That's fair. But what we should strenuously avoid doing is using the term "biblical anthropology" as a shield against any texts such as Lev. 20:13... which itself is jam packed with more biblical anthropology than twenty seminaries full of clever exegetes all properly and politely distancing themselves from theonomists could ever gin up.
Not saying you're doing that, but consider this...
Both French and Moore, I'll wager, would both enthusiastically endorse your own words: "I do not believe that the penal sanctions in Leviticus are binding beyond the borders of Old Testament Israel or beyond the expiration date of the Old Covenant."
I don’t think anybody in this discussion would accept your assumption that Paul represents a “third” option. More likely they think their view to be in line with Paul. ;) I don’t think I need to write an essay on the complexities of the application of biblical law to modern societies. Well, aside from the fact I already referenced my discussion in my book. But the literature is already voluminous. For a good sense of those complexities regarding penalties for sexual crimes I suggest Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses, ch. 13. But that chapter also builds on previous discussions that should be consulted and internalized.
Welp, that settles it. French and Moore probably think they're in line with Paul. They have the same view of God's penal sanctions as you.
Nevertheless, they're full throated that homosexual acts are not capital crimes, and you're full throated that... well, it depends, it's nuanced, you gotta read a lot of books to know whether the magistrate is commanded to punish homosexual acts or not, you gotta make societal harm arguments but only if they contain biblical anthropology, etc etc.
By which I mean... You're not full throated at all.
No offense, really... But it's no wonder folks are lining up on the squishy side. At least it purports that God has spoken clearly to simple people.
Don't get me wrong. I appreciate that biblical scholarship requires nuance and I appreciate you're trying to inject such.
But the criticism that the Frenches and Moores of the church shouldn't be wagging their fingers at Africa is irrelevant. That's a fun criticism against secular materialists who pretend neutrality. It works against them, because it holds up their own standard against them. It doesn't work against people committed to the bringing the word of God to the lost and discipling the nations, the polis. Telling benighted people what God says they ought to be doing is literally our job, and colonialism didn't change that.
I don't recall claiming to be full-throated about anything other than that I am full-throated about what God's moral standards are. Applying those standards in the civil realm is a rather notoriously complicated matter, however. You don't seem to like the complications.
"Don't get me wrong. I appreciate that biblical scholarship requires nuance and I appreciate you're trying to inject such." Honestly--and you'll have to forgive me--that seems doubtful from where I sit.
If your view is that biblical scholarship is just a fun but entirely unnecessary parlor hobby, and that ignorant people simply know better without all that "nuance," we very much disagree. If you have an argument against, say, the Westminster Divines, who clearly thought the judicial laws of Israel had "expired," (i.e., non-binding), feel free to share. Or maybe you have a rebuttal to Poythress's careful argument about capital sanctions being an extension of *cherem* warfare related to Israel's unique holiness in the land.
If simple is what you're after, let me know when you haul your neighbor before the magistrate to be *executed* for mowing his lawn on Sunday. And don't go squishy on me. ;) Cheers, and thanks for being provoked!
I guess I don't understand why I should feel embarrassed that Moore and French would endorse my words--as would many, many heavyweight biblical scholars in the seminaries you don't appear to respect. :) But it seems that they then go on to interpret "non-binding" to mean *prohibited.* Which, to my mind, doesn't follow.
NPR sent me a letter asking for funding. I wrote them a letter telling them that I like a lot of their interesting programs but turn it right off when they get to promoting abortion and LGBT+ agenda -- and that I do not want to contribute due to that. I asked them if they would consider featuring Christian organizations who help women who are pregnant and need help. I haven't mailed it -- yet. I read it to a friend who said she agreed with it all but didn't think NPR would consider anything I wrote. One afterthought I had was that perhaps the Christian organizations just want to do their wonderful work quietly. Thoughts?
Thoughtful, perceptive and courageous.
Super confused why you throw shade at Rawls, then proceed to... make a harm argument. (Your fifth paragraph from the bottom) What gives?
Don't be irked with French and Moore for not going to the Bible for the answer, when you won't do it.
I don't have a problem with harm arguments. I have a problem with harm arguments that are not grounded in biblical anthropology. E.g., Rawls.
That's fair. But what we should strenuously avoid doing is using the term "biblical anthropology" as a shield against any texts such as Lev. 20:13... which itself is jam packed with more biblical anthropology than twenty seminaries full of clever exegetes all properly and politely distancing themselves from theonomists could ever gin up.
Not saying you're doing that, but consider this...
Both French and Moore, I'll wager, would both enthusiastically endorse your own words: "I do not believe that the penal sanctions in Leviticus are binding beyond the borders of Old Testament Israel or beyond the expiration date of the Old Covenant."
I don’t think anybody in this discussion would accept your assumption that Paul represents a “third” option. More likely they think their view to be in line with Paul. ;) I don’t think I need to write an essay on the complexities of the application of biblical law to modern societies. Well, aside from the fact I already referenced my discussion in my book. But the literature is already voluminous. For a good sense of those complexities regarding penalties for sexual crimes I suggest Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses, ch. 13. But that chapter also builds on previous discussions that should be consulted and internalized.
Welp, that settles it. French and Moore probably think they're in line with Paul. They have the same view of God's penal sanctions as you.
Nevertheless, they're full throated that homosexual acts are not capital crimes, and you're full throated that... well, it depends, it's nuanced, you gotta read a lot of books to know whether the magistrate is commanded to punish homosexual acts or not, you gotta make societal harm arguments but only if they contain biblical anthropology, etc etc.
By which I mean... You're not full throated at all.
No offense, really... But it's no wonder folks are lining up on the squishy side. At least it purports that God has spoken clearly to simple people.
Don't get me wrong. I appreciate that biblical scholarship requires nuance and I appreciate you're trying to inject such.
But the criticism that the Frenches and Moores of the church shouldn't be wagging their fingers at Africa is irrelevant. That's a fun criticism against secular materialists who pretend neutrality. It works against them, because it holds up their own standard against them. It doesn't work against people committed to the bringing the word of God to the lost and discipling the nations, the polis. Telling benighted people what God says they ought to be doing is literally our job, and colonialism didn't change that.
I don't recall claiming to be full-throated about anything other than that I am full-throated about what God's moral standards are. Applying those standards in the civil realm is a rather notoriously complicated matter, however. You don't seem to like the complications.
"Don't get me wrong. I appreciate that biblical scholarship requires nuance and I appreciate you're trying to inject such." Honestly--and you'll have to forgive me--that seems doubtful from where I sit.
If your view is that biblical scholarship is just a fun but entirely unnecessary parlor hobby, and that ignorant people simply know better without all that "nuance," we very much disagree. If you have an argument against, say, the Westminster Divines, who clearly thought the judicial laws of Israel had "expired," (i.e., non-binding), feel free to share. Or maybe you have a rebuttal to Poythress's careful argument about capital sanctions being an extension of *cherem* warfare related to Israel's unique holiness in the land.
If simple is what you're after, let me know when you haul your neighbor before the magistrate to be *executed* for mowing his lawn on Sunday. And don't go squishy on me. ;) Cheers, and thanks for being provoked!
If Westminster was right, and the laws are expired, why have a beef with French and Moore?
If Poythress is right, and capital punishment for e.g. sodomy was uniquely for Israel's cherem, why have a beef with French and Moore?
If the title of your essay, "No one is immune", is right, why the defensiveness? Are you immune from the zeitgeist?
How many seminary degrees must one have to be able to read "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath?"
Honestly, your writing is much better when you write to illuminate rather than to provoke.
I guess I don't understand why I should feel embarrassed that Moore and French would endorse my words--as would many, many heavyweight biblical scholars in the seminaries you don't appear to respect. :) But it seems that they then go on to interpret "non-binding" to mean *prohibited.* Which, to my mind, doesn't follow.
If I'm reading you rightly, you say modern magistrates have an OPTION to punish; Moore/French says they MUST NOT punish.
There's a third option. Paul. Sword. Terror.
If you have an essay in you about why "the authorities are a terror to wrongdoing" comports with "option to punish", I'd love to hear it.
NPR sent me a letter asking for funding. I wrote them a letter telling them that I like a lot of their interesting programs but turn it right off when they get to promoting abortion and LGBT+ agenda -- and that I do not want to contribute due to that. I asked them if they would consider featuring Christian organizations who help women who are pregnant and need help. I haven't mailed it -- yet. I read it to a friend who said she agreed with it all but didn't think NPR would consider anything I wrote. One afterthought I had was that perhaps the Christian organizations just want to do their wonderful work quietly. Thoughts?
Send it, Bertha! They will ignore you, but they need to hear from you.