Feel free to bump this post elsewhere if need be, but I would like to know more about Doug Wilson's views on theonomy.

From reading Reforming Marriage, I gather that he is a theonomist from certain statements that he made. For example:

* after stating the two Confessional grounds of divorce: adultery and desertion, he adds a third one: "The third class involves the violation of biblical laws that carried the death penalty." - p. 136
* "If the civil government were doing its God-appointed task "¦ then divorce would have occurred by means of execution. But if the civil government fails to do its appointed task "¦[t]he church should excommunicate, and a godly spouse may divorce. Both actions are not a removal of the offending party from the appropriate covenant. They are a legal recognition that the person has already removed himself." "“p. 136-137 [his emphasis].
* Wilson later restates, "[If one spouse] is guilty of gross offenses (offenses that carried the death penalty in light of biblical law), then the [other spouse] should recognize what has already happened." "“ p. 137 [his emphasis].
* "Until the church recognizes this, we will continue to have a stand on divorce that is an exegetical and theological embarrassment. As things now stand, many groups would allow divorce for adultery, but would forbid it if the guilty spouse was a mass murderer. This ethical myopia is the result of studying the passages on divorce in isolation "¦ In contrast to this, all of Scripture should be brought to bear on the subject. Marriage is not an absolute "¦ It cannot therefore be made into a vehicle to set aside the Word of God "¦ We must set aside our own self-centeredness, not the Word of God." "“ p. 137-138 [his emphasis].

These views on divorce, which appear to be based on a theonomic interpretation of divorce law, trouble me greatly. I am satisfied that the Confessional doctrine of divorce is the correct one.

I don't want to misrepresent Wilson's views on theonomy or divorce so I welcome any clarification that someone can offer. Thanks!

__________________
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've never read any of Wilson so I don't know if this will be much help...Nor have I thought thoroughly through the above statements. That would take some more study...

First a question to make sure I understand you. What do you mean by his theonomic interpretation of the divorce law?
Are you opposed to Wilson using the OT case laws for his doctrine of divorce? Would you rather have had him solely quote the WCF? Ok, that was 3 questions.

As far as the Confession is conerned on the parts that the WCF discusses marriage and divorce, the scripture proofs are taken from the very case law that Wilson perchance or other theonomists (if Wilson is one) would appeal to. Actually the proofs are taken from commandments specifically for setting Israel apart from other nations, case laws "“ one that actually includes the penalty in the proof. Funny thing is that no where is there a verse citing Exodus 20:14 "“ Thou shalt not commit adultery. This goes back to the argument that the case laws are the explanation and application of the law whereas the ten commandments are a summary. If the verses listed below are expired, why cite them? Some are worded so that the general equity isn´t lying beneath the verse as a concept but is the very statement that is cited. i.e. 8 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father. What is the general equity?

For example:

WCF 24.
III. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent. [5] Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord.[6] And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.[7]

5. Heb. 13:4; I Tim. 4:3; I Cor. 7:36-38; Gen. 24:57, 88
6. I Cor. 7:39
7. Gen. 34:14; Exod. 34:16; see II Cor. 6:14; Deut. 7:3-4; I Kings 11:4; Neh. 13:25-27; Mal. 2:11-12

Exodus 34
16 And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.

Deuteronomy 7
3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.

IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word.[8] Nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife.[9] [The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred, nearer in blood then he may of his own: nor the woman of her husband's kindred, nearer in blood than of her own.]

8. Lev. 18:6-17; 24-30; Lev. 20:19; I Cor. 5:1; Amos 2:7

9. Mark 6:18; Lev. 18:24-28

Leviticus 18
6 " 'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD .
7 " 'Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
8 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.
9 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
10 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you.
11 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
12 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.
13 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.
14 " 'Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
15 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.
16 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.
17 " 'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

Leviticus 18
24 " 'Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
29 " 'Everyone who does any of these detestable things-such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.' "

Leviticus 20
19 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.

V. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract.[10] In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce:[11] and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.[12]

10. Matt. 1:18-20; see Deut. 22:23-24
11. Matt. 5:31-32
12. Matt. 19:9; Rom. 7:2-3

Deuteronomy 22
23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death-the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage:[13] wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case.[14]

13. Matt. 19:8-9; I Cor. 7:15; Matt. 19:6
14. Deut. 24:1-4

Deuteronomy 24
1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD . Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

__________________
Chris Rhoades -33
Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church (PCA) Nashville, TN-Under Care

Vera theologia non theoretica, sed practica est; Finis siquidem eius agere est hoc est vitam vivere deiformem. - Martin Bucer
""True theology is not theoretical, but practical. The end of it is living, that is to live a godly life."

Thread split and moved.

Your friendly neighborhood Admin,

__________________
Fredrick T. Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

I won't be arguing strongly to associate Doug Wilson and theonomy...

I'm not precisely sure where Wilson is coming from but it seems to me that he wants to add to the list of reasons from the Confession for which divorce is permitted. The Confession lists two reasons (adultery and desertion). His list would include every sin committed by a spouse which warranted the death penalty in the Old Testament. If theonomy is his basis for generating this expanded list, depending on whether he goes by Bahnsen's list of capital crimes that are warranted today or Rushdoony's (they differ) or someone else's, the list of reasons to "Biblically" warrant divorce is thereby expanded from two to perhaps 10 or 15. The reason this concerns me is not just because it seems to be clearly anti-Confessional, but because it appears to be an attempt to not only go back to the Old Testament approach to divorce but to dismiss altogether the teaching of Matthew 19. If so, that would also seem to violate the theonomic hermeneutic that Old Testament law is still binding unless explicitly abrogated or modified by New Testament teaching, which Matthew 19, in my view, does. Whatever the source of his views on this subject, whether theonomic or just Wilsonian, he does not seem to leave any room for counseling or repentance in order to restore a marriage but rather seems to argue that the marriage is automatically over when such a sin has been committed and the church, state and couple just need to move forward on that basis. All of this disturbs me. I went to the Christ Church website to see if I could clarify his church's official views on divorce and I was unable to be certain what their position is. I don't know if Wilson is speaking for himself or the church, but either way, I find these statements of his highly problematic and, on a prima facie reading, out of accord with Scripture and the Westminster Confession. If I am mistaken in my understanding of what Wilson is saying, please enlighten me.

Well, Matthew 19 does still permit divorce on the grounds of sexual immorality - but I see the difference you mean, and I basically agree with your post.

__________________
Chris


A passion to know and reflect Christ by living and demonstrating the truth and richness of the historic Reformed faith

Visit My Website Here

Christopher Blum
Member of Trinity Presbyterian Church of Northern Kentucky (PCA) in Burlington, KY

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

Here is Bahnsen's view on the issue:

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe058.htm

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

To allow divorce in an instance where OT civil law was applied is to subject the Christian to the Old Covenant instead of the New. The civil law passed away with the nation of Israel and one cannot make a case from the Scripture that if you commit a sin deserving of death in the OT that we should take you out and stone you - and if our town does not allow stoning for public execution then at least your wife should be allowed to divorce you.

The only 2 reasons divorce is ever allowed in Scripture is in the case of an unfaithful spouse or in the case of an unbelieveing spouse abandoning you. Other than that, there is no justification for divorce. So you are to remain married until your spouse actually dies - whether or not he or she deserves to die under OT Law.

Let us also take the time to be clear that Hosea is the supreme example - he did not abandon or divorce Gomer even though he could have without commiting sin!

Phillip

__________________
Pastor Phillip M. Way
[url=http://www.timeintheword.org][color=blue] Maranatha Community Church of Central Texas[/color][/url]
A Reformed Baptist Congregation and Member Church of the
Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals [url=http://www.firefellowship.org][color=red](FIRE)[/color][/url]

Blogging at: [url=http://pastorway.blogspot.com/][color=blue][i]pastorway[/i][/color][/url]
Sermons Online at: [url=http://www.sermonaudio.com/timeintheword][color=blue]TIME in the Word Ministries[/color][/url]

When all souls are saved and all mourners comforted we may venture to discuss recondite theories, but not while graveyards are filling with those who know not God. -- CH Spurgeon

[b]The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.
Luke 18:27[/b]

Nor can one make the case from the Scriptures that a crime worthy of death in the OT is no longer worthy of death in the NT. But I agree with you, Phillip, that if God sanctioned that certain crimes deserved death in the OT that we shouldn't take the criminal outside and stone him. That responsibility belongs to the state, not the church nor individual Christians.

By the way, Doug Wilson is a Theonomist. He has always aligned himself with the Chrstian Reconstruction movement. Ken Gentry lists Wilson as a Reconstructionist in his Postmillennialism chapter in the book Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond.

It's helpful to get confirmation that Wilson is a theonomist. Are his views which justify an expanded list of reasons for which divorce may be permitted accepted as the norm in the theonomic community? In reading Bahnsen's article, I did not get the impression that Bahnsen and Wilson agree on this point. Thoughts?

Also, what exactly is the doctrinal confession of Wilson's church?

As an aside, Andrew, I wonder if you've thought of this: that theonomy, instead of being an ethic is every case of the use of the word, is an apologetic? Let me explain.

You've heard of arguments from morality, from concepts, and from facts, right? Well there are also arguments from aspirations, from first principles, and also from ethic, or law. It is close to the argument from morality, only incorporating law itself. The idea is that there is only one set of laws that fits the single moral system that alone is possible. Morality implies law, and each one demonstrates that absolute righteousness is the aim, which is only found resident in the God of the Bible.

What I am suggesting, not being familiar with Wilson either, that perhaps he meant it in this way. After reading the above quote, I don't think its impossible. It still could be that he means is Theonomically, like you suggested, though. Its just a thought that occurred to me. I really don't know Wilson's apologetic stance, whether his views rule out taking an approach from law as a possibility.

__________________
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