Chapter 1 of Dr. Greg Bahnsen's book, "By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today," focuses on "Specification of Purpose and Position." To me, it's all about clarifications of his stance in the book regarding the validity of Old Testament law for our time. In explaining his position, I see ten misconceptions, which could be actual or potential that readers should avoid to associate with Dr. Bahnsen's thesis. The first two extreme reactions are not included in these misconceptions such as the attitudes that no change has taken place "in how the law should be observed" and "everything has been changed" that makes Christian ethics completely confined to the New Testament (p. 1).
The basic thesis taken in the book is that the written revelation of God "is necessary as the objective standard of morality for God's people" (p. 2). This revelation is in harmony "with the general revelation made of God's standards through the created order and man's conscience" (ibid.). Throughout this chapter, Dr. Bahnsen repeated several times what he describes as "methodological point," (p. 3) to prove his thesis (I prefer calling it hermeneutical approach). On page 2, he states: ". . . the Bible teaches that we should presume continuity between the ethical standards of the New Testament and those of the Old . . ." Matthew 5: 17-19 is a vital basis for this approach. Again, on page 3, Dr. Bahnsen mentions: "The methodological point, then, is that we presume our obligation to obey any Old Testament commandment unless the New Testament indicates otherwise." And still on the same page, he adds: ". . . the New Testament does not teach any radical change in God's law regarding the standards of socio-political morality." And finally on page 7: "It is advocated that we should presume the abiding authority of any Old Testament commandment until and unless the New Testament reveals otherwise." Refusing this thesis, the remaining option is to follow autonomous speculation.
In proceeding to the ten misconceptions, I generalize my statement describing all advocates of biblical law though I am aware that there are discrepancies of interpretation among them. To be safe, you can interpret these general statements referring only to the study of Dr. Bahnsen.
The ten misconceptions are as follows:
Misconception # 1 - That those who advocate biblical law deny discontinuity. Dr. Bahnsen's thesis for the validity of biblical law does not deny the existence of discontinuity in applying it to modern situation. He identifies them at least under four categories:
- "Certain localized imperatives or specific commands used in concrete situation." Example: "the command to go to war and gain the land of Palestine by the sword" (p. 5)
- "Cultural details." Example: "flying axhead" (ibid.)
- "Administrative details." Example: "the type or form of government, the method of tax collecting, the location of the capitol" (p. 6)
- "Typological foreshadows in the Old Testament." Examples: "...ceremonial laws of sacrifice, provisions regarding the land of Palestine, the laws regulating aspects of the land of Canaan (family plots, location of cities of refuge, the levirate institution)." (ibid.)
These are just four examples. Other discontinuity can be identified.
Misconception # 2 - That those who advocate biblical law have adopted superficial exegesis. In fact, to advocate the use of biblical law does not exempt, but provides a strong motivation towards exegetical responsibility. In the language of Dr. Bahnsen, this requires "hard thinking." Notice how he explains this commitment:
"We need to be sensitive to the fact that interpreting the Old Testament law, properly categorizing its details (for example, ceremonial, standing, cultural), and making modern day applications of the authoritative standards of the Old Testament is not an easy or simple task. It is not always readily apparent to us how to understand an Old Testament commandment or use it properly today. So the position taken here does not make everything in Christian ethics a simple matter of looking up obvious answers in a code-book. Much hard thinking - exegetical and theological homework - is entailed by a commitment to the position advocated in these studies" (p. 7).
Misconception # 3 - Potential misconception related to the study of Christian ethics. The primary focus of Dr. Bahnsen is limited to the normative perspective of Christian ethics that deals "with the question of standards for conduct" (p. 8). The "motivational and the consequential perspectives (touching on inner character and goal in ethics) are not equally treated, nor is the vital area of producing and maintaining moral behavior" (ibid.).
Misconception # 4 - Misconception related to three major errors such as making obedience to God's law as the way to salvation, treating the law as the dynamic power in Christian life, and confining the influence of the law on external observance. Instead, Dr. Bahnsen affirms salvation by grace through faith, the need for the Holy Spirit in sanctification, and that observance of the law includes our hearts and attitudes.
Misconception # 5 - Potential misconception that advocates of biblical law ignore the complexity of the "detailed application of God's law to our modern world" (p. 9). Dr. Bahnsen carefully maintains that the scope of his study is foundational in nature and therefore does not deal with the specifics.
Misconception # 6 - That those who advocate biblical law believes in "the imposition of God's law by force upon a society" (ibid.). Dr. Bahnsen upholds that the way to advance the kingdom of God here on earth is not through forceful imposition of biblical law upon society, but through "the Great Commission - evangelism, preaching, and nurture in the word of God - and in the power of God's regenerating and sanctifying Spirit" (ibid.).
Misconception # 7 - That the logical conclusion of the advocacy of biblical law will either lead to rebellion against or passive submission to government authorities. Dr. Bahnsen reiterates his commitment "to the transforming power of God's word which reforms all areas of life. . ." (p.10).
Misconception # 8 - That those who advocate biblical law consider all sins as crimes and matters of private conscience as subject for social sanctions. This is the socio-political misconception in the use of God's law. Dr. Bahnsen emphatically delineates, "Not all sins are crimes, . . . Rulers should enforce only those laws for which God revealed social sanctions to be imposed (not matters of private conscience or personal piety)" (ibid.).
Misconception # 9 - That those who advocate biblical law ignore "the full provisions of due process in a court of law" (ibid.). Dr. Bahnsen elaborates:
"Of course, when magistrates do come to the decision to enforce the commandment(s) of God in a particular area - whether because they have personally been converted or whether they simply see the wisdom and justice of those laws as unbelievers - they are obliged to do so in a proper and fair manner. The Christian does not advocate ex post facto justice whereby offenders are punished for offenses committed prior to the civil enactment of a law prohibiting their actions. Nor does the Christian advocate the punishment of criminals who have not been convicted under the full provisions of due process in a court of law" (pp. 10-11).
Misconception # 10 - That those who advocate biblical law make the law of God as the most important subject at the expense of other biblical subjects. Again, Dr. Bahnsen is cautious here to indicate that he is just focusing on "one aspect of the total picture of Christian theology and ethics" (p.11). He adds:
"It is not to say that political ethics is more vital than personal ethics or that the cultural mandate is more crucial than the evangelistic mandate of the church" (ibid.).
Through this study, Dr. Greg Bahnsen simply followed "the Reformed conviction that our Christian beliefs should be guided by sola Scriptura and tota Scriptura-only by Scripture and by all of Scripture" (p. 12).
Source: Bahnsen, G. L. (1985). By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today. Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics.
No comments:
Post a Comment