Return to Main Page
Site Index

Trouble with drop box click here for help     Printing Instructions for Articles
Back to Index to Gillespie Discussion

Discussion of George Gillespie's Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty
GWS7-9, Questions for Thought 
Subject: GWS7-9, Questions for Thought
From: Richard Bacon 
Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 07:46:03 -0500

OK, list, I'll stir the pot some more.  Let's see some good
interaction with GG now.  I know there is a lot of good thinking
going on out there -- why not share it with us.

GWS-7:

What of the assertion "this law did bind the Jews only?" Why does
GG think that assertion wrong?

What does GG intend by the words "moral and perpetual" and how does
the moral and perpetual differ from the accidental and historical?

What does GG intend by the words "moral equity?"  How might that
relate to the "general equity" of WCF 19.4?

Why would Exodus 22:20 *NOT* be applicable to the non-Jewish magistrate?

GWS-8

Is GG here defining his understanding of "moral equity?"  In what way?
What might be an example of the "unchangeable, and common to all
nations" in a judicial law?

Does the fact that no violations against the first table of the ten
commandments are mentioned in Romans 13 have anything to do with a
restriction on the role of the magistrate?

GG uses a disjunctive syllogism to prove that Christ fulfilled the
judicial law by making it doctrine for us to observe.  Is his
syllogism sound?  Why or why not?

Is there any indication in Matthew 5 that Christ had a corpus of
law in mind that we can call "the judicial law" as opposed to the
moral law?  If not, how does that fact affect Piscator's third
argument -- does it make his argument stronger or weaker?

Does Piscator's fourth argument really follow?  What of the major
premise -- can we cite Scripture or other valid conclusions from
Scripture to demonstrate the major premise?  If the major premise
is false, what does that do to Piscator's fourth argument?

How might Piscator be correct in saying the judicial law was not
typical?  How incorrect?

Does Piscator's sixth argument beg the question?  Would a 
misapplication of the law by the magistrate glorify God?

Regarding Piscator's seventh argument: is it correct to use a
passage dealing with things indifferent (as Romans 14 does) in
the church and apply it to the magistrate who has a coercive
power -- remember, nothing the magistrate does can be regarded
as indifferent in the sense of Romans 14.

GWS-9

How important is the distinction: "so far as it did concern the
punishing of the *moral law*?"

GG claimed, "He who will hold that the Christian Magistrate is
not bound to inflict such punishments for such sins, is bound
to prove that those former laws of God are abolished, and to
show some Scripture for it."

1.  Is this "hermeneutical principle" not similar to the idea that
a Scripture continues in force until abrogated by God?

2.  Must one demonstrate that each particular law is abolished, or
is it sufficient to show that certain examples of that *type* of
law are abolished -- and would the example then apply to the entire
class of laws?  Why or why not?

3.  If a principle may be proved by good and necessary consequence,
may its opposite not be proved by the same method (not saying that
opposites can both be true at the same time in the same way, but
simply trying to level the playing field here)?  Thus, must one
have an *explicit* Scripture or may good and necessary consequence
teach that a particular law or class of laws has expired?

GWS7-9

Is GG's argument from the law a sufficient one?  Has he proved logical
necessity for implementation of magisterial laws against heresy or
blasphemy (1st table crimes)?  Has he even demonstrated that the
magistrate has a responsibility with respect to the second table? Did
he think there would be any doubt regarding the magistrate's role
vis-a-vis the second table?

What have we learned about GG's general hermeneutic, if anything?

What do you think of GG's three-fold distinction of moral, ceremonial,
and judicial?


Dick Bacon
Poster of the text and keeper of the order.