I am curious as the the nature of the Theonomy's teachings. Is this belief an eschatological one, teaching that all governments will one day be ruled by God's Law. Or is it an Ethical belief, teaching that the Ideal government system would be governed by God's Law?

__________________
Bryan Riddle
1689 London Baptist Confession
Bethel Baptist Church Owasso, Oklahoma

Strictly from a logical basis, it is ethical. Bahnsen went to great (and often ignored) pains to make that point.

From a psychological standpoint, there is usually an eschatological goal.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

Eschatalogically speaking we are all ultimately theonimists, as such will be the ultimate reality in glory.

I am starting to think that you may not have a political view (which in my view is the prefered option), but if you do it is hard to argue against some strain of theonomy.

__________________
Mike
London City Presbyterian Church
London
England

"Surely, we wish to be orthodox, but we must first learn what real orthodoxy is. Surely, we wish to be progressive, but we must first have a basis to progress from."

The reason I ask is because ethically speaking I am undoubtedly a theonomist. I believe the Decalogue not only paints the portrait of the perfect human being, but also paints the portrait of the perfect government. The portrait of the human being is Jesus Christ, he fulfilled it in its entirety. The portrait of the Government is the theocracy we will experience in Heaven. Furthermore I believe that just as we should strive to follow God's Law, we should strive for our Government to be governed by these same laws.

The whole escathological thing I am still quite lost, and because of such have never considered myself a theonomist in any aspect.

__________________
Bryan Riddle
1689 London Baptist Confession
Bethel Baptist Church Owasso, Oklahoma

If this is what makes a person a theonomist, I suppose I am one.

__________________
Ivan Schoen, Pastor * Maranatha Baptist Church * Poplar Grove, Illinois USA www.maranatha-sbc.org/
"Mankind is divided into two sorts: such as live according to man, and such as live according to God. These we call the two cities...The Heavenly City outshines Rome. There, instead of victory, is truth" — Augustine of Hippo

Any Christian who believes the Law hasn't been abrogated is a theonomist to a certain degree. Evangelicals who believe homosexual "marriage" ought not be legal appeal to biblical principle...in essence, it's a theonomic application. Some Christians are more rigorous and less selective about "what stays in" when it comes to God's Law in the civil sphere...making them decidedly theonomic.

Theonomy, as I am understanding it, more specifically deals with the application of biblical civil law to current civil authority. So I'd clarify a bit and say it's not about personal ethics per se...drunkeness, for instance, would not be punishable under theonomic law.

__________________
Craig French
Married and father of a beautiful daughter.
Member of Christ The Word, PCA
Toledo, OH

MY BLOG

Thats kinda why I was asking Ethical or Escathological because if this is the requirement for being labeled a crazy theonomist then sign me up.

__________________
Bryan Riddle
1689 London Baptist Confession
Bethel Baptist Church Owasso, Oklahoma

I really think it is and I didn't realize it till my brothers and I met on another thread a few days ago. It hit me like a ton of bricks.

__________________
Bryan Wiley
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Reformed Baptist Church
Louisville, Kentucky

What sort of things do theonomists say should be punished by law that other conservatives do not?

Adultary, Homosexuality, Dishonoring of Parents, working on the Sabbath??
Were I given the political power to do so I would make laws against all of these does that make me a theonomist?

__________________
Bryan Riddle
1689 London Baptist Confession
Bethel Baptist Church Owasso, Oklahoma

Theonomy is both. Eschatologically it finds its impetus in the Great Commission, ethically from the necessity of sanctification.

__________________
~Keon Garraway~ Brooklyn, NY Member of Franklin Square OPC

Love for God demonstrated by the love for our children in giving them a God centered education is the only hope for our country. by David Morrow
Pslam 71:20 [Thou], which hast shewed me great and sore troubles, shalt quicken me again, and shalt bring me up again from the depths of the earth.

I have always felt it was just about that simple. My first exposure to Theonomy was during the period 1978-83, when Aiken Taylor was editor of the Presbyterian Journal and attacking Greg Bahnsen for allegedly coming up with some kind of new "legalism."

I could not find a nickel's difference between what Rushdoony and Bahnsen were saying and what the WCOF says in its three categories of the law:

1. The moral law, which doth forever bind all.

2. The civil law, which was binding in exhaustive detail only upon the O.T. nation of Israel, and is binding now only in its "general equity." That is, e.g., whereas the O.T. civil law required fences around roofs, as a safety measure, the general equity would be, e.g., speed limits, and perhaps fences around swimming pools.

3. The ceremonial law, which prefigured Christ's perfect sacrifice, and now with his perfect sacrifice now implemented, is no longer necessary, fulfilled, moreso than abrogated.

I remember a Bill Moyers interview of Rushdoony, maybe 25 years ago, in which Moyers was trying to trap Rush into saying something he could revel in as being "draconian." Moyers asked Rush whether he would implement all of God's O.T. death penalty provisions, if he were elected to legislative office. Rush wisely said, "No, I probably wouldn't, because I'm a sinner, but God would!" Except Rush probably didn't say "probably." There wasn't too much about Rush that was "probable." He was all or nothing. God love him!

Much of what gets into the popular culture about theonomy is the fringe issues. E.g., Rushdoony and North got into a famous argument over the significance of the blood on the doorposts during Israel's captivity in Egypt. Who can now remember the details of that? But these guys were both cutting edge. Most of us are still in the area of the 3 categories of law, summarized above.

That's it, in a nutshell, in my view. Subject to being corrected by someone older and wiser, or at least wiser.

__________________

HaigLaw, ruling elder
Grace PCA, Shreveport, LA
http://www.xanga.com/HaigLaw

Thank you, HaigLaw. That was great!

When I was a Bahnsenian theonomist, I was postmil but saw no logical connection.

I am no longer a strict Bahnsenian theonomist (but the difference is one of degree, not kind) and not really a postmillennialist (since I think the millennial schemata is bunk).

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

Well, I've slept a time or two since Greg and I drank coffee and talked together, but if I recall, I don't think he ever took the position that to be a card-carrying theonomist, you had to be of any particular eschatological view.

So, no, theonomy was not essentially eschatological, rather it was ethical -- to answer the thread's OQ.

OQ = original question, for you guys who love acronyms.

Theonomist leaders also tended to be post-mills, but that was incidental, not essential.

It's kinda like most, or at least a lot, of Reformed people are also paedo-baptistic.

And I secretly believe that if our baptistic brethren on here keep studying and seeking the Lord, they will see it my way on baptism, but they are probably secretly believing the opposite way towards me. , again.

Well, if I get kicked off here, for letting that little secret out -- it's been nice knowing you guys!

__________________

HaigLaw, ruling elder
Grace PCA, Shreveport, LA
http://www.xanga.com/HaigLaw

He was my pastor when there were only 9 families up there, and we saw each other 3-5 times per week, sometimes for long working hours, and I never really heard him say anything a thinking Christian Conservative would consider really radical. His big deal was that it was useless to spend lots of time trying to bring holiness into being by legislation, but rather through the regeneration of hearts.

__________________
Tim Vaughan, 48 years old, member Redeemer OPC, Santa Maria CA.

I like that Tim. This was Bahnsen?

__________________
Bryan Wiley
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Reformed Baptist Church
Louisville, Kentucky

No, Rushdoony. I never got to know Bahnsen.

__________________
Tim Vaughan, 48 years old, member Redeemer OPC, Santa Maria CA.

The political/moral distinction is a useful way to discuss this issue. Thanks!

I've been thinking about this lately because I recently revisited some aspects of the half-way covenant in early New England. It really raises some issues about encouraging too much of an intermingling of the church and state spheres (if you think of a Venn diagram, I am assuming there is some overlap in the middle -- mine is a question of degree).

Massachusetts was requiring church membership for voters. It was difficult, if I understand the issues correctly, to meaningfully participate in the civil sphere without first being a member of the church. That caused Solomon Stoddard's generation to create a quasi-church membership category (the half-way covenant) for people whose consciences would not allow them to fully join the church. This devolved into allowing the children of these quasi-members to be baptized and for the adults to join in communion.

It seems that had there been more of a distinction between church and political rights (for lack of a better word) the keen application of God's moral law from the Puritans, likely would have shown forth into the political sphere without compromising the church. In other words, drawing the two spheres too closely together, hurt the church first, then led to a weakening of its influence on society. This is the first I've tried to articulate these thoughts, so thanks for bearing with me. It does seem to have some warning to those who might want to try to draw these spheres together again.

__________________
JWithnell
Member Bethel OPC
Virginia

I agree in principle j.

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser
Pittsburgh, PA
Fairmount ARP Church
Student of Theology
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary
My Blog

"Nothing is sweet to me without the enjoyment of Christ in it." -- Thomas Brooks

Hay:

You misunerstand Theonomy, then. Theonomist teach that not only the Decalogue, but the Judicial Laws of Moses are eternally binding upon governments today - including their penal sanctions.

No one would argue that the Decalogue is still binding upon governments today. The radical nature of Theonomy is that they teach that the Judicial Law given by Moses is still binding on all governments today.

I believe that Bahnsen argued that the Judicial Law - being a divine interpretation of the Decalogue - is binding upon societies based on the Decalogue's standing nature. The only distinction between ancient Israel and modern society is "culture" i.e. "cars" instea of "ox carts." However, the penal sanctions are literal - death for the adulterer and/or murderer, etc...

Using the term "theonomy" today would not be an accrate description of Reformed Orthodoxy.

Blessings,

CalvinandHodge

__________________
In Essentials Unity, in non-Essentials Liberty, in all things Charity.

Robert Paul Wieland
Springs Reformed Presbyterian Church
Colorado Springs, CO
RPCNA

Theonomy is ethical = believing that all nations are to uphold God's law (including Biblical penology).

Christian Reconstructionism is both ethical and eschatological = it believes all nations are bound to uphold God's Law (Theonomy), and that the vast majority of nations will (postmillennialism).

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

Please forgive my ignorance. Does theonomy teach that we, as Christians, should hold our non-Christian leaders, and non-Christian lay people, to the Judicial Law?

__________________
Dan Pemberton
Vacaville, CA

Member, First Baptist Church San Luis Obispo
Formerly ABUSA (We left, so I guess that makes us American Baptists Unleashed!)

Theonomy does not teach that ALL judicial laws are binding, only those which were not peculiar to Israel.

All civil leaders (whether Christian or not) and all citizens, are bound to obey God's civil law.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

While I know that God holds all individuals accountable, whether a believer or not, are you referring to all civil leaders and citizens obeying God's civil law while also being accountable to man?

I guess what I'm getting at is that since I affirm the doctrine of total depravity, I am not surprised at all when my government, or any other in the present or past, makes decisions that are completely contrary to the law of God and are not in the best interest of its citizens. While I know that my decision as, say, a voter, should be based on a Biblical world view (though I dislike the term), what part does my desire for my leaders and fellow citizens to obey the law of God play when I want them to first know Christ and they don't?

Sorry if that as a little discombobulated. If you would like me to elaborate, I can try.

__________________
Dan Pemberton