Quote:
Originally Posted by panta dokimazete  As I have said, I have started Bahnsen's Van Til's Apologetic and I am finding it an excellent read.
I am, however, having some difficulty with the use of the term theonomy in various contexts.
My understanding was this: Quote: |
Theonomy is derived from the two Greek words, (theos) meaning "God" and (nomo) meaning "law." Theonomy is the belief that all laws, civil, economic, and social, should be patterned after the particulars of the Sinaitic covenant which God gave to Israel in the wilderness for her politico-civil government including in the punishment of criminals.
| Which I have not fully embraced in this context and would not consider myself a "theonomist" in general. However I am finding the term used in terms of presuppositional apologetics in contrast with autonomy.
In this context, I believe that I would be a theonomist.
Am I misunderstanding the distinction? |
JD,
I believe you are being confused by what I term
Theonomy vs.
theonomy. Those who are Theonomists often paint theonomists (or even theocrats) with being for "autonomy."
The real issue is not whether God's law is the pattern, but how exhaustive the pattern is. The best true delineation of this issue that I have seen comes from Rushdooney, who is forthright enough to state that the "Confession is guilty of nonsense" at WCF 19.4.
(
However, in paragraph IV, without any confirmation from Scripture, it is held that the 'judicial laws' of the Bible 'expired' with the Old Testament. We have previously seen how impossible it is to separate any law of Scripture as the Westminster divines suggested. . . . . At this point, the Confession is guilty of nonsense." Institutes of Biblical Law, 551)