Posted by: Standing Solus Christus | April 2, 2007


I read an interesting article this weekend and would like to ask the following question: 


Does this and this contradict with this or this or this?


What do you think?




  1. I say no! The important question is “sufficient for what”? It is also critical to understand that, by saying Scripture is not sufficient for all areas of human experience, that is not at all to say that Scripture is not necessary. Always, we need a scriptural foundation, worldview. [Rarely, Sometimes, Usually, Almost Always — but not never] we also need more.

    If you read the first link and don’t understand him well enough, and think he’s flown off the handle, please do read the second link, where he expresses himself more clearly. Surely no one can disagree with this quote, which makes his point admirably:

    If Scripture does not even address every circumstance of the government and worship of the church [WCF 1.6], then -— all the more strongly —- it does not address every circumstance of life outside of the visible covenant community. I find it virtually unimaginable that the scriptures, which must be supplemented by the light of nature and prudence/wisdom regarding some circumstances concerning the government and worship of the church, need not be supplemented regarding other circumstances, such as marriage and civil government.

  2. I also enjoyed his Calvin quote and personal assessment:

    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 laws of nations. Let other men consider how perilous and seditious this notion is; it will be enough for me to have proved it false and foolish [Calvin, Institutes, IV.xx.14 (Battles translation)].

    …Finally, I would note that I am friendlier to theonomy than Calvin was: he thought it was “perilous, seditious, false, and foolish.” I think it is perilous, false, and foolish; but I don’t consider it seditious.

  3. I agree with your conclusion and also with the comment about needing to read the second link.

    When I was reading it I just couldn’t figure out who he was talking about. I don’t think I have come across anybody who would argue with him. Do theonomists really make the mistake that he is accusing them of?

    If you continue in the chapter cited above, Calvin goes on appeal to natural law for the basis of civil law. He goes further to state the following about the Moses:

    “For the Lord through the hand of Moses did not give that law to be proclaimed among all nations and to be in force everywhere; but when he had taken the Jewish nation into his safekeeping, defense, and protection, he also willed to be a lawgiver especially to it; and as became a wise lawgiver – he had special concern for it in making its laws.” (IV.XX.16)

  4. That is a sweet Calvin anti-Theonomy quote!

    I don’t think I have come across anybody who would argue with him. Do theonomists really make the mistake that he is accusing them of?

    Here you go…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: