John,

Due to the board being down and messages lost this thread will probably have lost some context. To get the ball rolling agian...

So as to not look piecemeal here is JohnV's post in entirety:

[quote:ce4bd4754d]Chris:

You have offered a chapter from Van Til's work (which seems to be gone now), from Bahnsen, and from Frame, to defend the postition of theonomy. Does this mean that, to understand theonomy, one would also be a presuppositionalist? What I am asking is, do the two go hand in hand?: as is, does the one require the other, or does the one lead necessarily to the other?

I think part of the problem I have had with it, and why I spell the movement known as Theonomy with an upper case initial, as opposed to the regular Reformed concept of the central character of the law in its theology, is that it forces Presuppositional precepts into to fray, where I don't think they are rightfully necessary. I can't swallow the "no neutral or comon ground idea" or some other things either. I am not opposed to the law, and I reject antinomianism, but I also reject Theonomy. It is not the only view of the proper place of the law. For sure, I cannot adopt parts of Presuppositionalism, though some ideas of it are also part of an apologetic I would accept. Do the two go hand in hand? Can you cite references for theonomy without appealing to Presuppositionalists?[/quote:ce4bd4754d]

Good morning from Nashville. Let me start off by saying that I'm still working through all of this myself. I hope I am teachable in all of these matters as well as speaking the truth in love by God's grace. Let me also say that I know you love the law of God and you are by no means an antinomian! Some of what I say below might apply directly to some of your comments and other things I say will just be a broad paintbrush stroke across the whole canvas. I'll try to differentiate so as to not offend you or anyone else for that matter. With all of that being said...

[quote:ce4bd4754d]Chris:

You have offered a chapter from Van Til's work (which seems to be gone now), from Bahnsen, and from Frame, to defend the postition of theonomy.[/quote:ce4bd4754d]

My intent is not to defend theonomy per se but to all others on the thread to see people in the best light. Not to mention to clear up a few misunderstandings of what theonomy is not (see Bahnsen"(tm)s introductory chapter) For those interested in catching up on their reading, the threads he is referring to are these (as well as this one):

Thread Links no longer work due to lost topics...

Reformed Confessions on the Civil Magistrate with Scripture
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6041

Responsible Freedom (or Why I Am A Libertarian)
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5997

Van Til -Epistemological Presuppositions Of Christian Ethics
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6067

[quote:ce4bd4754d] Does this mean that, to understand theonomy, one would also be a presuppositionalist? What I am asking is, do the two go hand in hand?: as is, does the one require the other, or does the one lead necessarily to the other? [/quote:ce4bd4754d]

Let me start with an analogy that will resonate with a lot of people's experience. TULIP - ie the 5 points of Calvinism. What do people say of others who call themselves 4 pointers because they can't stomach "Limited" Atonement? Or 3 pointers because of "Irrestible" Grace? We usually call them inconsistent (or worse..)

Since all truth is God's truth we believe that we can actually have a "Systematic" Theology. All points of doctrine intersect in some way with other points of doctrine. Some are clearer than others. Can we all agree that If you take the Total Depravity plank out of the 5 points that it does damage to the current system? Sure. Could God still elect unconditionally, die only for the elect etc. even if man was not totally depraved? Logically, yes. Scripturally, no.

Presuppositional apologetics fits in as a method for arguing for theonomy. It seeks to look at all forms of autonomous thought and bring it captive to the word of God. You can do this with a person's metaphysics, epistemology, and in this case ethics. My personal opinion here"¦If presuppositionalism is true then I think theonomy will ultimately become your system of ethics if one wants to be consistent within their system. I would welcome a thorough going presuppositionalist to flesh out a theory of ethics that wouldn"(tm)t lead to theonomy or an inconsistent system.


[quote:ce4bd4754d]I think part of the problem I have had with it, and why I spell the movement known as Theonomy with an upper case initial, as opposed to the regular Reformed concept of the central character of the law in its theology, is that it forces Presuppositional precepts into to fray, where I don't think they are rightfully necessary.[/quote:ce4bd4754d]

So let's look at theonomy. First a definition of terms. People talk of Theonomy and theonomy. When most people want to talk of the capital "T" Theonomy, they usually are referring to Christian Reconstruction which includes theonomy as a plank but is not synonomus. Same thing with presuppostionalism - a plank but not tied in with theonomy.

To quote Gary Demar from the book Christian Reconstruction: What it is, What it isn't - co-authored with Gary North
http://www.freebooks.com/docs/2162_47e.htm

Pg. 81 - Chapter - What is Christian Reconstruction?

[quote:ce4bd4754d]Christian Reconstruction, unlike Christian "movements" in
general, has no central director, no overall, tightly controlled
strategy. What unites Reconstructionists is their commitment to
certain distinctive biblical doctrines that are fundamental to the
Christian faith and have been supported by the church for
centuries. In particular, Reconstructionists espouse the following
distinctives:

1. Regeneration "" salvation by grace through faith "" is man's only
hope both in this age and in the age to come. Only new men who
reflect the image of God in Christ can bring about any significant
social change since social change follows personal change, and person
al change can only come through regeneration. God's sovereignty as
it relates to personal salvation and limited institutional authority is
foundational for the salvation of man and the abolition of tyranny.

2. The continuing validity and applicability of the whole law of God,
including, but not limited to, the Mosaic case laws is the standard by
which individuals, families, churches, and civil governments should
conduct their affairs.

3. A victorious view of the future progress of the kingdom of God
prior to the return of Christ is foundational for the building of a
Christian civilization.

4. Presuppositional apologetics as opposed to evidentialism establishes
that God's Word is self-authenticating and is the judge of all other
supposed authorities, human reason included.

5. A decentralized social order where civil government is only one
legitimate government among many other governments, including
family government and ecclesiastical (church) government, is the basis
for a free and orderly society. [/quote:ce4bd4754d]

Now for the small "t" theonomy. It is simply put a hermeneutic that says that all of God's Law is still binding today unless set aside by the Bible. Bahnsen's thesis does not detail exact exegesis of specific case laws to find the general equity and how it applies today, nor did he write on a program to bring America to a Christian govt. Bahnsen sought to show the ought of the law, not the how or the when. Reconstructionists disagreed among themselves as to exegesis and application of specific laws as well as an overarching program. Again this is why Bahnsen didn"(tm)t declare it a movement but a thought.

Can you argue for theonomy in other ways? Of course "" and I thought I provided them.

One could look at all of the Reformed Confessions on the Civil Magistrate from the link above and arrive at the principle that the magistrate is a minister of God and should enforce His law, and to help the church. Calvin specifically wrote in the Genevan and French Confession that it also included the "œfirst"� table.

One could look at church history and argue for it. There has been a lot of spade work done on the reformers, the Westminster Divines, and the Puritans and their views (of course with varying degrees of interpretation!)

One can argue for it philosophically "" this was Van Tils primary way of dealing with ethics. You can look at utilitarianism, positivism, egoism, altruism, intuitionist, Kantian"(tm)s Categorical Imperative, pragmatic, natural law, naturalist, etc. ways of doing ethics and see that they are all bankrupt. Check out Bahnsen"(tm)s lectures on a Seminary Course on Personal Holiness, Seminary Course on Situational Ethics, Seminary Course on Normative Ethics to get a great overview of the history of ethics. He used Frame"(tm)s syllabus that I quoted from before. (Frame was Bahnsen"(tm)s Ethics teacher while he was at WTS. His ethics syllabus is 241 pages long and will be the substance of his forthcoming work in the Theology of Lordship Series on the Christian Life. It is probably one of the widest sweeping treatises on ethics from a Christian and Reformed perspective that I know of.)

One could argue for it through a biblical theological framework of Creation, Fall, Redemption. Where does man fit in regarding the Covenant of Works and the different covenants of the Covenant of Grace? Dispensationalists need not apply.

And most importantly "" Sola Scriptura. Theonomy should be exegeted out of the Bible. If you read any of Bahnsen"(tm)s works both in apologetics and ethics he set out to provide a biblical basis for his ideas. Would you believe that in Bahnsen"(tm)s work Theonomy in Christian Ethics, his index of Scriptures Cited runs from page 581 to 610? That is 29 pages of scripture references! Oh yeah, it is three columns per page.

For the above reasons I have bludgeoned people with long quotes and extracts from works. A lot of people write theonomy off without ever reading the arguments. I would love to take a poll to see how many people has actually read any of the classic works defending theonomy let alone any of the journal articles and issues of the Chalcedon Report. I"(tm)ve been working through various materials (books, tapes, journals, articles,mp3"(tm)s) for over a year now and still haven"(tm)t found a crushing critique of it.

[quote:ce4bd4754d] I can't swallow the "no neutral or comon ground idea" or some other things either. [/quote:ce4bd4754d]
I know you and Paul love to discuss this point so I'll not comment but say that for others peeking in on this thread to check out the apologetics thread to see prior correspondance on this issue.

[quote:ce4bd4754d]I am not opposed to the law, and I reject antinomianism, but I also reject Theonomy. [/quote:ce4bd4754d]
Do you also reject theonomy?

[quote:ce4bd4754d]It is not the only view of the proper place of the law.[/quote:ce4bd4754d]
What are the other hermeneutics that allow you to determine which of the laws in the OT are still binding today?

[quote:ce4bd4754d]For sure, I cannot adopt parts of Presuppositionalism, though some ideas of it are also part of an apologetic I would accept. [/quote:ce4bd4754d]
Again, this is another issue not pertaining to theonomy. I still have a hard time seeing why you accept some and reject other parts. I probably need to reread your threads in that forum.

[quote:ce4bd4754d]Do the two go hand in hand? Can you cite references for theonomy without appealing to Presuppositionalists?[/quote:ce4bd4754d]

[Tongue in cheek]
Matt: 5:17-20 ESV
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

But then again I would say that Jesus was a presupper - I can"(tm)t remember once where he wanted to take a "œneutral"� ground with unbelievers to "œprove"� the existence of general Christian Theism.
[Tongue outta cheek]

Not really. Every theonomist that I can think of (Bahnsen, Rushdoony, North, F.N.Lee, Gentry, Demar, Morecraft, etc.) all hold to a VanTillian apologetic.

For me, I look at the authors and realize these men hold PhDs in philosophy, theology, history etc. Quite a few are ordained in the PCA and OPC. There have been over 100 books written on the subject as well as thousands of pages of articles. And yet it gets dismissed way too easily in forums and chat rooms all the time.

Don"(tm)t look at the names of the people that I bring into the discussion or if they are presuppositionalist, classicalist, evidentialist, etc. but look at the arguments they set forth. My goal is not to appeal to the presuppostional popes (Bahnsen, Van Til, Frame) as an appeal to authority but rather to give people a chance to read sources first hand. . Ad fontes! Time and time again theonomy is misrepresented due to lack of research.
Hence the links to free online resources and the long quotes.

Remember Dave Hunt? Everyone would agree that he shouldn"(tm)t have entered the debate on Calvinism. It has been shown that he did not document or even get the correct understanding of Calvinism down before he argued against it. Believe it or not, Mr. Hunt did the same thing with theonomy/Christian Reconstruction. It was replied to in formal debate as well as print. To see the interchange follow these links (again "" free online books):

[b:ce4bd4754d]Debate over Christian Reconstruction[/b:ce4bd4754d]
http://www.freebooks.com/docs/216a_47e.htm
What is "Christian Reconstruction" and is it biblical? These are the questions raised and answered by Gary DeMar. The occasion for this book was a debate in 1988 between two Reconstructionists (Gary North and Gary DeMar) and two anti-Reconstructionists (Tommy Ice and Dave Hunt). In The Debate Over Christian Reconstruction, Gary DeMar presents what Christian Reconstruction is, and the answers the questions raised by Tommy Ice concerning postmillennialism and by Dave Hunt concerning biblical law.
[b:ce4bd4754d]Reduction of Christianity: A Biblical Response to Dave Hunt[/b:ce4bd4754d]
http://www.freebooks.com/docs/21aa_47e.htm
This book is an answer to Dave Hunt's The Seduction of Christianity. DeMar and Leithart agree with Hunt that the New Age Movement is proving a siren song to many Christians, but they disagree with his proposed solutions. In the pace of Hunt's pessimism and cultural negativity, these authors propose a full-orbed, powerful Christianity as the only thing that can slice and dice the New Age baloney. They demonstrate that historic Christianity has always been both optimistic and culturally relevant. Timely reading.

Please forgive the length of this response. More than one person has said that they are watching this thread closely and I want everyone to get the fairest representation of what theonomy is before they decide to accept or reject it.

I hope this all made sense.

__________________
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."

Chris:
Well done. You've done your work. Notice, though, that if you've read what I've posted in the past, that I outrightly reject Bahnsen's take on Matt. 5: 17-19. Also note that I do not reject small "t" theonomy.

You again have alluded to those who hold to theonomy, whether upper or lower case, as those who also hold to Presuppositionalism. I find that the problem with that is that it constrains me to adopt Presuppositionalism before I really understand what the big fuss is about concerning Theonomy. Why is it that there are no others, besides Presuppositionalists, who defend that brand of theonomy in your list? I'm just curious.

But there are some basic things that no Presuppositionalist has yet gotten over, and makes it rather difficult for me to adopt. The first is to show how my understanding fits in with their generalizations of evidentialism, while at the same time maintaining the claim that evidentialism, as a class, is erroneous. The second would be to present itself so that it's sole aim is truth, not itself. In other words, if I may, explain Presuppositionalism, but not in Presuppositionalese, for lack of a better term. I need to see that the aim is not to destroy evidentialism, but to rescue it; not to destroy classicalism, but to do it the right way. In other words, again, embrace each other for the truth we hold in common, and build on that together. This may be a shock to some, but Presuppositionalism does not need to hang on the nail of having defeated evidentialism or classicalism. And those evidentialists or classicalists who think they have to defeat Presuppositionalism, you're missing the whole thing too. Don't confuse the need to defeat some Presuppositionalists or Theonomists with the Presuppositionalism itself, or with theonomy itself.

The other view of the law, which is theonomic in basis, of course is the Westminster Standards and the Reformed Three Forms of Unity. These do not look at each individual law to see if it has been abrogated by the NT, but look at them in their class. Therefore the WCF speaks of the "general equity" of the class known as "sundry judicial laws" of the "body politic": it says that these laws have expired except as the "general equity may require". This is a different understanding than the suggestion that any law not directly annulled in the NT must be considered to be still in force. I just say this so that we understand that "Theonomy" is not the only understanding of the law. What I call small "t" theonomy is what the WCF defines, nothing more, nothing less; while big "T" Theonomy has added to it, by saying that the judicial laws of the OT are not expired, and by equating "general equity" with "in full force".

Now, we have gone through this on this Board already. I don't know if that thread is still up, but I do believe that I still have a copy of it on my harddrive. That doesn't mean, of course, that any further discussion is unwelcome. It may be that many reading this Board did not get in on it, and may feel like adding something. But I would advise that we go carefully if we do pursue it.

I have lived among Theonomists, and I am telling you, it was not a picnic. It was they who led me to reject it. It was just another form of tyrrany; it was not government by God, or His laws, but government by men, using God's laws for their own ends. It is not that I have read or have not read everything. Frankly, I have my own reasons why I can't read anything of Bahnsen's; I won't get into that any further than what I've stated above. The theories and the ideas may be fine, but it is the implementation of them that has been the bane of the Christendom throughout the centuries. How do we get past the, "We have God's laws, so we must be right." syndrome? "You're not a Theonomist, we don't have to listen to you." and, "You don't know what you're talking about because you're not a Presuppositionalist." I know for a fact that Theonomists on this Board are not of this variety. It is being discussed here only in theoretical form. That is a horse of a different colour.

Now, my referring to this experience may seem unfair to you, and others too, but it is unfair to me and to you not to take it into consideration. All the fine rhetoric cannot wipe out the ugliness I encountered, perpetrated in the name of God's Word. That was Theonomy at work, not WCF theonomy. And I am not the only one to encounter it.

To sum up: once you have gone through all the theories and the implementations of them, and have idiot-proofed them, you just end up where the WCF already was: the force of any law is that it is the Will of God to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God. Love fulfills the law, and is the point of the law. Instead of Theonomy, it should be a true charity. Not the namby pamby junky stuff we today call love, but the one that says, "Better is open rebuke than hidden love." Wow! the tolerances of our modern society just cannot swallow that one. But we do. It's Proverbs 27:5. And this shows that the problem in our society is not just the lack of law, but the lack of real love, one that corrects the person, and not merely justifies the law. And that is something no Theomonic regimen can instill. Love without guidance from the Word on what it entails is just another form of kind hatred. So love has to be theonomic. But to change that around, to say that theonomy has to be loving, is to change the intent of the Law of God. For the fulfillment of the law is love; the fulfillment of love is not a legal righteousness under the law. For once you have kept all the law, to its finest detail, there is yet the directive to, "Go, sell all that you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." (Mark 10:21. )

__________________
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

John,

Thanks again for taking time to respond to me. You"(tm)re definitely helping me work through this. I have not met any theonomists face to face or have had any of the run ins that you"(tm)ve had. This is still something I"(tm)m still trying to wrestle through theologically "" just as many people are doing with covenant theology and baptism. So far I have had a corrective to my thinking hopefully making my thought more Christ-like/Biblical. Before I try to interact with your post, a little background on myself so that you can see some of the dynamics of my psyche.

I was raised in a small (<100) General Baptist (read 5 point Arminian) church in a small town of Kentucky (< 6,000 "" Western KY not Eastern KY"¦we wore shoes. & no I"(tm)m not trying to sound like John Edwards and say that I"(tm)m a son of a mill worker to garner votes "" son of a coal miner though but I digress"¦) The church was very legalistic in the since of earning your salvation. I was never good enough. I always lost the assurance that a kid that feels that was pressured to walk the aisle at VBS after a few verses of Just As I Am. Not only was I in a strict church, my parents was very controlling and overbearing sometimes using the Bible to guilt me for the wrongs I"(tm)ve done. Again "" Law without grace is heresy in my book.

So guess what I did when I went to college. Better yet guess what I didn"(tm)t do. Once the shackles were off I decided that I would be a law unto myself. Thankfully towards the end of college I was converted/saved/grabbed from the fire. Once I came into reformed theology/doctrines of grace it was like I stepped into a different world! Grace, grace marvelous grace! It was a cool drink to a hot tongue. Here"(tm)s the problem though. I pendulum-ed and put a grace/nature, law/gospel dichotomy in place. It probably started out marcion (no law), went dispensational (just laws in the NT), ended up somewhere Lutheran. Only within the last year have I run across the WCF and 3FU in regards to the law of God. As you can also tell about a year before I had started reading Van Til, Bahnsen, and Frame. So yes, my experience was kinda presup > law/Theonomy. I can see how someone that has been properly catechized as a child and never heard of the word Theonomy or presup apologetics would/could hold the same position as a theonomist. I guess it"(tm)s been hard getting outside of myself to think this through. Thanks for the encouragement to do so. Still have more reflection to do in this regard.

[quote:0b934fc6e4]Chris:
Well done. You've done your work. Notice, though, that if you've read what I've posted in the past, that I outrightly reject Bahnsen's take on Matt. 5: 17-19. Also note that I do not reject small "t" theonomy. [/quote:0b934fc6e4]

I"(tm)ll take some time and read through some old threads to see what was discussed. If it is worth pursuing again it might be a thread to start in NT Gospels"¦Just a thought.

[quote:0b934fc6e4]You again have alluded to those who hold to theonomy, whether upper or lower case, as those who also hold to Presuppositionalism. I find that the problem with that is that it constrains me to adopt Presuppositionalism before I really understand what the big fuss is about concerning Theonomy. Why is it that there are no others, besides Presuppositionalists, who defend that brand of theonomy in your list? I'm just curious.[/quote:0b934fc6e4]

Refer above to some of my thinking. In Bahnsen"(tm)s writings on Theonomy he rarely ever approached it from a presuppositional vein. North et. al definitely did. I think Bahnsen tried to take a scriptural point of view on it and argue it from the bible. As far as others who hold it like you said "" I see it and the WCF teaching the same thing. So did Bahnsen. So I guess anybody who has subscribed to the WCF would count. Now I"(tm)m sure there would be great disagreement on that point and semantics would definitely enter the fray. In the book God and Politics: Four Views edited by Gary Scott Smith "" the Christian America and National Confessional view all align in theory with Theonomy over and against the pluralistic view. So would that make Bill Edgar and others Theonomists?

I think you already hit the nail on the head in some ways. Because of some caustic brethren others who would hold a theonomic view of the law do not want to call themselves theonomic because of the bad connotation the term has taken on. I"(tm)m younger and haven"(tm)t grown up in the PCA and OPC to see what all happened in different churches and presbyteries regarding this doctrine. I do know that it became a dividing wedge but I have not experienced it emotionally. I"(tm)ve read books and talked to people on the internet.

[quote:0b934fc6e4]But there are some basic things that no Presuppositionalist has yet gotten over, and makes it rather difficult for me to adopt. The first is to show how my understanding fits in with their generalizations of evidentialism, while at the same time maintaining the claim that evidentialism, as a class, is erroneous. The second would be to present itself so that it's sole aim is truth, not itself. In other words, if I may, explain Presuppositionalism, but not in Presuppositionalese, for lack of a better term. I need to see that the aim is not to destroy evidentialism, but to rescue it; not to destroy classicalism, but to do it the right way. In other words, again, embrace each other for the truth we hold in common, and build on that together. This may be a shock to some, but Presuppositionalism does not need to hang on the nail of having defeated evidentialism or classicalism. And those evidentialists or classicalists who think they have to defeat Presuppositionalism, you're missing the whole thing too. Don't confuse the need to defeat some Presuppositionalists or Theonomists with the Presuppositionalism itself, or with theonomy itself.[/quote:0b934fc6e4]

I"(tm)m currently listening to a tape series by Bahnsen entitled Christian Philosophy that you can rent from Mt. Olive Tape Library for $.25/tape. I think you would be surprised to listen to Bahnsen deal with the Ontological, teleological, cosmological, evidentialist arguments. He does deal rigorously with them from a philosophical viewpoint but then reformulates them on presuppositional grounds. I know Frame does the same thing in Apologetics to the Glory of God book. I think both would take to task "œin theory"� that there is "œneutral"� ground to start on for a Christian. If one starts from a Christian viewpoint I think there is merit in those arguments but I don"(tm)t think any of them proves the God of the Bible at the end of them as they are construed. And also for the ones that are inductive "" it will only lead to a greater or lesser probability. I think presuppositionalists take issue with saying that God "œprobably"� exists. They have attempted to start with the self authenticating word of God and arrive certainly that he exists. I"(tm)m sure their are arguments if they have succeeded and if they have fairly represented the other point of view. Please forgive me if I slipped into Preuppositionalese (like the word"¦will have to use it in the future myself!)

Of all of the readings that I have done by Van Til, Bahnsen, and Frame I never detected an outright trying to destroy the other view points. Heck, Van Til even has a book and taught a class at WTS entitled Christian Theistic Evidences. He believed in using evidences but in a proper framework. I do acknowledge that there are probably many, many people that have latched on to some of their thought and came away with some sayings like "œatheism presupposes theism"� and think that they have mastered the thought and misrepresent it. I will say of all the people that I have run into, I think Paul Manata has the greatest grasp that I have seen. I respect his rigor.

But before we get too far off on a rabbit trail"¦

[quote:0b934fc6e4]The other view of the law, which is theonomic in basis, of course is the Westminster Standards and the Reformed Three Forms of Unity. These do not look at each individual law to see if it has been abrogated by the NT, but look at them in their class. Therefore the WCF speaks of the "general equity" of the class known as "sundry judicial laws" of the "body politic": it says that these laws have expired except as the "general equity may require". This is a different understanding than the suggestion that any law not directly annulled in the NT must be considered to be still in force. I just say this so that we understand that "Theonomy" is not the only understanding of the law. What I call small "t" theonomy is what the WCF defines, nothing more, nothing less; while big "T" Theonomy has added to it, by saying that the judicial laws of the OT are not expired, and by equating "general equity" with "in full force". [/quote:0b934fc6e4]

I think we agree on this. It might take us both fleshing it out a little more. Everything I have heard has been along the general equity line of seeing what the case laws in the OT taught and seeking to find the underlying principle/equity. For the oft used example of the railing around a person"(tm)s roof in the OT was in place because people entertained on the flat roof and it was there for safety. Modern day application would be putting a fence around a pool to protect the neighbors children. Same thing with the goring oxe. You could relate that to vehicle maintenance. If I knew my brakes were worn out but have not replaced them and while trying to stop, I couldn"(tm)t and I killed somebody, I think I should be held at a greater responsibility than if I hadn"(tm)t known.

As far as expired"¦Again here is my theoretical experience"¦What if I had an ax with a loose axe head that did fly off and kill someone? Or what If my ox escaped and gored someone? Or what if I did not have railing around a part of my house and someone fell off? These would all be one-for-one examples of the OT law. Would we go directly to the cases in the OT or would we do something different?

[quote:0b934fc6e4]Now, we have gone through this on this Board already. I don't know if that thread is still up, but I do believe that I still have a copy of it on my harddrive. That doesn't mean, of course, that any further discussion is unwelcome. It may be that many reading this Board did not get in on it, and may feel like adding something. But I would advise that we go carefully if we do pursue it.[/quote:0b934fc6e4]

Agreed 100%. Please do not interpret anything I say as needling, harsh, etc. I sincerely do want to interact on this issue and try to figure out things. You mentioned that I"(tm)ve done my homework "" far from it. I still have sooooo much to learn! And then there"(tm)s the whole truth in love thing. The first part comes easier than the second as you"(tm)ve already pointed out. If you would be willing to continue dialoguing, I"(tm)d be greatly encouraged. Also, I think others on the board were also interacting in this discussion and I think it would keep us both in check and keep us from talking past each other. Theonomy is definitely something that I would like to discuss face to face with you so that you could see facial expressions tone etc so as to not take me the wrong way. Of course I"(tm)m sure you"(tm)re quite happy with having someone had monitor"(tm)s length when discussing Theonomy! Can"(tm)t blame you considering prior experiences.

[quote:0b934fc6e4]I have lived among Theonomists, and I am telling you, it was not a picnic. It was they who led me to reject it.[/quote:0b934fc6e4]

Please don"(tm)t take this as presuming or anything cause I know you"(tm)ll agree with what I"(tm)m going to say. The truth or error of a doctrine is not incumbent on the person"(tm)s actions that are espousing it. I"(tm)m sure there"(tm)s a cool latin word for this fallacy. Again to bring up the Calvinism parallel, one should not reject unconditional election because they ran into a rabid new Calvinist (or old one for that matter.) I don"(tm)t think Theonomy automatically entails tyrrany.

[quote:0b934fc6e4]It was just another form of tyrrany; it was not government by God, or His laws, but government by men, using God's laws for their own ends.[/quote:0b934fc6e4]

That is a shame and if that is the case then the people need to repent and ask your forgiveness. We all agree that the ends that God"(tm)s law was intended was for His Glory. If you detect this in me at all at any time please lovingly rebuke me for it as I don"(tm)t want to go down the path of the dark side"¦

[quote:0b934fc6e4]It is not that I have read or have not read everything. Frankly, I have my own reasons why I can't read anything of Bahnsen's; I won't get into that any further than what I've stated above. [/quote:0b934fc6e4]

Have you read any of Bahnsen"(tm)s works on Theonomy or even articles? You have your reasons but I"(tm)m having a hard time with understanding them. Again, I"(tm)m trying to figure this out not put you on the spot. If Greg Bahnsen himself has completely wronged you I could see this. If you have had other people that have other misread or misapplied his writings then I don"(tm)t see how that should influence if you read his book or not. This is almost an ad hominem (I knew that latin phrase"¦) against Bahnsen and his scholarship. Give it a read. Like I said in the above post "" he doesn"(tm)t argue from a presuppositional viewpoint for the thesis. Matt 5:17 is only one chapter. He even states that even if he gets that whole passage wrong the thesis still stands. Same principle applies "" if a Baptist has ever ran into an uncharitable presbyerian/reformed he/she should not read Witsius/Murray/Warfield etc? Or an arminian who has ran into an uncharitable Calvinist should never read Calvin or Spurgeon?

I think that it is warranted for you intellectually and spiritually to read the thoughts of other"(tm)s on this topic especially if you are going to reject it. Again, I don"(tm)t want to imply that you have or haven"(tm)t because you have not come out and said so either way. You are going on bad experiences and inferring that if they acted this way then the doctrine and the books that teach it ipso facto must be wrong or avoided. I hope I"(tm)m reading you charitably. If not, please forgive the directness of this paragraph. If there are things that get too personal I would be willing to continue this discussion offline to further understand you.

[quote:0b934fc6e4]The theories and the ideas may be fine, but it is the implementation of them that has been the bane of the Christendom throughout the centuries. How do we get past the, "We have God's laws, so we must be right." syndrome?[/quote:0b934fc6e4]

By humble, patience on the Lord around His table, each one confessing their sin and holding their brother in higher esteem than themselves. At least that would be a start. The same could be said of all doctrinal controversies. Why aren"(tm)t reformed and Lutheran one denomination? Luther kept bangin his shoe against the table saying "œThis is my body"�, "œThis is my body"�. We always are in a position of saying "œWe have God"(tm)s (law, doctrine of the Spirit, doctrine of baptism, etc), so we must be right."� Bahnsen was the one who said that there was much work to be done in exegisis etc. Of all the tapes that I listened to if there was something that he hadn"(tm)t worked out he would say so and ask his students to do more work on the text.


[quote:0b934fc6e4]"You're not a Theonomist, we don't have to listen to you." and, "You don't know what you're talking about because you're not a Presuppositionalist." I know for a fact that Theonomists on this Board are not of this variety. It is being discussed here only in theoretical form. That is a horse of a different colour.[/quote:0b934fc6e4]

Again, if this was the rhetoric you experienced I am saddened.

[quote:0b934fc6e4]Now, my referring to this experience may seem unfair to you, and others too, but it is unfair to me and to you not to take it into consideration. All the fine rhetoric cannot wipe out the ugliness I encountered, perpetrated in the name of God's Word. That was Theonomy at work, not WCF theonomy. And I am not the only one to encounter it.[/quote:0b934fc6e4]

I"(tm)m glad you are referring to this. It helps me to understand you better as well as putting up the warning signs for me not to slip into this mind/heartset. In one sentence you refer to the ugliness you encountered perpetuated in the name of God"(tm)s Word. Does that make God"(tm)s Word invalid? Of course not. Then you say that it was Theonomy at work, not WCF Theonomy. I would say that it was sinful man at work not either Theonomy or Theonomy of the WCF. Again I could rephrase your sentence like the one before and say that it was ugliness you encountered perpetuated in the name of Theonomy. Would that make Theonomy invalid? Of course not.

Correct me if I"(tm)m wrong but do we have different definitions for "œT"�heonomy? My definition would be the one that I quoted from above in the prior post outlined in 5 ideas. Is your definition the same? Do you include all of that + ugliness of spirit? I"(tm)m trying to divorce the theory from your experience and only look at the theory. You"(tm)ve caused me to get outside of myself and look at things from a different perspective and I guess I"(tm)m kinda trying to ask you to do the same.

[quote:0b934fc6e4]To sum up: once you have gone through all the theories and the implementations of them, and have idiot-proofed them, you just end up where the WCF already was: the force of any law is that it is the Will of God to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God. Love fulfills the law, and is the point of the law. Instead of Theonomy, it should be a true charity. Not the namby pamby junky stuff we today call love, but the one that says, "Better is open rebuke than hidden love." Wow! the tolerances of our modern society just cannot swallow that one. But we do. It's Proverbs 27:5. And this shows that the problem in our society is not just the lack of law, but the lack of real love, one that corrects the person, and not merely justifies the law. And that is something no Theomonic regimen can instill. Love without guidance from the Word on what it entails is just another form of kind hatred. So love has to be theonomic. But to change that around, to say that theonomy has to be loving, is to change the intent of the Law of God. For the fulfillment of the law is love; the fulfillment of love is not a legal righteousness under the law. For once you have kept all the law, to its finest detail, there is yet the directive to, "Go, sell all that you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." (Mark 10:21. )[/quote:0b934fc6e4]

Amen. That is a fine exposition if I ever saw one. That was why I was bringing Frame"(tm)s work in before. When discussing Theonomy we are discussing the normative perspective of law. There still are 2 other perspectives of goal/consequence and motive. I think the best way of encapsulating all three perspectives was Jesus"(tm) summation "" The greatest commandment is to love the Lord thy God with all of your heart, soul, strength, and mind. It is a commandment (normative), one is called to love"¦heart, soul, strength, mind (motivation/existential portion), and we are called to love God (goal). Take away any one perspective and one fails to accomplish what Jesus wanted us to accomplish. We can keep the law externally but without the right heart motivation then we are like unto the Pharisees. We can have the best namby pamby feel good love but commit adultery with another woman because we "œlove"� her and not our wife and that would be transgressing God"(tm)s law and equally failing. Likewise even if our heart was in it and it wasn"(tm)t transgressing God"(tm)s law but was doing it for self rather than to the glory of God then we would fail yet again. Does this not make us all love Christ and his shed blood all the more? When put this way we are totally driven to the saviour because I cannot keep the law.

One last thing. The law is also not only that it is the Will of God to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God. It is also used in society to avenge evil and for the ministers of God to carry out the wrath of God on evil doers. We still need external laws to govern society, all with just punishments fitting the crime. It is at this point we still need to discuss the role of God"(tm)s Law and the civil magistrate. The law definitely has a place in the life of a believer and the church but it also has one in the state. This brings up the separation of the 2 and the standard that the civil magistrate should rule by. This is usually the point that most people reject Theonomy. The WCF and the 3FU deal with this as well.

Thank you for taking the time to interact and sharpen this rusty piece of iron. Let"(tm)s continue this discussion prayerfully and lovingly as to hopefully correct past experiences we both have had with people that misused the law of God in our lives.

Chris:

I hope you don't mind if I return the compliment and the favour of reacting to you comments in like manner:
[quote:0e46c107fc="crhoades"]
In Bahnsen"(tm)s writings on Theonomy he rarely ever approached it from a presuppositional vein. North et. al definitely did. I think Bahnsen tried to take a scriptural point of view on it and argue it from the bible. As far as others who hold it like you said "" I see it and the WCF teaching the same thing. So did Bahnsen. So I guess anybody who has subscribed to the WCF would count. Now I"(tm)m sure there would be great disagreement on that point and semantics would definitely enter the fray. In the book God and Politics: Four Views edited by Gary Scott Smith "" the Christian America and National Confessional view all align in theory with Theonomy over and against the pluralistic view. So would that make Bill Edgar and others Theonomists? [/quote:0e46c107fc]

Later in your post you ask if we are working with the same defintion. I don't think we are. And I think that is not too suprprising either. I have to go by my experiences. I'll address this a bit later. But this does make a difference as to who we see should see as Theonomists or theonimists. I would say that small "t" theonomists don't go by that name. The only ones who do seem to be big "T"-ers. But does that just make it harder to work with?

[quote:0e46c107fc]I think you already hit the nail on the head in some ways. Because of some caustic brethren others who would hold a theonomic view of the law do not want to call themselves theonomic because of the bad connotation the term has taken on. I"(tm)m younger and haven"(tm)t grown up in the PCA and OPC to see what all happened in different churches and presbyteries regarding this doctrine. I do know that it became a dividing wedge but I have not experienced it emotionally. I"(tm)ve read books and talked to people on the internet.[/quote:0e46c107fc]

I am not raised in the OPC. I have been in this denomination for only a few years. I am originally..., well, that would not be a good idea just now, because I say some things about that background that are not too complimentary.

[quote:0e46c107fc]As far as expired"¦Again here is my theoretical experience"¦What if I had an ax with a loose axe head that did fly off and kill someone? Or what If my ox escaped and gored someone? Or what if I did not have railing around a part of my house and someone fell off? These would all be one-for-one examples of the OT law. Would we go directly to the cases in the OT or would we do something different?[/quote:0e46c107fc]

I think that we can agree that actions from willful neglect or things like that are as wrong as they ever were. We still have to deal with whether pounding someone's tooth out because he knocked mine out is still the intent of the law after Christ has fulfilled all the law.

[quote:0e46c107fc]
Please do not interpret anything I say as needling, harsh, etc. I sincerely do want to interact on this issue and try to figure out things. You mentioned that I"(tm)ve done my homework "" far from it. I still have sooooo much to learn! [/quote:0e46c107fc]
Actually, I was referring to more than just homework. I was thinking about you putting care into your thinking. Reasoning and using logic is one thing; to do it with care is quite another. It is a whole new level. I sensed that in your posts. And that means a whole lot more to me than being on the money logically.

e.g.
[quote:0e46c107fc]And then there"(tm)s the whole truth in love thing. The first part comes easier than the second as you"(tm)ve already pointed out. If you would be willing to continue dialoguing, I"(tm)d be greatly encouraged. Also, I think others on the board were also interacting in this discussion and I think it would keep us both in check and keep us from talking past each other. Theonomy is definitely something that I would like to discuss face to face with you so that you could see facial expressions tone etc so as to not take me the wrong way. Of course I"(tm)m sure you"(tm)re quite happy with having someone had monitor"(tm)s length when discussing Theonomy! Can"(tm)t blame you considering prior experiences.[/quote:0e46c107fc]

Going on:

[quote:0e46c107fc]
Please don"(tm)t take this as presuming or anything cause I know you"(tm)ll agree with what I"(tm)m going to say. The truth or error of a doctrine is not incumbent on the person"(tm)s actions that are espousing it. I"(tm)m sure there"(tm)s a cool latin word for this fallacy. Again to bring up the Calvinism parallel, one should not reject unconditional election because they ran into a rabid new Calvinist (or old one for that matter.) I don"(tm)t think Theonomy automatically entails tyrrany.

[quote:0e46c107fc]It was just another form of tyrrany; it was not government by God, or His laws, but government by men, using God's laws for their own ends.[/quote:0e46c107fc]

That is a shame and if that is the case then the people need to repent and ask your forgiveness. We all agree that the ends that God"(tm)s law was intended was for His Glory. If you detect this in me at all at any time please lovingly rebuke me for it as I don"(tm)t want to go down the path of the dark side"¦
[/quote:0e46c107fc]
I was not making an ad hominem error. That was not my point. I was not judging Theonomy by the example of a few who miscarried it. I knew they miscarried it, and I thought I was a better representative of it than they were. And I know better than to judge Bahnsen by what others make of him. I was trying to point out that there is a lot more to theonomy than what theonomists, even Bahnsen, make out to be. In theory it may work out well, but that is not the whole story too often.

Basically, this is my hang-up (one of them, anyway): as soon as you have an ism, like Presup-ism, evident-ism, theonomism, a-mill-ism, yes and even Calvinism, you have a problem. We have worked it out with Calvinism, but we are not out of the woods with that yet. But we do know now how to judge Calvinism not by itself but by the Word, and hw to use it properly. But all our isms quickly become the norm for reading and interpreting the Word that that very ism is supposed to be subject to. Oh how often have I run into someone who says, "it depends on how you read it." and who then comes away with, sometimes, even an opposite meaning. Like the women-in office fiasco in my former denominatation: how many fools fell for the, "I don't take 'men' to be inclusive." How utterly dumb. No, stupid. (I'm sorry, I don't usually get this way, but I dare you to just think about it and not come away laughing at it. ) They pitted one precept, namely equality, against another, namely headship; and played them against each other. Can God be put against God? Can one truth contradict another? But there was an ism that took precedence for them. That is what I get hung up about. That's not all of it, but it kind of gets the idea across without going into it to deeply.


[quote:0e46c107fc]Have you read any of Bahnsen"(tm)s works on Theonomy or even articles? You have your reasons but I"(tm)m having a hard time with understanding them. Again, I"(tm)m trying to figure this out not put you on the spot. If Greg Bahnsen himself has completely wronged you I could see this. If you have had other people that have other misread or misapplied his writings then I don"(tm)t see how that should influence if you read his book or not. This is almost an ad hominem (I knew that latin phrase"¦) against Bahnsen and his scholarship. Give it a read. Like I said in the above post "" he doesn"(tm)t argue from a presuppositional viewpoint for the thesis. Matt 5:17 is only one chapter. He even states that even if he gets that whole passage wrong the thesis still stands. Same principle applies "" if a Baptist has ever ran into an uncharitable presbyerian/reformed he/she should not read Witsius/Murray/Warfield etc? Or an arminian who has ran into an uncharitable Calvinist should never read Calvin or Spurgeon?[/quote:0e46c107fc]

Again, I think I have considered whether or not my problem with him is ad hominem or not. I have my reasons, but there are obstacles to my making it known. But let's leave it at this one: I never knew the man personally. I don't have any fond memories of him, and wouldn't know him from Adam, so to speak. That is just my background, not a remark against his character. I believe that it is a waste of time arguing about what he meant or what he did not mean. Let him speak for himself. He is not pertinent to the discussion if his ideas are already penetrated into the stream. Let's talk about the ideas themselves. I am not going to "exegete" Bahnsen. So let us, you and I (whoever the 'you and I' are) discuss these things and build each other up. I don't want to get into whether or not he has been misrepresented, for the truth of the matter is, I don't read those guys either, at least not for that; I make up my own mind. And I have tried to read him, and I cannot make the leaps he does. So don't interpret him, it is not him I am interested in. If he can't inform me, maybe you can. But it is not Bahnsenism that we are interested in, it is truth. Even Bahnsen, I suspect, was not interested in that. And either he is a help or he is not. For me he isn't. I've tried. I am a good reader. But he is no help to me. Can we leave it at that?

[quote:0e46c107fc]I think that it is warranted for you intellectually and spiritually to read the thoughts of other"(tm)s on this topic especially if you are going to reject it. Again, I don"(tm)t want to imply that you have or haven"(tm)t because you have not come out and said so either way. You are going on bad experiences and inferring that if they acted this way then the doctrine and the books that teach it ipso facto must be wrong or avoided. I hope I"(tm)m reading you charitably. If not, please forgive the directness of this paragraph. If there are things that get too personal I would be willing to continue this discussion offline to further understand you.[/quote:0e46c107fc]
Again, I appreciate the effort you put into your posts. I look for this kind of interaction.

I am a deep-seated "no dichotomy" guy. I just cannot understand the language of some modern thought, though I have tried, believe me. I can read with the best of them. I am unwaveringly behind the Ontological Argument. The more it is "proven" to be not a proof, the more it is a proof for me, because that is what it proves: how all arguments shore it up. It's like those old American stone forts, which became stronger the more they were impacted by cannonball fire. How do I relate it to others? I can't, because the concepts and ideas that form modern thought won't allow it, for now. There are so many connotations to the terms that it takes a very long time to get through it, redefining, carefully parsing, working with each idea until it hurts, almost. That is what I went through to get to where I am. It is not academically acceptable in our time, but it is my own personal struggle to understand. All I can do for now is to provoke thought in that direction. That is why I am so adamant right now in trying to become a good writer. I probably think of it like Presuppers do about Presup'ism, except I don't really feel the need to defend it, or prove it, or explain it. I have tried, mind you, but nothing hinges on it whether or not I am successful. Anselm or his thesis is not the aim, nor even of his thesis.

[quote:0e46c107fc]By humble, patience on the Lord around His table, each one confessing their sin and holding their brother in higher esteem than themselves. At least that would be a start. The same could be said of all doctrinal controversies. Why aren"(tm)t reformed and Lutheran one denomination? Luther kept bangin his shoe against the table saying "œThis is my body"�, "œThis is my body"�. We always are in a position of saying "œWe have God"(tm)s (law, doctrine of the Spirit, doctrine of baptism, etc), so we must be right."� Bahnsen was the one who said that there was much work to be done in exegisis etc. Of all the tapes that I listened to if there was something that he hadn"(tm)t worked out he would say so and ask his students to do more work on the text.[/quote:0e46c107fc]
Well said. You don't need to bring Bahnsen into it; I was not saying anything about him except that I don't like reading him. I did not try to represent of misrepresent him. Oh yes, I did mention that I did not agree with his exegesis of Matt. 5. But I got your point. I whole-heartedly agree.

[quote:0e46c107fc][quote:0e46c107fc]Now, my referring to this experience may seem unfair to you, and others too, but it is unfair to me and to you not to take it into consideration. All the fine rhetoric cannot wipe out the ugliness I encountered, perpetrated in the name of God's Word. That was Theonomy at work, not WCF theonomy. And I am not the only one to encounter it.[/quote:0e46c107fc]

I"(tm)m glad you are referring to this. It helps me to understand you better as well as putting up the warning signs for me not to slip into this mind/heartset. In one sentence you refer to the ugliness you encountered perpetuated in the name of God"(tm)s Word. Does that make God"(tm)s Word invalid? Of course not. Then you say that it was Theonomy at work, not WCF Theonomy. I would say that it was sinful man at work not either Theonomy or Theonomy of the WCF. Again I could rephrase your sentence like the one before and say that it was ugliness you encountered perpetuated in the name of Theonomy. Would that make Theonomy invalid? Of course not. [/quote:0e46c107fc]
No, Chris, this was Theonomy at work. But I am not going to labour it. I know that you are working with the word differently than I am. I am quite sure that Theonomy worked out by men eventuates in what I experienced. History is relete with examples. I think you are missing the idea that I think is in the middle of it, the idea that separates Theonomists from theonomists who don't use that name. I suspect that the Theonomy you mean is not so different from what I mean by theonomy, if I go by your descriptions so far. It is putting it in a category by itself that leads to the abuse of it. It was never meant to be that way. That's why I say it was Theonomy at work.

[quote:0e46c107fc]Correct me if I"(tm)m wrong but do we have different definitions for "œT"�heonomy? My definition would be the one that I quoted from above in the prior post outlined in 5 ideas. Is your definition the same? Do you include all of that + ugliness of spirit? I"(tm)m trying to divorce the theory from your experience and only look at the theory. You"(tm)ve caused me to get outside of myself and look at things from a different perspective and I guess I"(tm)m kinda trying to ask you to do the same. [/quote:0e46c107fc]
I don't agree with all the five points, of course. I'm not a Presup-er. As I said, I don't think we are working with exactly the same concepts here. So I am not going to make a big fuss over it either. We'll get closer in these terms as we get through some discussion on it. That usually happens on this Board. At least we have the same end in mind. And that ought to help us work out the details. All I can say for my side of things is that it is not all academic and intellectual; there is a very real and practical side to it that only experience can show. There is a very good reason, I think, why God made love the end of the law. It is much more just than the legal end of it alone. Again let me say that Theonomy needs to spend a geat deal more time on that end of it before it can drop the big "T". It is no little thing.

[quote:0e46c107fc]One last thing. The law is also not only that it is the Will of God to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God. It is also used in society to avenge evil and for the ministers of God to carry out the wrath of God on evil doers. We still need external laws to govern society, all with just punishments fitting the crime. It is at this point we still need to discuss the role of God"(tm)s Law and the civil magistrate. The law definitely has a place in the life of a believer and the church but it also has one in the state. This brings up the separation of the 2 and the standard that the civil magistrate should rule by. This is usually the point that most people reject Theonomy. The WCF and the 3FU deal with this as well.[/quote:0e46c107fc]
I do not see the one against the other. I see both upholding each other. Micah 6 also speaks to the magistrate and the civil authorities in general. Let us think about this a minute. The OT nation of Israel did not have a separation of church and state. Yet these are the same civil laws that are at issue here. But now we have that separation, and yet uphold the same laws. The same principles of faith, hope and love undergirds it as much now as before. There is an administrative difference, with the same Saviour underneath it all. :We should be discussing this in the Covenant Theology forum.: Just a thought.


[quote:0e46c107fc]Thank you for taking the time to interact and sharpen this rusty piece of iron. Let"(tm)s continue this discussion prayerfully and lovingly as to hopefully correct past experiences we both have had with people that misused the law of God in our lives.[/quote:0e46c107fc]
It is indeed a pleasure to read your posts. What a joy and freedom to discuss it with you in this manner. Blessing to you.

I am really not done with this post, but I've got to go. So I'll just post it and get back to it later.

To both Chris and JohnV --

I've very much enjoyed both the quality and civility of your discussion.

[quote:bdc37f664c]No, Chris, this was Theonomy at work. But I am not going to labour it. I know that you are working with the word differently than I am. I am quite sure that Theonomy worked out by men eventuates in what I experienced. History is relete with examples. [/quote:bdc37f664c]

I have done very little reading on Theonomy but confess that, like John, I am very leary of it. I have a strong suspicion that, no matter how well-meaning its proponents, in practice it will inevitably become, as John said, "just another form of tyrrany; . . . not government by God, or His laws, but government by men, using God's laws for their own ends."

Now, a little background/rambling and then a few questions. What little I have read about Theonomy suggests that it largely depends on a post-mill view of eschatology and seems to recognize that until and unless a majority of persons are genuine, mature believers, there is no reason to expect that any society will live according to God's laws. I have my doubts about the postmill view (though don't know enough yet to reject or accept it), but I certainly agree that there is little hope for a "God-centric" society unless and until a majority really are Christians (and not just secular/pagan conservatives).

Here is my first set of questions, which will reveal how little I know about this issue: To what extent do Theonomists or Christian Reconstructionists believe that we have a duty to work today to enact laws that mirror all of the Biblical commandments, at least the moral law? And do they draw any lines (or recognize that they draw lines)? For example, I don't think any of us would disagree that civil government should forbid murder and should bear the sword to punish those that violate the moral command not to murder. But Christ said "`YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' "This is the great and foremost commandment. "The second is like it, `YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." Matt. 22:37-40. Do either Theonomists or Christian Reconstructionists believe that we must enact civil laws enforcing either or both of these two commands? I"(tm)m curious for a number of reasons, which I won"(tm)t go into now.

Thanks for any help you can give me as I cautiously begin to think about these things.

__________________
Lee Lauridsen
Grace Evangelical Presbyterian Church
Lawrence, KS

To both Chris and JohnV --

I've very much enjoyed both the quality and civility of your discussion.

[quote:e570c94634]No, Chris, this was Theonomy at work. But I am not going to labour it. I know that you are working with the word differently than I am. I am quite sure that Theonomy worked out by men eventuates in what I experienced. History is relete with examples. [/quote:e570c94634]

I have done very little reading on Theonomy but confess that, like John, I am very leary of it. I have a strong suspicion that, no matter how well-meaning its proponents, in practice it will inevitably become, as John said, "just another form of tyrrany; . . . not government by God, or His laws, but government by men, using God's laws for their own ends."

Now, a little background/rambling and then a few questions. What little I have read about Theonomy suggests that it largely depends on a post-mill view of eschatology and seems to recognize that until and unless a majority of persons are genuine, mature believers, there is no reason to expect that any society will live according to God's laws. I have my doubts about the postmill view (though don't know enough yet to reject or accept it), but I certainly agree that there is little hope for a "God-centric" society unless and until a majority really are Christians (and not just secular/pagan conservatives).

Here is my first set of questions, which will reveal how little I know about this issue: To what extent do Theonomists or Christian Reconstructionists believe that we have a duty to work today to enact laws that mirror all of the Biblical commandments, at least the moral law? And do they draw any lines (or recognize that they draw lines)? For example, I don't think any of us would disagree that civil government should forbid murder and should bear the sword to punish those that violate the moral command not to murder. But Christ said "`YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' "This is the great and foremost commandment. "The second is like it, `YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." Matt. 22:37-40. Do either Theonomists or Christian Reconstructionists believe that we must enact civil laws enforcing either or both of these two commands? I"(tm)m curious for a number of reasons, which I won"(tm)t go into now.

Thanks for any help you can give me as I cautiously begin to think about these things.

To both Chris and JohnV --

I've very much enjoyed both the quality and civility of your discussion.

[quote:0e2057af5e]No, Chris, this was Theonomy at work. But I am not going to labour it. I know that you are working with the word differently than I am. I am quite sure that Theonomy worked out by men eventuates in what I experienced. History is relete with examples. [/quote:0e2057af5e]

I have done very little reading on Theonomy but confess that, like John, I am very leary of it. I have a strong suspicion that, no matter how well-meaning its proponents, in practice it will inevitably become, as John said, "just another form of tyrrany; . . . not government by God, or His laws, but government by men, using God's laws for their own ends."

Now, a little background/rambling and then a few questions. What little I have read about Theonomy suggests that it largely depends on a post-mill view of eschatology and seems to recognize that until and unless a majority of persons are genuine, mature believers, there is no reason to expect that any society will live according to God's laws. I have my doubts about the postmill view (though don't know enough yet to reject or accept it), but I certainly agree that there is little hope for a "God-centric" society unless and until a majority really are Christians (and not just secular/pagan conservatives).

Here is my first set of questions, which will reveal how little I know about this issue: To what extent do Theonomists or Christian Reconstructionists believe that we have a duty to work today to enact laws that mirror all of the Biblical commandments, at least the moral law? And do they draw any lines (or recognize that they draw lines)? For example, I don't think any of us would disagree that civil government should forbid murder and should bear the sword to punish those that violate the moral command not to murder. But Christ said "`YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' "This is the great and foremost commandment. "The second is like it, `YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." Matt. 22:37-40. Do either Theonomists or Christian Reconstructionists believe that we must enact civil laws enforcing either or both of these two commands? I"(tm)m curious for a number of reasons, which I won"(tm)t go into now.

Thanks for any help you can give me as I cautiously begin to think about these things.

Lee:
Thank you for responding. I'm not a Reconstructionist or Theonomist, but I will try to answer within my limits.

[quote:bc4eb8d7e4="LauridsenL"]To both Chris and JohnV --

I've very much enjoyed both the quality and civility of your discussion.

[quote:bc4eb8d7e4]No, Chris, this was Theonomy at work. But I am not going to labour it. I know that you are working with the word differently than I am. I am quite sure that Theonomy worked out by men eventuates in what I experienced. History is relete with examples. [/quote:bc4eb8d7e4]

I have done very little reading on Theonomy but confess that, like John, I am very leary of it. I have a strong suspicion that, no matter how well-meaning its proponents, in practice it will inevitably become, as John said, "just another form of tyrrany; . . . not government by God, or His laws, but government by men, using God's laws for their own ends."[/quote:bc4eb8d7e4]
Just remember, Lee, to keep a distinction between the people who have misused it, or who you suspect will misuse it, and the the idea itself. In the example of my history with it, there are those Theonomists who abused their place, and then there is the Theonomy they taught. These are not identical. In this case the men were Reconsructionists, of the five pillar type. And they were full of ideals, and were without proper supervision, and were what we would consider to be "recent converts". These are by no means excuses, for even a child knows enough not to do the things they did. Getting carried away is not the same as upholding ideals. What I was saying is that this weakness is implicit in Theonomy itself, not just the failings of sinful people. And that is because it is considered all by itself, and has its own name. It was never meant to be that way, and is not approached that way in Scripture.

[quote:bc4eb8d7e4]Now, a little background/rambling and then a few questions. What little I have read about Theonomy suggests that it largely depends on a post-mill view of eschatology and seems to recognize that until and unless a majority of persons are genuine, mature believers, there is no reason to expect that any society will live according to God's laws. I have my doubts about the postmill view (though don't know enough yet to reject or accept it), but I certainly agree that there is little hope for a "God-centric" society unless and until a majority really are Christians (and not just secular/pagan conservatives). [/quote:bc4eb8d7e4]
You anticipated my next question, once we get past the Presup connection. This is something the Theonomist should answer.

[quote:bc4eb8d7e4]
I don't think any of us would disagree that civil government should forbid murder and should bear the sword to punish those that violate the moral command not to murder. But Christ said "`YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' "This is the great and foremost commandment. "The second is like it, `YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." Matt. 22:37-40. Do either Theonomists or Christian Reconstructionists believe that we must enact civil laws enforcing either or both of these two commands? I"(tm)m curious for a number of reasons, which I won"(tm)t go into now. [/quote:bc4eb8d7e4]

The impression I got when I read the way Theonomists fit Matt. 5: 17-19 into this was that the exegesis is forced. In other words, the Presup and the Post-Mil positions come first, and are superimposed on Scripture. This seemed to me to be what yielded the resulting conclusion that we know as Theonomy. Both the Presup theory and the Post-Mil theory are things that belong at the end of theology, and not be normative for the reading of Scripture. They are limited human theories, not Biblical teachings. So in the case having to do with my experiences, it was not just a mistake, it was not just a misrepresentation; it was, in fact, a great evil. They had replaced the gospel with man's word, and they had done so carelessly. This is how it eventuated in the way they carried out "justice", by leaving out the truth, by suppressing the facts, and by judging guilt by majority opinion rather than evidences. Note, I did not say "witnesses", but "opinion". In the end there was no trace of theonomic principle left. Again, I am not talking about the weaknesses of these men, but of taking a position that is out of step with Reformed theology itself. The place of the Word, its centrality, and maintaining its regulative role is no little thing. Our ideas that we are so fervently convinced of are yet to be subservient to Scripture itself. If we interpret Scripture according to these ideas that we are so convinced of, then we are mixing up the regulative principle of the Word. Scripture has to interpret itself. And the Bible does not teach either Presuppositionalism, or Post-Millennialism. They are theories that can be garnered from Scripture, and be Scriptural theories, but that does not make them the teachings of Scripture. These have to be kept int their place, no matter how fervently we believe them to be true.

Please do not doubt my sincerity in this. It is not the wickedness of these men that I am here objecting to. What I am saying is that here is an example of what happens when you do not take theology as a whole first and foremost, and when you do not keep things in their proper perspective. The texts you cited are clearly Jesus' own emphasis on the law. If love fulfills the law, then love should be the emphasis of any Theonomy. It should be front and centre, and be most of the body of it. It should not be mixed in with either the favourite apologetic methodology or ones' view on the Millennium.

I find the great weakness of the Presup position is that it tends to give birth to Presuppers wh seem to want it to be THE apologetic method, as if it is the only method. Chris is a Presupper who does not feel that way. So his Presup concept is different than others'. As I said above, when the aim of Presuppositionalists ceases to be Presuppositionalism, then it crosses the aisle into real apologetics, as far as I am concerned. And I believe it has a lot going for it, and it should do so. And you will find some fine examples of a proper Presuppositionalism on this Board doing just that. But I think you will also find the shadow of what Chris calls the "dark side" coming through, as if by default. Do not equate this with the men of this Board, or their hearts. We are brothers, and we are all still learning and trying to apply. But to a man they have won their day for their position by distancing themselves from the exclusivists.

Oh, by the way, Lee, you triple posted. What a good idea. I never thought of that. I have been trying to catch up to Bob by writing more, when all I had to do was double or triple post.