I am wondering what critique people bring against the idea of Theonomy as outlined here by the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen (as found in the dust jacket of Theonomy in Christian Ethics):

The position which has come to be labeled "theonomy" today holds that the word of the Lord is the sole, supreme, and unchallengeable standard for the actions and attitudes of all men in all areas of life. It also teaches that since the fall it has always been unlawful to use the law of God in hopes of establishing one's own personal merit and justification. Commitment to obedience is but the lifestyle of faith, a token of gratitude for God's redeeming grace. Jesus said, "if you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15). Moreover, we will strive to teach others to observe whatever He has commanded us (Matt. 28:18-20). Such healthy and necessary moral standards are surely not burdensome to the believer who bows to Christ as the Lord (1 John 5:3).

Theonomy views God's laws directing moral behavior to be a reflection of His unchanging character; such laws are not arbitrary, but objectively, universally, and absolutely binding. It is God's law that "you are to be holy because I am holy" (1 Peter 1:16, citing Leviticus). The law may not be criticized or challenged by us. It is "holy, righteous and good" (Rom. 7:12). This moral law was revealed to Israel in oracles and ordinances, but even the Gentiles show the work of the law upon their hearts and know its ordinances from the natural order and inward conscience (Rom. 1:32; 2:14-15). Who, then, is under the authority of God's law? Paul answers "all the world" (Rom. 3:19).

The law revealed by Moses and subsequent Old Testament authors was given within a covenantal administration of God's grace which included not only moral instruction, but gloriously and mercifully "promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come" (Westminster Confession of Faith VII.5). God's revelation itself teaches us that New Covenant believers, who have the law powerfully written on their hearts, no longer follow the foreshadows and administrative details of the old covenant. They are obsolete (Heb. 8:13), having been imposed only until the time when the Messiah would come (Heb. 9:10; Col. 2:17). Theonomy teaches, then, that in regard to the Old Testament law, the New Covenant surpasses the Old Covenant in glory, power, and finality.

Theonomy also teaches that civil rulers are morally obligated to enforce those laws of Christ, found throughout the Scriptures, which are addressed to magistrates (as well as to refrain from coercion in areas where God has not prescribed their intervention). As Paul wrote in Romans 13:1-10, magistrates - even the secular rulers of Rome - are obligated to conduct their offices as "ministers of God," avenging God's wrath against criminal evil-doers. They will give an account on the Final Day of their service before the King of kings, their Creator and Judge.



[Edited on 5-7-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]

One thing theonomy is NOT:

1)Arbitrary Rebellion against government. From now on, I consider that slander. Now, a resistance movement led by the lesser civil magistrate is another story, one told by the Scots, Huguenots, and Southrons. Even though theonomists in principle ought to be the best citizens of a nation, and not to arbitrary overthrow tyrannical NeoCons, I will stand second to no man in opposing political pluralism.

I have had people challenge me where Christ said his kingdom was not of this world and that Paul never advocated rebellion, and then conclude that that disproved theonomy. That is like saying, "I don't like apples because because grass is green," or some non-sequitor like that.

Thirdly,
Every theonomist I have met in person I have seen to be the most gentle, humble, and godly people I have met, me being chastened by my own demeanor.

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

Another thing,
Some have said, loosely quoting Nigel Lee, that theonomists are trying to seize power and then kidnap all non-Reformed babies and indoctrinate them. Aside from how offensive I consider that charge to be, most American babies have already been kidnapped and indoctrinated.

The culprit(s): The Government School System.
The means: School Buses.

Jacob, I agree with your sentiments, and wholeheartedly agree with Bahnsen, Demar, Gentry, and the like.

I'm looking for some objective reasons why people have such a big problem with Theonomy? I don't get it.

Some food for thought These are the best (IMO) arguments compiled from the book Theonomy: A Reformed Critique

Tremper Longman III "God's Law and Mosaic Punishments for Today"

1) Israel and American cultural differences

-should we stone people or use a firing squad?
-should we put up parapets around roofs (Bahnsen)? If so, then we have moved beyond the theonomic hermeneutic to a "general equity"
-what happens when someone steals my car? do I get four in return? (Exodus 22:1).

2) Israel and American redemptive differences

-Israel's situation in God's redemptive plan is unique (Deuteronomy 7:6)
-Israel, in traditional Reformed understanding, is the Church in the NT, which does not, nor is commanded to, punish temporally, but rather through excommunication

Specific abrogation of OT sanctions

I Corinthians 5:5: The sin of adultery is recognized, but not the application of its punishment (cf. Matthew 5:31). "The gravity of the offence is established by the fact that the extreme of ecclesiastical censure is pronounced upon it. But the sanction by which the gravity of the offence was recognized and penalized in the Old Testament economy is revoked" (Murray, Principles of Conduct , page 54.) Similarily, Murray remarks that for the sin of adultery, a stoning was prescribed in the Old Covenant. However, in Matthew 5:3, Jesus allows for divorce in these cases. This is in light of the fact that the spiritual significance is known more fully as to the heinousness of sin, and therefore the punishment is abrogated, it being given originally to demonstrate God's hatred of sin.

Bruce Waltke: "Dispensational and Covenant Theologies"

The theonomist exegesis of Matthew 5:17 is fundamentally flawed because Jesus does in fact set aside the laws of Old Covenant Israel: Mark 7:18-19; as well as the New Testament Church: Acts 15:19-20; Colossians 2:14-17.

The laws of the OT were, primarily to make the people of Israel holy (Exodus 19:5-6). Similarily, the New Covenant law is given to believers, who are expected to keep it, by asking the Father for the good gift: the Holy Spirit (Luke 11: 13). Theonomy claims that (a la Deuteronomy 4:6) the laws were to be a model for the nations around them. However, "our Lord intends nations to come under his sway, not apart from the Gospel but through it (cf. Mt 28:18-20)." Deuteronomy 4:6 should read as does Proverbs 14:34.

The role of church and state were intertwined in the Old Covenant, even though Bahnsen claims that they parallel the separation of church and state in the New. "Christ does not give the keys of the kingdom to Ceasar, nor the sword to Peter before the parousia. The church is the new nation" (I Pe 2:9). Clowney, "The Politics of the Kingdom,"WTJ (1978-1979): 306. As quoted by Waltke.

"Bahnsen underestimates the role of natural law, which is sufficient to either commend a person toward God or condemn him before God (Ro 2:15)."

Dennis E. Johnson "The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Mosaic Penal Sanctions"

"It is no accident of history that the New Testament speaks more often and more explicitly regarding the responsibilities of subjects to political authorities (Mt. 5:41; Ro 13:1-7; I Ti 2:1-2; Tit 3:1; I Pe 2:13-17; et al.) than it does regarding the responsibilities of political rulers (Ro 13:4)." This is significant, because "when the time had fully come" (Gal 4:4), God was pleased to bring about his greatest victory, not in a country, people, or laws, but in the god-man Jesus Christ, and thus to his body, the church.

Some more: http://www.upper-register.com/theonomy.html

[Edited on 5-7-2005 by poimen]

__________________
Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of Grace Reformed Church (URCNA)
Leduc, Alberta CANADA
Church Blog

"there is no creature, either in heaven or on earth, who loves us more than Jesus Christ"
Belgic Confession, Article 26

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

There are a lot of reasons why some folks don't like theonomy. Some are pluralists, like many on this Board, and resist the idea of bringing the Bible into official government policy to the exclusion of other religions and they fear a collaboration of church and state; some oppose Theonomy (noting a difference between Theonomy and theonomy); some lean towards theonomy but are turned off by actual or misperceived outrageous statements made by notable theonomists, or misperceptions of the theonomic agenda; and some, like myself, as one who adheres to National Confessionalism, appreciate the desire of theonomists to bring the Bible into the realm of public policy and statecraft, but object to the principle that the judicial laws of Israel are binding upon nations today.

The quote from Bahnsen cited here is not particularly objectionable, imo. However, much time and energy has been expended by myself and others simply trying to find a common definition of theonomy and essentially no progress was made. In the course of doing so, it was conceded by one theonomist that there are at least two different versions of theonomy (the one espoused by Rushdoony and the one espoused by Bahnsen). The former claims that the Confession is nonsense and that Calvin was heretical when both address the theonomic claim that the judicial law is binding today. The latter attempts to show that theonomy is consistent with the Confession when the Confession says that the judicial laws expired with the state of Israel except to the extent that general equity applies (a lot of discussion is centered on what is meant by general equity). Rushdoony and Bahnsen could not agree then on what crimes punished with the death penalty in the Old Testament should be so punished today. Rushdoony claims the dietary laws are binding today; Bahnsen does not. Those are some differences that can't be reconciled easily, and that begs the question of who speaks for theonomy, and how is it defined? As I said, that simple question, without delving into the list of other theonomists with their own agendas, has not been answered to my satisfaction at least. Theonomy is not a united theological position, was not endorsed by Van Til, Calvin, Beza, Rutherford, David Dickson, or any other major Reformer or Puritan that I can think of besides John Cotton, nor is it consistent with the creeds and confessions of the Reformation era.

My fundamental objection to theonomy, broadly speaking and intended to encompass what both Bahnsen and Rushdoony and others have said, is that I believe, as the Confession teaches, only the moral law of God is still binding. I understand general equity to mean what is moral about the judicial laws. To say that the judicial laws of Israel are binding today is to add a burden beyond what God's word requires upon the world today. As has been shown in my previous discussions, theonomy conflates the moral and the judicial law (and in some cases the ceremonial, which is where I think the dietary laws fall), whereas I maintain that only the moral law is binding today. It is been argued by theonomists on this Board that the judicial law is merely the application of the moral law to magistracy and with that I strongly disagree since I argue that the jewish polity is not binding on all nations today so civil magistracy must be based on the decalogue, not the Mosaic judicial laws. I believe in a three-fold division of God's law (moral, judicial, ceremonial) not a two-fold division (which is de facto if not de jure the theonomic position). In the words of Samuel Rutherford, "He that will keep one judicial law, because judicial and given by Moses, becometh debtor to keep the whole judicial law under pain of God´s eternal wrath."

I do appreciate the desire of theonomists to apply the Bible to the magistrate, a minister of God, in contrast with pluralism (aka political polytheism). I would rather read Gary North than John Eidsmoe any day of the week. Bahnsen was a brilliant mind and wrote much that is good on subjects besides theonomy. I stand with theonomists in desiring theocracy and Biblical (ie, Bible-based, Decalogue-based) civil government, but regarding theonomy, I disagree that the judicial laws of Israel are binding today. That's all I have to say about this at present. This subject has worn me out in the past. As I mentioned, this has been much discussed previously on other threads. But I thought I would attempt to provide a concise answer to the question at hand. I am not seeking further debate. Just offering my

For Christ's Crown & Covenant,
Andrew

[Edited on 5-8-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

__________________
Andrew Myers
Husband of Jessica, Father of Jackson, Katie and Samuel
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church of Northern Virginia
Warrenton, VA USA
Editor, The Matthew Poole Project

"Let your Morning Thoughts, and your last Evening Thoughts, be what shall become of you to all Eternity." -- Matthew Poole

I too have objections to Theonomy (I being one of those Andrew mentioned who make the fast distinction between Theonomy and theonomy, but I will not concede that it is a one dimensional objection. ) But my objections are quite coloured by my experiences with it, in which Theonomist do take control of the offices of the Church, without authority to do so. In other words, the unilateral usurpation of authority is my main objection at this time.

This is neither confined to Theonomists, nor is it the only fault I see with Theonomy. But I would not detract from the positive points that have advanced Reformed theology in the main, in our culture, in our time. Reformed theology has had a resurgence in our time, and we are struggling to show how the Bible is relevant in our time, and I would not be one to say that Theonomists have not contributed to that end. In fact I think their contribution has been most invaluable, though sometimes it was not the end they had in mind. At times their views were the counterpoint that was needed to establish the Bible's true meaning in our time, and at times it was the catalyst required to wake us up to the God's revealed will.

In the end, it is not so much the debate about Theonomy that is important as much as that Theonomy was debated to the mutual benefit of all true believers. For some it has been a one-dimensional debate about the law, and for others is has been a broader debate about the entire Bible, and not just about law. On its own, one can hardly make anything out of the word i"theonomy" itself, since both sides make claims to God's law; and even antinomians do the same to some degree. From one end of the spectrum to the other, everyone thinks he is doing what God wills, even to the degree that some proponents of same-sex marriage who claim to be Christian appeal to the Bible, to God's will. Of course these latter are wrong, but so can we be if we argue our cases as if we know more than the Church, if we go beyond the jurisdictions of Church authority.

It is one thing to call us back to orthodoxy established by the historic Church; it is another to establish a new orthodoxy, and new revelation, a new hermeneutic, without and outside of Church authority. (When I use upper case "C" I refer to the universal or "catholic", or historic, or authoritatively established Church. )

So I welcome the debate, but I reject those who over-reach their their own conceptions, declaring more than is right. Once the dust has settled we will see things that will surprise some, and cause the "I told you so" from others. But that is not what this should be about. We are struggling against spiritual forces here; ideas yes, but not just ideas. And we would do well to understand that evil forces can even manipulate righteous causes.

__________________
JohnV :detective:

John Vandervliet
Ontario, Canada
member of: Canadian Reformed Church
"In coming to understand anything we are rejecting the facts as they are for us in favour of the facts as they are" C.S Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism

Andrew, JohnV, and myself have reached an agreement not to beath this horse any longer. I know where and why most disagree with theonomy. Sure, I have my own disagreements with them, but with someone like Andrew, I don't see it as too broad and we agree a lot on other important areas: Theocracy, anti-pluralism, postmillennialism, and presuppositionalism.

Secondly, I think the third generation theonomists have much to offer and many of the critics of theonomy are seeing that. For those of you who have the "Covenant Confusion" edition of Modern Reformation, check out Michale Horton's fictional debate between Theo Nomist, Doug Gooder, Mora List, and somebody else. Despite his best efforts, he actually has the theonomist winning the debate. Secondly, on that same page he gives a word of (qualified) thanks to the theonomists: he says that they, unlike many, have actually put their money where their mouth is.

I am not going to continue this debate because, aside from the impossibility of new ground being covered, it usually ends up being "footnote' refutation (i.e., don't believe me? Go check this out). From now on the only time I will enter the theonomy debate is when theonomists are slandered or when people offer misreprensentaion of their position (and I will do that on behalf of those I disagree with: FV, NT Wright, etc).

Cheers,
I am off to drink a dark lager.

Oh,
Andrew and I also agree on good beers to drink.

Also,
I have been looking for Theonomy: A Reformed Critique for a long time. Can anybody show me where it is being sold for udner $25?

Not for under $25; but I see it for $33 to $40plus at www.addall.com.

__________________
Chris Coldwell, Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Member
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• The Confessional Presbyterian Journal
• The Blue Banner Archive

The Regulative Principle: Samuel Miller gives a succinct statement of this principle when he writes that since the Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference.”

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum

John Eidsmoe is a political pluralist? That's a surprise. I have heard him positively referenced to by some Reconstructionist speakers. Oh well,...

I agree with Jacob. If all we're going to do is sling mud at each other, we only undermine the unity of the Church. If theonomist and anti-theonomists remember their place, then we will have a long and beneficial relationship with each other, both as God's covenant children. That is why there is an area within Church authority which is relegated to "adiaphora", to personal conscience, to personal pursuit of God's righteosness in each of our lives.

On the other hand, I acknowledge that there are new members on this Board who would also like to discuss the issues, and not feel as though they missed the boat because they signed on too late to take part in the discussion. As a discussion board this has to taken into account, and not just refer newcomers to old and closed debates and discussions; they too should have the right to discuss what's on their mind, to settle things in their minds within the communion that many of us enjoyed previously.

In doing so, I take it that it is imcumbent upon myself to not re-open old wounds that have been set to healing, and not to ride my own opinions in order to dig it in a little deeper. Our mutual aim ought still to be toward the truth of God's Word, and not our own wills. New subscribers ought to see themselves as the beneficiaries of previous discussions, not as though they missed the boat; and people like myself who participated in these discussions from the beginning ought to appreciate the growth that has taken place, realizing that the point of debate may not any longer be where it was at the beginning, not for some newcomers, and not for those of us who have personal scars through these discussions.

We still need to interact with the new members on a personal level, where they ask their questions or raise their opinions. We old hands are also beneficiaries, and ought to be able to discuss these matters with more maturity, having gone through the hard knocks in debating the issues. This thread, it seems to me, is legitimate; and so is the reservation to rehash the old points of debate. I believe we can do both with equinimity and benefit.

i wish a theonomist would have kidnapped me at a young age and indoctrinated me with reformed theology but since i now understand absolute predestination i no longer regret the past it was all for great reason

This is a good point and I don't mean to discourage the discussion by others who are newer to the Board of issues like theonomy just because previous threads exist. It's just that for myself I've said my peace and don't feel like reiterating things said before. But by all means like the discussion continue for those who are interested. May iron sharpen iron in the fruitful exchange of ideas in healthy Christian debate.

He is of the school which defends the Constitution and specifically the pluralistic First Amendment as Christian.

I might add as a general note that some of my best friends are theonomists for whom I have the highest regard though we differ on this particular issue. Our bond of unity is in Christ to whom be the glory for good friendships!

[Edited on 5-7-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

Is there a camp of Theonomy that doesn't hold the judicial laws as being still applicable? (i.e. only the moral laws)

What beers do you guys like? (sorry, off topic)

Gabriel:

If you find someone who thinks the judicial laws are no longer applicable, then it won't be just because he is not a Theonomist, for he would also not be Reformed. There are many applications to be drawn from the judicial laws. So I don't think that this marks the differences between Theonomists and non-Theonomists. We can't even really define Theonomy merely as reference to God's law only, for that also includes non-Theonomists. But if you're asking if there is a camp of Theonomy that doesn't hold strictly to an Old Testament judicial system, then I would say that there certainly are people who call themselves Theonomists who fit into that category.


All:
I think there still is a lot to cover in this subject. But I hope to be more careful in this. I don't want to incite disagreements over things already covered, and I also don't want to just leave things that have not really been finished yet. I have wanted to post my questions on the definition of Theonomy posted earlier, but have kept back, knowing that we need time away from the topic. I feel the topic is only partly covered. We have debated the pros and cons of Theonomy, but have not waded too deeply into the settled matter of the relation of law and grace. There's a whole new topic waiting for us from Gal. 5, where we are not under law but under the Spirit, but yet walking with the Spirit is the same as walking in the law. It isn't just a debate about the place and extent of the judicial code of the OT. But this will have to wait its time. I am not ready for this discussion myself as yet.

But meanwhile, I don't mind engaging some new members in discussion on matters already gone over, if they wish to interact with what has already been stated by others. This Board layout is now nicely categorized, so it is not difficult to find the Theonomy threads. I would suggest reading these, not so as to replace interaction, but just for the sake of respect to those who have already written on the topic.

In general, with a couple of exceptions, I like non-American brands: Guinness, Beck's, Heineken, Lowenbrau, Molson, Corona, St. Pauli Girl, 1664 De Kronenbourg, etc.