Thread: Difference(s) between Theonomists and other Reformed?

What practical, moral and theoretical differences are there between those that are Theonomists and the other Reformed - apart from the fact that Theonomists believe that the criminal and penal law of Moses should be applied in New Covenant states where possible?

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

What practical, moral and theoretical differences are there between those that are Theonomists and the other Reformed - apart from the fact that Theonomists believe that the criminal and penal law of Moses should be applied in New Covenant states where possible?

If by Theonomists you mean those following what Bahnsen calls "the ethical perspective of Chrstian Reconstruction" then the difference betweeen Theonomists and other Reformed, (all of whom are theonomists in the older sense of the term i.e. finding the source of ethics in Scripture), is not that the one group believes that the civil and penal laws should be applied today in New Covenant states where possible while the other group does not. Many non-Theonomists believe that that many Mosaic criminal and penal stipulations should be applied today.

Instead, the point of difference is how the two groups justify the continuing applicability of the stipulations they hold to continue. Bahnsen holds that all stipulations not implicitly modified by God in the NT continue to be valid, while non-Recons argue that the change in covenantal circumstances between the Sinai covenant made with national Israel and the New Covenant may render some of the Mosaic judicial stipulations inapplicable in the changed covenantal circumstances of the New Covenant in which God is no longer the suzerein of any national or ethnic state.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

in the changed covenantal circumstances of the New Covenant in which God is no longer the suzerein of any national or ethnic state.

Sadly the "reformed critique" of theonomy has taken this line and called traditional reformed thought an error and theonomy an "old-new error." I don't believe any criticism of the theonomic thesis can be sustained on this ground. If God is not the Governor of the nations and the one and only Lawgiver then there can be no civic ethics.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

in the changed covenantal circumstances of the New Covenant in which God is no longer the suzerein of any national or ethnic state.

Sadly the "reformed critique" of theonomy has taken this line and called traditional reformed thought an error and theonomy an "old-new error." I don't believe any criticism of the theonomic thesis can be sustained on this ground. If God is not the Governor of the nations and the one and only Lawgiver then there can be no civic ethics.

Good stuff my friend. I find that the Book of Amos chapter 1 in particular really articulates what any Theonomist would make his claims from. The nations are truly judged by the One Law giver. He cares for justice and righteousness in all creation.


Grace and Peace,
seal

Keep in mind that only the minority of OT laws had/have any penalties attached to them. Not killing a female game bird during nesting season hasn't got a civil or ecclesiastical penalty attached to it, but a Theonomist sees it as a command from God none the less.

Many of the non-Theonomic Reformed would draw the appropriate moral lessons from the example of the female nesting bird, but would not hold that the Old Covenant civil penalties should apply in the same way today.

Bahnsen believed that theonomic ethics was a more consistent ethic. How do theonomists live their lives differently from the non-theonomic Reformed? There may be lessons to be learned by those of us who wouldn't subscribe to the theonomic application of the civil penalties of Moses.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

in the changed covenantal circumstances of the New Covenant in which God is no longer the suzerein of any national or ethnic state.

Sadly the "reformed critique" of theonomy has taken this line and called traditional reformed thought an error and theonomy an "old-new error." I don't believe any criticism of the theonomic thesis can be sustained on this ground. If God is not the Governor of the nations and the one and only Lawgiver then there can be no civic ethics.

When I affirm that God is no longer the covenantal suzerein of an national or ethnic state, I am in no disagreement with traditional reformed thought. I am not a Klinean calling theonomy "an old new error."

Instead, I affirm that God is Lord of the nations by right and may legislate what, when and how he pleases. What is at issue, and what the majority reformed tradition has recognized from Calvin, through Turretin, Beza, Bullinger, Perkins, Baynes, and the Westminster Divines speaking confessionally, is this: what has God required to be done in this area? These folk have recognized that God has not simply required his people to institute all Mosaic criminal statutes and punishments within the new covenant but only those where the "general equity therof may require." And that is what I affirm.

Combatting Theonomy by showing the differences between it and the non-Theonomic hermeneutic used by Calvin and the Reformers seems to be proving quite fruitful in practice, at least from where I sit. After using this approach for 9 years I have found that Theonomists from Gary North on down have either run from it like the Joker fleeing Batman, or deployed a series of easily refuted counter attacks. Dr. John De Witt, Bahnsen's former chairman at RTS has called one presentation of this approach "unanswerable."

On the practical side, how can a Theonomist justify participation in a representative democracy where freedom of thought religion (at least in theory) are cornerstones?

I know that the Theonomists have addressed this by saying that the Mosaic laws would restrict public actions, not thoughts or things done privately. But this really doesn't address the central conflict between freedom granted us by the Constitution and the Mosaic code.

Freedom of speech, assembly, and the press would seem anathema to a Theonomist.

I believe the traditional Reformed view, especially the American revisions to the WCF, would alleviate this tension, at least somewhat.

Many of the non-Theonomic Reformed would draw the appropriate moral lessons from the example of the female nesting bird, but would not hold that the Old Covenant civil penalties should apply in the same way today.

But there isn't a civil penalty in the OT for violating that law. So how does a Theonomist differ from any other Reformed person who thinks it's a good and just law?

Originally Posted by TimV

Many of the non-Theonomic Reformed would draw the appropriate moral lessons from the example of the female nesting bird, but would not hold that the Old Covenant civil penalties should apply in the same way today.

But there isn't a civil penalty in the OT for violating that law. So how does a Theonomist differ from any other Reformed person who thinks it's a good and just law?

That one's easy. The theonomist (at least some) would say that the State has no business imposing a criminal law against out-of-season game bird hunting, but the non-theonomist might say it is appropriate.

That one's easy. The theonomist (at least some) would say that the State has no business imposing a criminal law against out-of-season game bird hunting, but the non-theonomist might say it is appropriate.

True, and if land rights as per OT law were current today, instead of having the State own 50% of the land outright and the other 50% through property tax etc....then the country would have twice as much land in the hand of private owners, so there would be no reason for the State to mix in.

But then we get into another realm, and that is OT law is whole cloth, and it's not necessarily wise to push for specific laws without pushing first for fundamentals to be changed.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Instead, I affirm that God is Lord of the nations by right and may legislate what, when and how he pleases.

That is a much better proposition upon which to build a critique of theonomy from a reformed point of view.

Originally Posted by TimV

Keep in mind that only the minority of OT laws had/have any penalties attached to them. Not killing a female game bird during nesting season hasn't got a civil or ecclesiastical penalty attached to it, but a Theonomist sees it as a command from God none the less.

Isn't this a rather narrow application of this law anyway? What about other birds and animals and plants? What about the creation generally? Do Theonomists and non-Theonomists not have to look behind the case laws for the intent of the law? Forgive me, Tim V, if you would apply this law more generally, yourself.

E.g. The law regarding putting a barrier round one's roof. Narrowly interpreted it could refer to barriers generally e.g. around swimming pools, bridges, etc. But is not the law not meant to highlight due care for health and safety generally? And if we have health and safety laws who is going to enforce them?

Apart from the fact that Rushdoony had a kosher kitchen (which I would disagree with), are there any moral and practical differences between how the non-Theonomic Reformed and the Theonomic Reformed live their day to day lives. I ask this sincerely as someone who by God's grace loves God's law and is keen to learn new lessons from it.

Bump

For the record, the Theonomist (at least, my brand) essentially holds that every single moral in the Bible, including those involving penal sanctions, is binding today.

Difference(s) between Theonomists and other Reformed?

One eyebrow instead of two?

Originally Posted by Confessor

For the record, the Theonomist (at least, my brand) essentially holds that every single moral in the Bible, including those involving penal sanctions, is binding today.

I'm sure the last thing we need right now is a debate between the Theonomists and the Reformed, but I think one thing should be pointed out: your wording of the above statement has already determined the only possible outcome -- in your statement you have assumed that the specific penal sanctions are moral or part of the moral law. If so, of course they would still be binding.

Yes.

I would hold that many of the judicial laws, including the many death penalties that were added at the time of Moses, also include ceremonial and moral elements.

The death penalties were ceremonial, because they were in place of a sacrifice for the sin committed e.g. high-handed Sabbath-breaking or adultery. Also the mode of execution was often stoning - very appropriate when the Kingdom under age had still the stony 10C at the centre of its worship. We still have the 10C but not in their stony form.

No doubt the death penalty - even when properly administered by the Israelites - was relatively rare, because of the high standard of evidence: two or three human witnesses.
But when it was administered the shards of the broken law would rain down on the head of the offender.

This makes the question of General Equity less straightforward than theonomists would have us believe, although I'm interested in discerning that for modern Christian governments.

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Yes.

I would hold that many of the judicial laws, including the many death penalties that were added at the time of Moses, also include ceremonial and moral elements.

The death penalties were ceremonial, because they were in place of a sacrifice for the sin committed e.g. high-handed Sabbath-breaking or adultery.

Question: were death penalties always "in place of a sacrifice for the sin committed"? If a murderer in OT Israel offered a sacrifice for his sin did that absolve the community from punishing him?

Well if he wasn't condemned to death for some reason e.g. lack of evidence, I don't know if a lower level of evidence could have meant that he suffered a lower penalty. If that was the case, he surely would have also to have had a sacrifice. It seems to be that animal blood had to be shed for every sin (or sins) or that someone had to die for their sins. Murder is singled out as a sin in particular, if it is properly proven, where the sentence must not be commuted from death.

It's also significant that the death penalty coincided with the criminal being cut off from the Covenant and that stoning was to be carried out by the congregation - pointing to these criminal/penal laws at least being partially fulfilled in church discipline in the New Covenant (e.g. Matthew 18).

Sins that were gross and wilful, like the flagrant breach of the Sabbath (in the context) of the man collecting sticks, were denied a sacrifice, thus the death penalty had to ensue. The grossest breaches of the first 9 of the 10C all had the death penalty attatched to them. This would remind the people that all sins deserve death, and that they were only kept from death by sacrifice. (See Numbers 15, particularly from verse 22 onwards. See also Hebrews 10:26-29)

The death penalty for murder was the only death penalty that was given to all mankind. The phalanx of other death penalties were "added because of transgressions"(Galatians 3:19), to keep the church and kingdom under age in check, and to teach them that all transgressions deserve death without a sacrifice.

This does not mean that we cannot learn lessons from the criminal and penal law of Israel for church and state, but we have to be more careful than the theonomists, unless we want to put new wine in old wineskins.

Well if he wasn't condemned to death for some reason e.g. lack of evidence, I don't know if a lower level of evidence could have meant that he suffered a lower penalty.

No, you're either guilty or you aren't.

If that was the case, he surely would have also to have had a sacrifice. It seems to be that animal blood had to be shed for every sin (or sins) or that someone had to die for their sins.

No, restitution is just one thing you're leaving out. There's no sacrifice or death penalty for a first or second time thief; there is restitution.

Murder is singled out as a sin in particular, if it is properly proven, where the sentence must not be commuted from death.

Rape is as well.

It's also significant that the death penalty coincided with the criminal being cut off from the Covenant and that stoning was to be carried out by the congregation - pointing to these criminal/penal laws at least being partially fulfilled in church discipline in the New Covenant (e.g. Matthew 18).

First and second time thieves weren't killed or cut off.

Thanks Tim.

Quote:Rich
Well if he wasn't condemned to death for some reason e.g. lack of evidence, I don't know if a lower level of evidence could have meant that he suffered a lower penalty.

Tim:
No, you're either guilty or you aren't.

If that was the case, when the law was operating properly there may have been quite a few who got off because of the lack of the requisite evidence.

Quote:Rich
If that was the case, he surely would have also to have had a sacrifice. It seems to be that animal blood had to be shed for every sin (or sins) or that someone had to die for their sins.

Tim:
No, restitution is just one thing you're leaving out. There's no sacrifice or death penalty for a first or second time thief; there is restitution.

Surely the thief had to offer a sacrifice to God, as well as reparation and restitution to the victim?

Tim: Rape is as well

Right. I'll check that out.

Quote:Rich
It's also significant that the death penalty coincided with the criminal being cut off from the Covenant and that stoning was to be carried out by the congregation - pointing to these criminal/penal laws at least being partially fulfilled in church discipline in the New Covenant (e.g. Matthew 18).

Tim:
First and second time thieves weren't killed or cut off.

There was a marked difference in the treatment of property crimes and many other crimes. But the grossest form of theft, kidnap or manstealing was punishable by death.

If that was the case, when the law was operating properly there may have been quite a few who got off because of the lack of the requisite evidence.

That's always been the case, and is reflected in all civilized legal codes. The woman caught in adultery is a perfect example. She deserved death, but it would have been illegal to execute her, since the rules of evidence, i.e. proper evidence in the form of witnesses weren't available at the trial.

Our job is to follow instructions, and in those cases where the legal system doesn't punish the evil doer, we trust that God will. So the woman was legally innocent even though she was morally guilty, and Christ Himself insisted on this. We're all under authority, even the judiciary.

Exo 22:1 "If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep

Note there's nothing about a sacrifice there.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

in the changed covenantal circumstances of the New Covenant in which God is no longer the suzerein of any national or ethnic state.

Sadly the "reformed critique" of theonomy has taken this line and called traditional reformed thought an error and theonomy an "old-new error." I don't believe any criticism of the theonomic thesis can be sustained on this ground. If God is not the Governor of the nations and the one and only Lawgiver then there can be no civic ethics.

I guess Calvin wasn't a good theonomist since he qualified the application of the OT law to principles of general equity. As someone earlier stated, we do not need the theology of reconstructionism and theonomy to stand for the moral law in society. Bahnsen's own interpretation of theonomy had to be modified since even he realized it is virtually impossible to apply every jot and tittle of the OT judicial and civil laws in today's modern democratic and pluralistic setting.

I prefer the separation of church and state but that does not mean that I must give in to the revisionists who wish to create a godless society.

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Sins that were gross and wilful, like the flagrant breach of the Sabbath (in the context) of the man collecting sticks, were denied a sacrifice, thus the death penalty had to ensue. The grossest breaches of the first 9 of the 10C all had the death penalty attatched to them. This would remind the people that all sins deserve death, and that they were only kept from death by sacrifice. (See Numbers 15, particularly from verse 22 onwards. See also Hebrews 10:26-29)

How do those passages teach or imply that capital punishment was only instituted to let people know that sin demanded death -- and only in extreme circumstances? Also, is there anything in the Confession regarding that?

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

The death penalty for murder was the only death penalty that was given to all mankind. The phalanx of other death penalties were "added because of transgressions"(Galatians 3:19), to keep the church and kingdom under age in check, and to teach them that all transgressions deserve death without a sacrifice.

How do you know that the "it" in Gal. 3:19 has its antecedent as specific OT non-murder (and perhaps non-rape) capital crimes? And if that is in fact its antecedent, how does that comport with your previous argument that they were added for ceremonial reasons (i.e. rather than "because of transgressions")?

Quote from Tim V

Quote:
Exo 22:1 "If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep

Note there's nothing about a sacrifice there.

I know, but wasn't the Israelite meant to offer a sin or trespass offering if he believed he had done something specifically wrong.

I'm much more open to the reintroduction of reparation and restitution for property offences, because these, unlike the many death penalties were not weak and beggarly types of God's wrath, not being interlinked to/dependent on the sacrificial system. Theives and fraudsters might have to work to pay things back.

Also capital punishment for murder remains until the end of time, being given to all mankind through Noah.

Properly administered corporal punishment wasn't interlinked to the typological sacrificial system.

Some form of prison along Christian and sanctified common sense lines (rather than Pagan and counterintuitive lines) or some kind of internal exile/restricted movement may be a possibility in a Christian state. The cities of refuge involved restriction of freedom for manslayers.

This "theonomylite" is due to my belief that the phalanx of death penalties were added to teach the Israelites as a childhood church and kingdom that "the soul that sinneth it must die" working along with the many sacrifices, which taught the Israelites that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission". The sacrificial system and the death penalty system worked together. Therefore it is inappropriate - indeed wrong - for a modern Christian government to apply the penal law of Moses in the way that theonomists envisage.

Lesser penalties should be sought than death for the non-murderous offences.

Originally Posted by Confessor

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Sins that were gross and wilful, like the flagrant breach of the Sabbath (in the context) of the man collecting sticks, were denied a sacrifice, thus the death penalty had to ensue. The grossest breaches of the first 9 of the 10C all had the death penalty attatched to them. This would remind the people that all sins deserve death, and that they were only kept from death by sacrifice. (See Numbers 15, particularly from verse 22 onwards. See also Hebrews 10:26-29)

How do those passages teach or imply that capital punishment was only instituted to let people know that sin demanded death -- and only in extreme circumstances? Also, is there anything in the Confession regarding that?

I don't think there's anything in the Confession about it, but the Confession does not necessarily give us great guidance in discerning GE. The Numbers passage shows that those who sinned presumptuously - and that presumably included the many offences covered by the death penalty - had no sacrifice for his sin. He could not offer up a sacrifice for this capital sin before he/she died, but the his blood was on his own head rather than a substitute. So the penal system and ceremonial system were linked at points; and not just there.

Of course this system was also Israel's criminal justice system, and God was perfectly just in imposing a severer system on Israel, just as He was to impose Holy War on Canaan. If God dealt with us as we sinned, death would come to all of us more swiftly. Capital punishment wasn't only instituted to let people know that any sin demanded death if there was no penal substitute; it was also Israel's system of punishment.

God in His mercy reserved capital punishment for the grossest breaches of the 10C and provided sacrifices of various sorts for the rest. Otherwise the whole nation would be dead. The Mosaic Covenant was one of grace after all, although not as gracious as the New Covenant. When things were operating correctly the whole nation of Israel was under blood ceremonially, or those who went beyond the pale bore the death penalty. It points to the antitype that we must either have faith in the blood of Christ or suffer the penalty in Hell.

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

The death penalty for murder was the only death penalty that was given to all mankind. The phalanx of other death penalties were "added because of transgressions"(Galatians 3:19), to keep the church and kingdom under age in check, and to teach them that all transgressions deserve death without a sacrifice.

How do you know that the "it" in Gal. 3:19 has its antecedent as specific OT non-murder (and perhaps non-rape) capital crimes? And if that is in fact its antecedent, how does that comport with your previous argument that they were added for ceremonial reasons (i.e. rather than "because of transgressions")?

Because they may have been added for more than one reason. One reason was so that the Israelites would be kept in check as a church under age, who didn't have the fullness of the Holy Spirit or the complete Bible or the motivation and example of Christ i.e. for transgressions and to show them more clearly their transgressions. In an analagous way, a child has a special discipline from his parents until he grows up.

When the Apostle says that the law was added we have to ask which elements or is it the whole of the law. Certainly the moral part was around before Moses, except not promulgated on stone. The mass of the ceremonies were clearly added. The only judicial law which we know have promulgated from God before Moses is the one given to Noah. So most of the judicial law was added. If we're going to ask how to make a better and juster civil system and apply the GE, we have to ask what the purpose(s) of the judicials that were added was/is. If some of the penalties served a typological function, not only in the way they were carried out - stoning - but also in the penalty itself - physical death and blood-shedding - then it is important to know that, as what is typological shouldn't carry over into the New Covenant. Some extreme dispys want to rebuild the Temple and restart the ceremonies. Some theonomists may not realise that the reinstitution of the phalanx of death penalties isn't appropriate now that animal sacrifice has ceased. Christ was our sacrifice, and also - though He had no sin - the representative criminal in our place that bore all our multitudinous breaches of the Ten Commandments.

Hebrews 10:25-29 indicates that the death penalty under Moses was a pointer to and a type of an antitypical and eschatalogical "sorer punishment". ''Moses' law " here is spoken of in the past tense, which ties in with the Confession's judgement that the judicial laws have expired except for their GE. Hebrews 2:2-3 also indicates a typological element in the judicial laws in the even greater sureness of punishment for those that neglect Christ's sacrifice than for those that broke the law under Moses.