Gary North on the Latent Antinomian-Statist Alliance
For some strange reason, various social antinomians in the Reformed world have adopted the view that only the death penalty against murder in Gen. 9:5-6 remains obligatory upon the civil magistrate today. However, Gary North notes below that the adoption of this view opens the door to Statism, and that such latent antinomians have no Biblical basis for their social conservatism. Having spent many years among those who hold this position, I can testify that what he says is more than accurate:
Why this preference by modern conservative theologians for Noah’s covenant? Because in Noah’s covenant only one civil in-fraction is specified: murder, and only one penal sanction: execution (Gen. 9:5). The absence of judicial specifics allows the civil government to specify as criminal whatever behaviour it disa-proves of, and also allows it to impose whatever sanctions it wants to, without any mandatory reference to any other Biblical Law or sanction…defenders of the “Noahic covenant” theory have implicitly granted judicially unlimited power to the modern State, no matter how much they protest against such a development. They may be political conservatives personally; it makes no difference. Their personal political preferences become just that: personal preferences. Their personal political preferences are self-consciously and explicitly unconnected with any Biblical-theological system of social ethics and political theory.
Such a view of Noah’s low-content covenant grants enormous authority to self-proclaimed autonomous man and his representative, the Messianic State. The power-seeking covenant-breaker is as pleased with such a view of the State as the responsibility-fleeing Christian pietist is. This is why there is now and always has been an implicit judicial alliance between antinomian Christians and humanist Statists. Here is an ideal way to silence Christians in all judicial matters except murder: insist that “The Bible doesn’t offer a blueprint for civil law!”
G. North, Victim’s Rights: The Biblical View of Civil Justice, Institute for Christian Economics pp 56-57
July 24, 2008 at 1:11 am
[...] Gary North on the Latent Antinomian-Statist Alliance [...]
July 24, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Mr. Ritchie, I’m currently reading Victims Rights, and it’s really good, but since I dont come from a Presbatyerian background I’m finding some difficulties in understanding certain aspects of the covenants that North talks about.
Sometimes it just seems like Gary North makes assertions that he doesn’t really support. I’m only on chapter 10 at the moment, but I was hoping he’d give something in support of “Victims Rights” other than his speculation about Christ on the cross, and Joseph not carrying out the punishment against Marry.
I’m not the smartest guy in the world…I have to be spoon fed this stuff.
Also, reguarding chapter 9, (and this question touches on the current post:) North talks about the Ox that has fallen into a pit, and how the ownder of the pit is to be held liable.
Given that verse in Exodus, then North can deduce that the State has the right to uphold the individuals ownership and responsibility over property that affects others.
But, I’m specifically thinking of speed limit laws, and how tyrannical they are here in Virigina. (I’ve lost my driving rights in Virigina for the rest of the Summer because I was going 15 mph faster than the powers that be deemed was safe.)
How do we legislate these types of things, without being tyrants?
July 24, 2008 at 10:23 pm
There is a fair bit in that book I would not agree with; Joseph could not call for Mary to be executed as there was no witnesses as to her supposed adultery, but he did have the right to divorce her upon the suspicion of adultery. Also Mary could not have been executed, as the partner in the supposed adultery was unknown to Joseph, so Joseph had absolutely no right to call for her execution.
I would agree with you on speeding laws; while Gary North thinks the general equity of certain case laws governing personal safety allows for them, I do not. This is because those laws were not enforced by the state BEFORE damage was inflicted. However, when a person’s negligence led to an injury to another person he was held liable in terms of those laws.
However, this shows us the disagreements that even those committed to basically the same principles can have. And the differences between myself and Gary North on the application of the law are relatively minor in comparison to my differences with latent antinomians.
July 25, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Hey Mr. Ritchie
First of all, thanks for the comments, they really inspired me in some thought.
After thinking for a few days, I think I’ve had a revelation that I’m sort of excited about, and maybe you can tell me if i’m on the right track!
I started thinking about the words of Christ in Matthew 7:1-6. What if this “judge not lest ye be judged” passage, was a refutation of the current tyranical attitude of the pharisees?
I’m sure that Christ was giving that sermon to people who knew the law. It seems like he was trying to correct their attitude towards it.
I would love to apply this doctrine systematically in some way to speed limit laws, or other such stipulations that man tends to add to the Law of God.