Pros and Cons of “Christian Nationalism”, # 29:
The last post showed how, through the Noachian covenant in Genesis 8&9, God modified the global covenant that originally existed in Genesis 1&2, with new amendments and appendments. It focused on Genesis 9:6 because that’s the only place in the entire Bible where God unequivocally prescribes human law that is global. He certainly describes moral law conspicuously. But if one wants to be faithful to Scripture in trying to discern Bible-based political theory, it’s necessary to recognize that moral law is law that God imposes on humans, while human law is law that humans impose on humans. It’s necessary to recognize that the existence of moral law does not necessarily entail the existence of human law. This is evident by the fact that God has shown through object lessons that he has very low regard for humans as enforcers of the moral law. It’s certainly necessary for human law to exist, but only within strict jurisdictional boundaries.
The last post also showed how the imago Dei, natural law, natural rights, natural duties, and the law of retaliation are rationally linked together in Genesis 9:6. This verse is a term of the global covenant, meaning that it applies to all people regardless of whether they like it or not. Because Genesis 9:6 applies to all people, it’s important to understand its subject matter limitations extremely well. Without such clear understanding, it’s easy for the enforcer of the 9:6 lex talionis to slip into being a perpetrator, a violator, a color-of-law criminal. Although the Bible certainly provides the essential premises necessary to living a Godly life, it doesn’t always provide the details. In this case, to discover the subject-matter limitations of the 9:6 lex talionis, it’s necessary to use both special revelation and general revelation. So it’s necessary to resort to the extra-biblical, in the spirit of being “Thomistic and catholic”.
The Code of Justinian recognizes four kinds of legal actions. These are legal actions that are ex delicto (out of a delict), ex contractu (out of a contract), quasi ex delicto, and quasi ex contractu. There’s no shortage of muddled thinking in the field of jurisprudence, so there’s no good reason to assume that these four types of legal action concisely, accurately and exhaustively encompass all the kinds of legal action encompassed by the 9:6 lex talionis. Nevertheless, this ancient Roman, early Christian legal system is a reasonable place to start searching for the kinds of legal actions that comport to 9:6.
It’s important to categorize legal actions because it’s necessary to know, if one wants to apply 9:6 properly, whether one has a legal and lawful right to act against someone who has allegedly violated one’s own, or another’s, right to life. That’s why knowing what legal actions are lawful (meaning morally upright) is crucial.
It should be obvious by now that the fundamental legal instrument in biblical jurisprudence is the God-promulgated covenant. Such covenants are a type of contract. Both God-promulgated covenants and ordinary human contracts are agreements between multiple parties, where such agreements contain terms that are laws to the parties. The difference between an ordinary human contract and a God-promulgated covenant is that in the latter, God is party and God is the primary promulgator. ‑‑‑ God is sovereign over the entire universe, and has sovereignly decreed whatsoever comes to pass. So he is involved in ordinary human contracts in some ways. But he is not involved in ordinary human contracts in the same way that he’s involved in God-promulgated covenants. His relationship to ordinary human contracts is more at arm’s length. ‑‑‑ The period of time between the fall and the entry into the New Jerusalem exists for the sake of allowing humanity to grow into miniature sovereignty, in which people are sinless, have the facial appearance of free choice, and are happy as larks to comply with God’s design. In this interim state ‑‑ the states that Wolfe calls the “state of sin” and the “state of pre-glory redemption” ‑‑ most, if not all, ordinary human contracts deviate to some extent from God’s preceptive will. In other words, they’re tainted with sin, and are not good enough for God to claim as his own. So even though God-promulgated covenants and ordinary human contracts are both types of contracts, and are both crucial to biblical jurisprudence, ordinary human contracts must be distinguished from God-promulgated covenants.
The rest of the post is here: https://jonathanmiles.education/?post=53.
Link1: https://basicjurisdictionalprinciples.net/Books/HermProleg/pdf/HermeneuticalPrologue.pdf.
https://basicjurisdictionalprinciples.net/.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarian_Christianity&oldid=1088101177.
“What Is Reformed Theology?”: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/what-is-reformed-theology.
The last post showed how, through the Noachian covenant in Genesis 8&9, God modified the global covenant that originally existed in Genesis 1&2, with new amendments and appendments. It focused on Genesis 9:6 because that’s the only place in the entire Bible where God unequivocally prescribes human law that is global. He certainly describes moral law conspicuously. But if one wants to be faithful to Scripture in trying to discern Bible-based political theory, it’s necessary to recognize that moral law is law that God imposes on humans, while human law is law that humans impose on humans. It’s necessary to recognize that the existence of moral law does not necessarily entail the existence of human law. This is evident by the fact that God has shown through object lessons that he has very low regard for humans as enforcers of the moral law. It’s certainly necessary for human law to exist, but only within strict jurisdictional boundaries.
The last post also showed how the imago Dei, natural law, natural rights, natural duties, and the law of retaliation are rationally linked together in Genesis 9:6. This verse is a term of the global covenant, meaning that it applies to all people regardless of whether they like it or not. Because Genesis 9:6 applies to all people, it’s important to understand its subject matter limitations extremely well. Without such clear understanding, it’s easy for the enforcer of the 9:6 lex talionis to slip into being a perpetrator, a violator, a color-of-law criminal. Although the Bible certainly provides the essential premises necessary to living a Godly life, it doesn’t always provide the details. In this case, to discover the subject-matter limitations of the 9:6 lex talionis, it’s necessary to use both special revelation and general revelation. So it’s necessary to resort to the extra-biblical, in the spirit of being “Thomistic and catholic”.
The Code of Justinian recognizes four kinds of legal actions. These are legal actions that are ex delicto (out of a delict), ex contractu (out of a contract), quasi ex delicto, and quasi ex contractu. There’s no shortage of muddled thinking in the field of jurisprudence, so there’s no good reason to assume that these four types of legal action concisely, accurately and exhaustively encompass all the kinds of legal action encompassed by the 9:6 lex talionis. Nevertheless, this ancient Roman, early Christian legal system is a reasonable place to start searching for the kinds of legal actions that comport to 9:6.
It’s important to categorize legal actions because it’s necessary to know, if one wants to apply 9:6 properly, whether one has a legal and lawful right to act against someone who has allegedly violated one’s own, or another’s, right to life. That’s why knowing what legal actions are lawful (meaning morally upright) is crucial.
It should be obvious by now that the fundamental legal instrument in biblical jurisprudence is the God-promulgated covenant. Such covenants are a type of contract. Both God-promulgated covenants and ordinary human contracts are agreements between multiple parties, where such agreements contain terms that are laws to the parties. The difference between an ordinary human contract and a God-promulgated covenant is that in the latter, God is party and God is the primary promulgator. ‑‑‑ God is sovereign over the entire universe, and has sovereignly decreed whatsoever comes to pass. So he is involved in ordinary human contracts in some ways. But he is not involved in ordinary human contracts in the same way that he’s involved in God-promulgated covenants. His relationship to ordinary human contracts is more at arm’s length. ‑‑‑ The period of time between the fall and the entry into the New Jerusalem exists for the sake of allowing humanity to grow into miniature sovereignty, in which people are sinless, have the facial appearance of free choice, and are happy as larks to comply with God’s design. In this interim state ‑‑ the states that Wolfe calls the “state of sin” and the “state of pre-glory redemption” ‑‑ most, if not all, ordinary human contracts deviate to some extent from God’s preceptive will. In other words, they’re tainted with sin, and are not good enough for God to claim as his own. So even though God-promulgated covenants and ordinary human contracts are both types of contracts, and are both crucial to biblical jurisprudence, ordinary human contracts must be distinguished from God-promulgated covenants.
The rest of the post is here: https://jonathanmiles.education/?post=53.
Link1: https://basicjurisdictionalprinciples.net/Books/HermProleg/pdf/HermeneuticalPrologue.pdf.
https://basicjurisdictionalprinciples.net/.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarian_Christianity&oldid=1088101177.
“What Is Reformed Theology?”: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/what-is-reformed-theology.
Write a comment...
Recent PRO gabs
• • •