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
Re: WF: the keys of the kingdom 
Subject: Re: WF: the keys of the kingdom
From: Richard Bacon 
Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 07:05:02 -0500

At 06:44 PM 5/7/97 -0400, Jonny Keen wrote:

>We can not say the
>ceremonial law has been fulfilled by Christ but the civil laws have not
been done
> away with-the whole Torah has been fulfilled in Christ-we as Christians
>are not under the Old Covenant/Torah but the New Covenant (Hebrews 8)

Jonny brings up an interesting point.  Is GG's distinction of moral,
judicial and ceremonial a valid one?  It was followed by virtually
the entire Reformed community, true enough, but is it valid?  Some today
would argue that it is not.  I am not sure that Jonny is making that
argument, but it does seem to me that GG is claiming that what the
magistrate must enforce wrt Deut. 13:6-9 is the *moral* aspect of it,
and not necessarily the judicial.

Remember, GG quoted Piscator approvingly in Piscator's commentary
on Exodus 21-23:

>But things 
>immutable, and common to all nations, are 
>the laws concerning moral trespass, sins 
>against the moral law, as murder, adultery, 
>theft, enticing away from God, blasphemy, 
>striking of parents. Now that the Christian 
>Magistrate is bound to observe these judicial 
>laws of Moses, which appoint the 
>punishments of sins against the moral law, 

After admitting that there were parts and portions of the judicial laws
of Moses that pertained to Israel as a nation and only to Israel as a
nation, GG/Piscator go on to maintain that there are some aspects of
the judicial laws which concern *moral trespass.*  Now it is clear that
moral trespass does not apply only to Israel, but to any nation that
will do the will of God.  Further, it is clear that moral trespass
is impossible to define apart from the will of God.

Therefore, in order to have anything like a moral content to the laws
of nations, those laws must refer themselves back to the will of the
creator.

If it would be helpful, I could post some portions from GG's 
_Aaron's Rod Blossoming_ so you can see the distinctions he makes
when writing against Erastianism.  I think there may be some confusion
on the part of some posters that GG is setting forth Erastianism in
WS.  I don't think so.  What must be observed is that GG is combatting
one error in WS and an altogether opposite error in ARB.


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