Samuel Renihan on Moral Law and Positive Law
[The following is an excerpt from "The Consequences of Positive Law: The Particular Baptists’ Use of Inferential Reasoning in Theology," Samuel Renihan, Journal of the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies (2016): 125-126. Understanding the distinction and relationship between moral law and positive law is crucial to understanding God's commands, and thus crucial to understanding both what the Bible means and how it applies to our lives today.]
"To define positive law, we must first define moral law. Moral law refers to the universal law of nature as expressed in the Decalogue, binding on all mankind at all times. Positive laws are specific laws given by God for a specific people for a specific time. For example, that Adam should not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a positive law. Apart from a direct divine command, it was not morally wrong for Adam to eat of that tree. But God positively prohibited Adam from eating it. Since Adam had a moral obligation to obey God, eating from the tree became sinful. Similarly, circumcision, Passover, the sacrificial system, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper are all positive ordinances. They are built on commands that must be obeyed, strictly and exactly. The observance of these ordinances was not the result of some inherent morality in such practices, but simply obedience to the God who issued the commands. Therefore, failure to obey these commands was disobedience to God and just as sinful as an inherently immoral act. Adam fell because of a violation of a positive command. Nadab and Abihu were consumed for violation of positive laws. Positive laws were no less binding, but they were of a different character than the moral law. Positive laws are given in the context of covenantal life and worship. Thus they rise and fall with their covenants. New Testament believers are not required to follow the positive laws of Israel beyond their general equity (2LCF 19.4). We are free to eat bacon with a clear conscience because it is perfectly moral to do so. Under the Old Covenant, it was forbidden by positive law."
[Emphasis added. HT:: Pastor Cali.]
"To define positive law, we must first define moral law. Moral law refers to the universal law of nature as expressed in the Decalogue, binding on all mankind at all times. Positive laws are specific laws given by God for a specific people for a specific time. For example, that Adam should not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a positive law. Apart from a direct divine command, it was not morally wrong for Adam to eat of that tree. But God positively prohibited Adam from eating it. Since Adam had a moral obligation to obey God, eating from the tree became sinful. Similarly, circumcision, Passover, the sacrificial system, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper are all positive ordinances. They are built on commands that must be obeyed, strictly and exactly. The observance of these ordinances was not the result of some inherent morality in such practices, but simply obedience to the God who issued the commands. Therefore, failure to obey these commands was disobedience to God and just as sinful as an inherently immoral act. Adam fell because of a violation of a positive command. Nadab and Abihu were consumed for violation of positive laws. Positive laws were no less binding, but they were of a different character than the moral law. Positive laws are given in the context of covenantal life and worship. Thus they rise and fall with their covenants. New Testament believers are not required to follow the positive laws of Israel beyond their general equity (2LCF 19.4). We are free to eat bacon with a clear conscience because it is perfectly moral to do so. Under the Old Covenant, it was forbidden by positive law."
[Emphasis added. HT:: Pastor Cali.]
Labels: Bible study
posted by Andrew Lindsey | 2:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home