Reconstructionist would reinstitute the poor tithe, gleaning rights, etc... I'm simply suggesting that we as a nation have a moral obligation to do better in regards to providing for the most destitute among us...and God would not be against such effort.

Don't you think that there is a difference between the ethical laws of the OT, and the ceremonial laws, such as circumcision and animal sacrifices.

Yes and no. Morally speaking, ethical laws give us insight into God's opinion on moral matters. Ceremonial laws reveal types and shadows that provide deeper insight in relation to NT truths. So there is a difference within the scope of the law. However, both are parts of the law. The law is a covenant specifically made between God and ancient Israel. This covenant was largely connected to not just the line of Abraham, but also the land itself. The church has an entirely different covenant. And while we might glean from both ethical and ceremonial laws in relation to the formation of doctrine and teaching, the letter of those laws are not binding upon us.

Jesus said he did not come to do away with the law, but the Holy Spirit would write the law in our hearts.

So, unless the law has been replaced, ie, baptism is now spiritual circumcision, and the blood of Jesus is now for the remission of sins instead of the blood of bulls and goats, OT ethics are still applicable.

I personally believe that the phrase "the law" must be defined in each context in which it is mentioned. Because within "the law" we find:

1.) The Law of God - The Ten Commandments: Eternal moral laws.
2.) The Law of Moses - The law code of ancient Israel as delivered by Moses.

Jesus clearly spoke of not coming to abolish the law. And yet Paul tells us that the law of ordinances that was against us was nailed to Christ's cross. So, which is it? Still standing, or nailed to the cross? I believe the question is easily answered by drawing distinction between the Law of God and the Law of Moses. The Law of God (the Ten Commandments) still stand to condemn the sins of all men, condemning all of mankind. The ordinances contained in the Law of Moses (the civil law code of Israel) was nailed to the cross and abolished.

So, the law (the Law of God, the Ten Commandments) were never abolished. They still stand to condemn sin, leaving all men condemned before God. The sinner will die and be condemned for his idolatry, disobedience to parents, lying, cheating, stealing, adulteries, and greed. But... for the believer... the believer is crucified with Christ and is dead to the law. It cannot condemn us. All of our sin is atoned for. So not one jot or tittle has passed away from the Law of God. It still stands to condemn all of mankind, corning man under the curse of condemnation, leaving only one escape... the cross of Christ. So, when well meaning believers say that the law was abolished, we know that the Law of God was never abolished. However, it is the believer who is crucified with Christ, and is dead to the law.

So, does being dead to the law mean we do not have to obey the Ten Commandments? Yes and no. No, we do not live to earn salvation by obeying the letter of the Ten Commandments. We are born and again, and live dead to the law, fulfilling its very spirit and intent by simply loving God and loving others.

(by the way, for the sake of this thread, I am going to attempt to argue from the perspective of the book as a learning exercise)

Sure thing. Sometimes playing devil's advocate on a topic truly help you understand the topic far better. I've done it myself. lol

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

And this means?

Acts 15:22-29

22Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: 23And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: 24Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: 25It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. 28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

It is my understanding that this indicates that customarily the Christian should:

1.) Abstain from meats ritually sacrificed to idols.
2.) Abstain from blood soups, Ñachi, Saksang, and such like.
3.) Abstain from meat that isn't bled.
4.) Abstain from sexual immorality.

We know that the dietary aspect of this is custom, not commandment, because Paul went on to write:

I Corinthians 8:1-13 (ESV)
Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. 2 If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. 3 But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.
4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
7 However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. 9 But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? 11 And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. 12 Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

What was decided in the Jerusalem council were customary obligations to protect Christian witness.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

And this means?

Acts 15:22-29

22Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: 23And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: 24Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: 25It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. 28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

It means the apostles believed that OT law was applicable to baptised Gentiles. It also means they understood Old Testament law was applicable in a new covenant context. They applied OT law without requiring gentiles to become Jews.

If one were to take the decisions of the Acts 15 meeting in a woodenly literal manner, then it means gentiles are required to do nothing except not eat meats that had been offered to idols, stay away from blood, stay away from things that were strangled, and stay away from fornication. Other things, like crossdressing, keeping idols at the house, dishonouring one's parents, bearing false witness, etc would be permitted. Which as anyone can guess is absurd.

So those who use this to prove "Gentile Christians have no obligation to do more than the four things listed in Acts 15" prove too much and would never accept the logical conclusions of their own argumentation.

[Michael The Disciple]

It means the apostles believed that OT law was applicable to baptised Gentiles. It also means they understood Old Testament law was applicable in a new covenant context. They applied OT law without requiring gentiles to become Jews.

It says nothing like that. Please bold the parts that back this up.

[Aquila]

It's all pretty simple.

Don't eat meat sacrificed to idols, it can trouble those who feel deep convictions against anything involved with idolatry, especially your Jewish brethren who tend to be a bit superstitious.

Don't eat blood dishes, your Jewish brethren will think you're sick in the head.

Don't eat meat that is strangled. It's not properly bled. It can subject you and your dinner guests to sickness. And if they're Jewish, they'll wonder, "Do you even kosher, bro?".

Don't be a freaky pervert who engages in sexual immorality. People are friends, not sex objects. Use things, not people.

It's all about admonishing Gentile believers to respect the sensitivities of their Jewish brethren and not be sexual deviants.