I have just recently heard of this thing called Theonomy. In class the topic of capital punishment was brought up and we were asked what we thought about it. I said nothing at the time, but I am thinking if I had to pick laws to go by, they would be the old testament laws. Not so much the ceremonial or sacrificial, but the others.

Seems to me that if our laws are based on anything other than scripture we are kinda plaing with situational ethics. I understand that a theocracy would never happen in America, but what do you all think? Am I crazy?

I would like to do a research paper on theonomy, does anyone have any good sources for my research?

What is ther difference between theonomy and dominion theology?

Ok, I understad that those are alot of questions, and I probly phrased them in a way that shows my ignorance, but hey, I have to learn somehow.

Thanks in advance,
Joshua

__________________
1st Kings 18:21 - "And Elijah came near to all the people and said, 'How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.' And the people did not answer him a word." (ESV)

Joshua H.
Layman - Sound Guy
Fayetteville First Baptist
Fayetteville, Ohio

Here's a great place to start:

It is the Reformed Confessions on the Civil Magistrate
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/vi...d.php?tid=6064

Of course do a search on theonomy on the archives, if I remember right this has been discussed before.

__________________
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."

See a number of articles on Covenant Media Foundation's website, http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe040.htm

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

Thanks, I will read through those.

Seems like there is a bit of an resistance towards this type of view. Could it be because of a knee-jerk reaction against any mention of the law in salvation. I understand theonomy does not say anything about the law in salvation, but perhaps that is what people think it does?

Ok, well, I have scheduled a meeting with one of my Profs. to discuss this issue, whether he be for or against, I will learn something.

Thanks again,
Joshua

Theonomy is simply "God's law" and, yes, it differs from "dominion theology". Actually, that depends on who is using the term. If you are to write a paper, then you want to consult Bahnsen's "Theonomy and Christian Ethics" (at least "By What Standard?" found at freebooks.com). Another great resource, especially on the relation between "theonomy" and "dominon theology" is "Heaven on Earth?" I can't remember the author, but it is a doctoral dissertation that is very helpful in this discussion.

Yes, cruise www.cmfnow.com and www.freebooks.com, especially North's "Victims Rights" if you are discussing capital punishment.

Hope that helps,
openairboy

Joshua, I'm just getting into studying this topic myself, but I'll try to answer your questions the best I can from what I've learned.

As to the difference between theonomy and Dominionism, the former is basically the belief that Old Testament moral and judicial laws that were not abrogated in the New Testament are the only viable standard for laws in our day as well. The latter, also known as Christian Reconstructionism, is basically a worldview that includes five pillars: theonomy, Calvinism, Covenant Theology, presuppositionalism and Postmillennialism. It's more defined than is theonomy in general.

For books or articles, do a search for anything by Greg Bahnsen, Ken Gentry or Gary North. There are also many, many hours of lectures on theonomy by Bahnsen available for extremely cheap download prices ($1.99 per 1+ hour file) at Covenant Media Foundation's site.

__________________
Chris


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

Visit My Website Here

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

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

I'd like to pin down the origin of the theonomic movement. Who "invented" theonomy? Was it Rushdoony? I know that Van Til repudiated the theonomic teachings of Rushdoony and North, his pupils, though they give him some credit. Further, I know that many theonomists will argue that George Gillespie and John Cotton were theonomists, and that the Westminster Confession of Faith is theonomic, all of which I would strongly disagree with. The view that the moral law of God (ie., Ten Commandments) should be enforced by the civil magistrate, which is a view I hold, and find in the WCF and all the Reformed Confessions, is not the same thing as theonomy as it is understood today. I find theonomy to be a modern 20th-century reaction to evangelical anti-nomianism, not a historic Reformed view of civil government. It is not sufficient to say that theonomy is simply "God's law." The WCF has a distinct teaching about the judicial law of Israel which "expired" with that state except for the "general equity" thereof. I dare say that the Divines did not have the same thing in mind as Rushdoony, North or Bahsen.

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

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

I'll leave others to debate the ins-and-outs of the Westminster Divines and whether some of them held to a theonomic view or not. The roots of the modern reconstruction movement can definitely be found in Rushdoony's "Institutes" and Bahnsen's "Theonomy in Christian Ethics". Yes, to my knowledge Van Til repudiate modern reconstruction movement, but the Reconstructionist simply asks, "By what standard?" If you accept Van Til's apologetic and you repudiate all non-believing epistemologies you are left with a vacuum when discussing law, economics, education, etc., so the Reconstructionists picked up on Van Til's apologetic and began to develop it into other areas, namely the political realm. Now, I envision a "theocracy", but not as it is expressed by Bahnsen, but I don't think that Bahnsen and I are that far apart. I guess I would be closer to Gary North, because he has done more work with the actual OT laws than Bahnsen where Bahnsen developed the basic paradigm and vindication of God's law.

North's book Victim's Rights is worth reading, because, I believe, it sets forth the Reconstructionist position quite well in a practical fashion. The whole "stoning" bit may not be the direct application, but I think he is thinking in the right direction.

openairboy

[Edited on 26-10-2004 by openairboy]

I like Chris' summary. There are a lot of fine points that lead to such a brief yet accurate description.

As to that which Chris calls Christian Reconstructionism, which is defined by Theonomic ethic, Calvinistic soteriology, Presuppositional apologetic, Postmillennial eshatology, and Dominion Theology (actually), is a lot different than what some others call Christian Reconstruction. But either way it is very difficult to separate Theonomy from Christian Reconstruction.

One should make a note of one thing in particular, even if you miss everything else, and that is that NONE of the "five pillars" of that form of Reconstructionism is within the realm of the church to decide upon as to binding the conscience. One may think that Calvinistic soteriology, at least, would be ruled as binding upon the church, but one has to be careful here to distinguish between Biblical teaching which falls into the category of Calvinistic theology and Calvinistic theology as a system. The church may and ought to bind the conscience as to Biblical teaching, and that alone, but should refran from directly imposing Calvinism as a system of theology.

Dominion Theology, I believe, can be refuted, or at best is questionable, since it requires a Postmillennial eschatology. The dominion referred to is the One Thousand Year reign to be realized in this present or future historical setting.

At any rate, my point is this: if those principles upon which that form of Christian Reconstructionism stands, namely the five-pillar form, are adiaphora, then it is one 'ism' that the church may not impose upon any congregation, as she has no authority from Scripture to do so. A church that imposes it is, in fact, imposing man's doctrines.

The question that remains is may this form of theonomy may be rescued by eliminating as unnecessary those principles that cannot be proven from Scripture, such as Postmillennialism and Presuppositionalism? Does one really need to be Postmil or Presup in order to be a Reconstructionist of this kind? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that either of the two are unbiblical or erroneous. That would be to make the same mistake. The fact is that these things we will not know for certain until after the fact, and so we may not rule out the other Reformed positions just because we personally are convinced of one of them. So a church may not bind the conscience on these matters beyond that which Scripture says. Once one properly understands what we mean by Calvinistic soteriology, and don't confuse that with Biblical soteriology, (I am meaning the use of terms here), then one readily enough sees that this form of Reconstructionism is actually trying to either bind the conscience or reveal the secret things of Scripture. One needs to see this.

That leaves, as I believe, that form of Christian Reconstruction that is merely another term for Theonomy. And here too, we need to take the same care. If, as a movement, its goal is to explore and call for the implementation of Biblical morality upon our culture, then it is a welcome effort. If it seeks to impose a view of Church/State relationship that is not ruled upon by any church, then it is a usurpation of office. The history of both the Belgic Confession and the Westminster Confession show that the Reformed church were careful about this relationship, and churches/denominations have been very careful to toe the line on it. For the most part churches/denominations have respected the fact that the articles on the magistracy were culturally formed, and did not anticipate modern forms of civil government, while yet respecting the fine relationship between the call of the gospel to all people and the binding nature of God's law. The law by itself knows nothing of grace without the gospel, and neither does grace know anything of moral law without the law of God; these require equal respect. To say it in a different way: ignoring the one for the other, however slightly, ignores both.

I just thought I would weigh in on this with my two cents. I have a personal story of how grace allowed a greater adherence to the law than mere legal observance. I may post it sometime.

__________________
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

Well said!

It sure would be nice if I could take credit for it. I think it originates with Augustine, if I''m not mistaken. Isn't it strange that he advocates memorizing statements like that, yet says nothing about memorizing bibliographies?

You're in luck! Check out this thread for a great deal for your research. http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/vi...d.php?tid=6458
It's Bahnsen's book: Theonomy in Christian Ethics. When the faculty wanted a position to refute in their book: Theonomy a Reformed Critique they took aim at this one. So did Meredith Kline in his article. This was Dr. Bahnsens master's thesis that sparked the debate. The great thing about this book is the mp3's that come with it. Enjoy!

Here is a link to an excellent, quick summary of Theonomy from the OPC's Ordained Servant magazine:

http://www.opc.org/OS/pdf/OSV4N2.pdf

Go to page #28 of the issue (the article is written by Rev. John Haverland.)

__________________
_Adam_McMurry,_RE
Grace_PCA_
St._Charles, MO_

I read Pastor Haverland's article with great interest. It shows that Rushdoony is the father of the theonomic movement, which has been my understanding, and which confirms to me that this movement is not historically or theologically consistent with the views of the Reformers, Puritans or Covenanters, although all of whom did hold to the position that civil magistrates should uphold the entire Decalogue.

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. XIX.IV:
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Sec. 14:
Cornelius Van Til, From a letter to Gregg Singer, May 11, 1972, in Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), p. 133n.:

Andrew, I'm not on either side of the fence yet, but I've read enough articles and debates on the issue to know that it is not that easy to simply say that the Reformers, and especially the Westminster Divines, were anti-theonomic. It is very possible to see the WCF as being sympathetic to--and even insistent on, depending on who you ask--theonomy. In fact, I've heard that Kline conceded that the WCF was theonomic in a debate with Bahnsen. Furthermore, there are many people who argue for theonomy in Calvin's thought, as he at the very least had theonomic tendencies, even if he was not a full-fledged theonomist. Again, I don't consider myself on either side of the fence yet, but I'm just clarifying this because what I have read lets me know that your post's claims are debatable at the very least.

In one of Bahnsen's lectures on Calvin's Institutes, he referred to Calvin, not as "Theonomic," but "Proto-Theonomic."

Joshua,

Here are some additional resourses regarding Theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism.

http://www.spindleworks.com/library/aasman/theonomy.htm

http://www.rbvincent.com/BibleStudies/Freekirk.htm

http://www.providencepca.com/essays/theonomy.html

Hope these help.

__________________
~Wayne Wylie~
Member, Mid Cities Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Ruling Elder - Inactive
http://www.mcopc.org
Bedford, TX

Job 28:28 - And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

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

Chris,

I would be happy for theonomists to interact with the quotes I have provided. The article referred to earlier claims that Rushdoony is the father of the theonomic movement and I think that is accurate. If he is the father, that dates the origin of the movement to the 20th century. The quotes I provided I think at least put theonomists who claim they are somehow carrying the mantle of Reformers or Westminster Divines on the defensive. If not, I am open to hearing why not. If theonomy is part of the historic mainstream of Reformed theology, why was it not articulated until Rushdoony arrived on the scene? Why did Van Til repudiate it? Why does Calvin argue against it? Why does the WCF use the word "expire" in relation to the judicial law of Israel? Why have Reformed theologians consistently argued over the centuries that only the moral law of God (and not the judicial or ceremonial) is still binding today? My argument, of course, is based on church history. Theonomy is a new 20th century movement. It does not necessarily follow that it is unscriptural, but if it contradicts the plain statements of Reformed theologians and confessions from the Reformation era and comes from Rushdoony and not Calvin, I am automatically suspect. I think the burden of proof to show that theonomy is somehow a "rediscovery" of the Biblical principle of civil government that has eluded Reformed theologians for centuries is on theonomists and I have yet to find any who can make a reasonable historical Biblical argument that this is so. I would be glad to hear a response from a theonomist that addresses these quotes or my argument from history in such a way as justifies theonomy. It is much easier in today's Reformed community to hold to theonomy, I have found, than the view I hold to which is the historic Covenanter position, but just because a view is new and popular does not make it right.

With the WCF, from what I've read, it's all in the interpretation of "general equity." And as far as it being new to the 20th century, the term "theonomy" is new, and even its beliefs being compiled together in such a systematic way is arguably new as well. That does not automatically mean, however, that the ideas themselves are new in Reformed Christendom. See this article, as it provides some resources for more historical and confessional analysis on the issue.

Chris, I have read the article and remain unconvinced that there is historical, let alone Biblical, warrant for viewing the theonomic movement as being within mainstream Reformed theology.

I would like to hear views in response to the article referenced below which addresses whether the WCF is theonomic or not.

http://www.providencepca.com/essays/theonomy.html

I haven't even decided yet whether I agree with theonomy or whether I think Westminster does. So for that reason, I can't really argue for either side with too much strength or force at this point, since I have yet to study the arguments. Furthermore, there is no reason for me to want to yet, since I'm not sure myself. The reason I said what I did above is because I did want to clarify, however, that there are definitely two sides to the issue of theonomy's historic and confessional status. I'll read the article you linked.

[Edited on 26-10-2004 by Me Died Blue]

I would welcome your thoughts and those of others who may wish to read the article.