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? |
Not really. But you are not fully understanding how the word thewonomy is used in two distinct senses. As I have written elsewhere, theonomy until recently was used only as:
"a label to categorize all the differing views that see God as the source of ethics: using the word in this sense, Cornelius Van Til correctly wrote that there “is no alternative but that of theonomy or autonomy." Individual views within the category of theonomy and each called theonomy, differ, however, in their conceptions of exactly how the Bible functions as the source of civil ethics today. At one end of the spectrum is Tillich's vain thought that "God is dead" and his “theonomy” is only the existential encounter between an individual and a moral principle, an encounter that cannot be generalized to serve as the basis for state law. Next, we encounter the Dispensationalist argument that all of the Old Testament Mosaic Law (Genesis to Deuteronomy) is irrelevant today unless particular stipulations stated there are reiterated in the New Testament. Another view, put forth by Calvin and the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), sees that particular Old Testament laws may or may not apply today depending on whether or not the specific principle of justice (“general equity”) underlying them may be justly applied the same way in the New Covenant era as it was in the Old. Moving along, we come to the view best described by Greg L. Bahnsen. — that all Mosaic laws are presumed to apply today, except where Biblically amended by the Lawgiver. Bahnsen described this view as “the ethical perspective of [Christian] Reconstructionism” , but over time it has also become known as Theonomy."
So there is the older theonomy the category label and the newer Theonomy, "the ethical perspective of Christian Reconstructionism" which is one variety of theonomy as opposed to others.
Like you, I am a theonomist in Van Til's sense, but I am not a Theonomist in Bahnsen's sense.