Theonomy (split from WCF vs Blind WCF Following)

CalvinandHodges · #1 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 01:27 AM

Greetings:

Probably the best refutation of Theonomy can be found in Calvin's Institutes:

Quote:

I would have preferred to pass over this matter in utter silence if I were not aware that here many dangerously go astray. For there are some who deny that a commonwealth is duly framed with neglects the political system of Moses, and is ruled by the common laws of nations. Let other men consider how perilous and seditious this notion is; it will be enough for me to have proved it false and foolish (IV.XX.XIV)

In sections 15 and 16 he proves this point very nicely.

Greg Bahnsen's interpretation of Theonomy is soundly repudiated by Francis Turretin's discussion on the "Abrogation of the Judicial Law" in his Elenctic Theology. Turretin anticipates every argument of Bahnsen and tears them to pieces.

Concerning Martin Foulner's book: None of the Westminster Divines argued for the Judicial Law the way Theonomists do today. The WCF does not forbid the use of the Judicial Laws in society. What it repudiates is the idea that without the Judicial Laws a government is non-Christian, or, is somehow unlawful or unjust. A society can choose to use, or not use, the Judicial Laws and their penalties as they see fit:

Quote:

Against adulterers some nations levy severer, others lighter punishments. Yet we see how, with such diversity, all laws tend to the same end. For together with one voice, they pronounce punishments against those crimes which Go'ds eternal law has condemned, namely, murder, theft, adultery, and false witness. But they do not agree on the manner of punishment. Nor is this either necessary or expedient. (Institutes, IV.XX.XVI.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

Ivanhoe · #2 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 01:32 AM

That Calvin reference wasn't a refutation. It was just an assertion of "the law of nations." The Foulner argument was just ignored.

And then there are Calvin's sermons on Deuteronomy, which go much further than theonomists in advocating the case laws.

CalvinandHodges · #3 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draught Horse

That Calvin reference wasn't a refutation. It was just an assertion of "the law of nations." The Foulner argument was just ignored.

And then there are Calvin's sermons on Deuteronomy, which go much further than theonomists in advocating the case laws.

Greetings:

I do not think you read it properly. Calling something "false and foolish" is a refutation - at its most mildest it is a rejection of the Theonomic position.

You oversimplify the argument when you assume that anyone who states that one or more of the Judicial Laws should be applied are necessarily "Theonomists." Such is not the case. The Theonomic argument, according to Bahnsen and Rushdoony, states that we must apply all of the principles of the Judicial Law, and all of their penalties, in order to establish justice in society. My quotation of Calvin here:

Quote:

Against adulterers some nations levy severer, others lighter punishments. Yet we see how, with such diversity, all laws tend to the same end. For together with one voice, they pronounce punishments against those crimes which Go'ds eternal law has condemned, namely, murder, theft, adultery, and false witness. But they do not agree on the manner of punishment. Nor is this either necessary or expedient. (Institutes, IV.XX.XVI.)

is a repudiation of Bahnsen's extremeism.

Martin Foulner's "argument" is not an argument, but a series of quotations taken out of context in order to "prove" Theonomy. Take George Gillespie, for example, whom Theonomists state that he is a Theonomist:

Quote:

I ask, where is that Christian state which was, or is, or ought to be, moulded according to this pattern? Must ministers have vote in parliament? Must there be civil lawyers? Must all criminal and capital judgments be according to the judicial law of Moses, and none otherwise? ... Yet all this must be if there be a parallel made with the Jewish sanhedrim. I know some divines hold that the judicial law of Moses, so far as concerneth the punishment of sins against the moral law, idolatry, blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, adultery, theft, &c., ought to be the rule to the Christian magistrate; and, for my part, I wish more respect were had to it, and that it were more consulted with. This by the way. I am here only showing what must follow if the Jewish government be taken for a precedent, without making a distinction of civil and church government. Aaron's Rod Blossoming, pg. 2

Gillespie does not say that the Judicial Laws must necessarily be established in order for a state to conform to the Christian ideal. He simply states that they, "were more consulted with." This is not the argument of a Theonomist.

John Calvin on Deuteronomy proves Theonomy? This is a favorite point of that heretic James Jordan. If such is the case, then you have Calvin arguing against Calvin. For, as I have pointed out in the Institutes Calvin is clear about such "fools" who argue the way Jordan argues. If Calvin says that a commonwealth must establish the Judicial Laws in society in his Sermons on Deuteronomy, which he does not, then he is, by his own definition a "fool." Jordan misreading of Calvin is aptly refuted. For Jordan Calvin's only writing are his Sermons on Deuteronomy. The Institutes does not exist.

Ah. what a tangled web we weave when first be practice to deceive!

Grace,

-CH

Ivanhoe · #4 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 10:26 AM

Your post is filled with words like "heretic," "foolish," "extremist." It really wouldn't be helpful to continue this conversation. And no, Calvin did not refute it. I saw you *assert* Calvin. I didn't see an argument. I would like to comment on this.

Quote:

You oversimplify the argument when you assume that anyone who states that one or more of the Judicial Laws should be applied are necessarily "Theonomists." Such is not the case. The Theonomic argument, according to Bahnsen and Rushdoony, states that we must apply all of the principles of the Judicial Law, and all of their penalties, in order to establish justice in society.

No, Bahnsen never said that a judicial law should be woodenly applied (I have the lecture if you want the link where he says that). He said it should be applied in its general equity (this was what Frame would call a "situational" perspective).

But I no longer debate theonomy on PB. It isn't edifying to the brethren and there is a glut of threads on the topic.

CalvinandHodges · #5 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draught Horse

Your post is filled with words like "heretic," "foolish," "extremist." It really wouldn't be helpful to continue this conversation. And no, Calvin did not refute it. I saw you *assert* Calvin. I didn't see an argument. I would like to comment on this.

No, Bahnsen never said that a judicial law should be woodenly applied (I have the lecture if you want the link where he says that). He said it should be applied in its general equity (this was what Frame would call a "situational" perspective).

But I no longer debate theonomy on PB. It isn't edifying to the brethren and there is a glut of threads on the topic.

Greetings:

I can see why you do not like to debate this - since you constantly misinterpret your opponents - making your arguments into Straw Men. You quote me as saying:

Quote:

No, Bahnsen never said that a judicial law should be woodenly applied

I did not say that, dude, but it is effective for you to write this in order to prove your Theonomy?

What did I write?

Quote:

The Theonomic argument, according to Bahnsen and Rushdoony, states that we must apply all of the principles of the Judicial Law, and all of their penalties, in order to establish justice in society.

Bahnsen writes:

Quote:

The Puritans termed these case-law applications of the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) “judicial laws,” and they correctly held that we are not bound to keep these judicial laws as they are worded (being couched in the language of an ancient culture that has passed away) but only required to heed their underlying principles (or “general equity” as they called it). (By This Standard, pgs.137, 138)

And here:

Quote:

Since the case law’s principles define the Decalogue, the case law’s principles (in their full scope: personal and social, ecclesiastical and civil) are as perpetual as the Decalogue itself, (BTS 318)

And here:

Quote:

10. The civil precepts of the Old Testament (standing “judicial” laws) are a model of perfect social justice for all cultures, even in the punishment of criminals. (BTS, 347)

Bahnsen teaches that all of the principles of the Judicial Law are still binding in society today. The only change is the language: cars instead of ox-carts, etc. SUch is contrary to what Calvin teaches in the Institutes, Francis Turretin, and the WCF - to name a few.

If you don't have a copy of Calvin's Institutes to examine what Calvin says on the matter, then I think you have no argument. The same would apply to Turretin's Elenctic Theology as well. Bahnsen does not know what he is talking about.

The word "fool" was taken from Calvin - if you don't like it, then complain to him. And, Jordan is a heretic - that is mine.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

Ivanhoe · #6 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 01:14 PM

Quote:

The word "fool" was taken from Calvin - if you don't like it, then complain to him. And, Jordan is a heretic - that is mine.

Calling someone a "fool" doesn't count as an argument. As for Jordan, he edited the volumes. Here is what your argument could look like:

1. Calvin preached sermons on Deuteronomy that advocate the case laws.
2. Jordan edited the volume.
3. Jordan is a heretic.
----------------------
Therefore, the sermons don't count as counter-evidence.

There is a missing premise somewhere in your argument.

Quote:

If you don't have a copy of Calvin's Institutes to examine what Calvin says on the matter, then I think you have no argument. The same would apply to Turretin's Elenctic Theology as well. Bahnsen does not know what he is talking about.

With all due respect, your posts seem like assertions connected by ad hominems. Bahnsen doesn't know what he's talking about? I will play along. Simultaneously earned an M.Div and a Thm. Wrote a dissertation on epistemology that Dallas Willard called "the finest in the field." Fulfilled professorships at numerous colleges and seminaries in courses on theology, political ethics, and logic.

As for the Calvin reference. I have read the Institutes twice and am now on my third reading. And Bahnsen addressed this issue as well. See his lecture on this part of Calvin's Institutes.

And there is also Jack Sawyer's Master's thesis, presented to anti-theonomist Robert Godfrey, "Moses and the Civil Magistrate." The problem there is that Sawyer argued for theonomy using Calvin's Institutes and said that Calvin could not be used as decisive counter-evidence. Now, you can continue your style of debate and call him stupid and heretic and fool, but the problem is that Godfrey, a published critic of theonomy, recognized Sawyer's arguments and granted him a ThM on it.

Blueridge Believer · #7 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 01:54 PM

A question for brother Aitken. You know I have a great desire to see this nation base it's laws upon the law of God, but try as I may I can not see a way it can be done without radical surgery. In a theonomic society, how would we punish one who was guilty of adultery? Would we put sabbath breakers to death? Would we execute JW's and Mormons and Roman Catholics for idolatry? Not trying to be contentious at all. Just wondering how we can stay true to the law of God and not put a whole lot of people to death.

ChristianTrader · #8 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge reformer

A question for brother Aitken. You know I have a great desire to see this nation base it's laws upon the law of God, but try as I may I can not see a way it can be done without radical surgery. In a theonomic society, how would we punish one who was guilty of adultery? Would we put sabbath breakers to death? Would we execute JW's and Mormons and Roman Catholics for idolatry? Not trying to be contentious at all. Just wondering how we can stay true to the law of God and not put a whole lot of people to death.

When such laws are instituted, such things would not be as wide spread as they are tody. A big point of the Theonomic Viewpoint is to initially reach Christians and influence the thinking of the "sheep" and then work outward.

CT

Blueridge Believer · #9 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

When such laws are instituted, such things would not be as wide spread as they are tody. A big point of the Theonomic Viewpoint is to initially reach Christians and influence the thinking of the "sheep" and then work outward.

CT

Would there be any place for grace in such a society? Let's say a woman is taken in adultery, hauled off into court and found guilty. Her husband pleads for mercy and forgives her and she is sorry for her sin. Would we still have to execute her?

Blueridge Believer · #10 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 02:34 PM

Help me with this one brethren. In 1rst Cor. 5 a man is sleeping with his fathers wife. The law says: Lev 20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them. Paul says to deliver him unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh and then later the man repents and they are told to recieve him back.
I'm sure I do not understand the reconstructionist/theonomic theory for I do not see how the law could be honored except by killing the man.

crhoades · #11 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge reformer

Help me with this one brethren. In 1rst Cor. 5 a man is sleeping with his fathers wife. The law says: Lev 20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them. Paul says to deliver him unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh and then later the man repents and they are told to recieve him back.
I'm sure I do not understand the reconstructionist/theonomic theory for I do not see how the law could be honored except by killing the man.

Who was Paul writing to and what type of government was in place? In a situation where the church is not in a theocratic government that would be good counsel. We can argue how theonomic Calvin et.al. was but I can show plenty of quotes of what they wanted to do with adulterers...

Blueridge Believer · #12 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crhoades

Who was Paul writing to and what type of government was in place? In a situation where the church is not in a theocratic government that would be good counsel. We can argue how theonomic Calvin et.al. was but I can show plenty of quotes of what they wanted to do with adulterers...

Help me to see this brother. Where in the Pauline epistles, or in the NT for that matter are we told to set up theocratic governments over the nations of the world? What would be the ideal thing to do in the 1rst Cor. situation??

crhoades · #13 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge reformer

What would be the ideal thing to do in the 1rst Cor. situation??

Exactly what Paul tells us to.

As for the other part of your question, I'm in training and can't get to it until later tonight but I'm sure Hermota or Jacob will probably jump in here.

Ivanhoe · #14 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge reformer

A question for brother Aitken. You know I have a great desire to see this nation base it's laws upon the law of God, but try as I may I can not see a way it can be done without radical surgery. In a theonomic society, how would we punish one who was guilty of adultery? Would we put sabbath breakers to death? Would we execute JW's and Mormons and Roman Catholics for idolatry? Not trying to be contentious at all. Just wondering how we can stay true to the law of God and not put a whole lot of people to death.

Somewhere in Theonomy in Christian Ethic Bahnsen deals with that. I don't have it with me, but here are two responses:

1) If it is God's law and God decreed said law is to be applied, who are we to object?

2) Most theonomists say that adultery is a capital offense in some cases, not all (see Numbers 5. She is clearly an adulteress but the law doesn't say she has to be put to death).

This is where Frame's analyses are helpful: not all situations demand the same application. Bahnsen taught a whole course on that point. How is said x law to be applied in situation y? As a theonomist, I don't have feel I have to answer every hypothetical. All I have to show is that there are principles, there are situations, and we need to have the wisdom to apply said principle in said situation.

About grace in a society? Let's turn it around. Should we show grace to the rapist? Why not?

Kevin · #15 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge reformer

Would there be any place for grace in such a society? Let's say a woman is taken in adultery, hauled off into court and found guilty. Her husband pleads for mercy and forgives her and she is sorry for her sin. Would we still have to execute her?

Yes there is room for grace. Under biblical law prosecution would be primarily a private matter. Thus if the husband in your example would not be obligated to charge the wife.

Also, keep in mind that in the scripture the death penalty is a maximum sentance, NOT a mandatory minimum.

Ivanhoe · #16 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge reformer

Help me to see this brother. Where in the Pauline epistles, or in the NT for that matter are we told to set up theocratic governments over the nations of the world? What would be the ideal thing to do in the 1rst Cor. situation??

Argument from silence fallacy. The theonomist doesn't necessarily argue for a theocratic society. At the grass roots level we merely say we should bring our Christian values to bear in all areas of life. That is how society is transformed.

I think it is dangerous to immediately argue for a theocratic society as the soluton. Government, which is usually the problem, should never be the proposed solution.

Ivanhoe · #17 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yes there is room for grace. Under biblical law prosecution would be primarily a private matter. Thus if the husband in your example would not be obligated to charge the wife.

Also, keep in mind that in the scripture the death penalty is a maximum sentance, NOT a mandatory minimum.

agreed

Southern Presbyterian · #18 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draught Horse

At the grass roots level we merely say we should bring our Christian values to bear in all areas of life. That is how society is transformed.

Well said, brother!

Blueridge Believer · #19 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 03:02 PM

I want to thank all of you brethren for your answers. I have been studying about this issue for some time and I'm a long way away from understanding it. I would love to live in a society where the law of God was the yardstick for every law made. The more I've studied the issue the more I know that I've have a fundamental misunderstanding of the position.