What's a Theonomist?

TimV · #1 (**permalink**) 06-15-2009, 10:12 AM

Well, there isn't an easy answer. But, there are a few things we can say about it. One, orthodox Reformed churches like the PCA, OPC, etc.. allow individual Presbyteries to ordain Theonomists.

To me, Theonomy is the answer to the question "By what standard?" I've used this before on the PB, but if the Law says you can't cut down a fruit tree during a time of war, what does that mean? Well, the purpose of Just War is to bring about peace, and if you destroy the means of food production of your enemy, how are peaceful relations to resume if he's hungry and bitter? Should Sherman really have sown fields with salt?

And, if the VC were hiding in banana plantations, weren't there better ways than Agent Orange to defeat him?

So, ask yourself whether the Law against destroying fruit trees during a time of war had as it's primary reason for being some sort of figure of Christ or the Church, or if it was really, in additional to a spiritual type or shadow, actual instruction on how we are to live our lives.

OPC'n · #2 (**permalink**) 06-15-2009, 10:18 AM

Hmmmmm, I think I'm going to have to read the link someone sent me on this subject

. Surely all this excitement can't be over cutting down trees during war!

Seriously, thanks for starting the thread....I enjoy learning new things and I'm sure there's lot of PB'ers who will add to this thread.

Puritan Sailor · #3 (**permalink**) 06-15-2009, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimV

Well, there isn't an easy answer. But, there are a few things we can say about it. One, orthodox Reformed churches like the PCA, OPC, etc.. allow individual Presbyteries to ordain Theonomists.

To me, Theonomy is the answer to the question "By what standard?" I've used this before on the PB, but if the Law says you can't cut down a fruit tree during a time of war, what does that mean? Well, the purpose of Just War is to bring about peace, and if you destroy the means of food production of your enemy, how are peaceful relations to resume if he's hungry and bitter? Should Sherman really have sown fields with salt?

And, if the VC were hiding in banana plantations, weren't there better ways than Agent Orange to defeat him?

So, ask yourself whether the Law against destroying fruit trees during a time of war had as it's primary reason for being some sort of figure of Christ or the Church, or if it was really, in additional to a spiritual type or shadow, actual instruction on how we are to live our lives.

It's all a problem of definition.

Strictly speaking, Theonomists are those who believe that the civil penalties of the Mosaic covenant are a pattern for all nations, and must continue today. Some representatives of this school of thought are Rushdoony, North, Bahnsen, and Gentry.

Broadly speaking, most Reformed Christians are theonomists because they reject autonomy. God defines what is right and wrong by his moral law. We don't decide for ourselves. But, many don't believe the civil penalties continue from the Mosaic covenant because they expired with national Israel and the coming of Christ as the mediator of the new covenant, the old covenant is finished. But most do believe that the old covenant civil penalties can teach us about the law and help civil magistrates make informed judgments. The WCF calls this "general equity." Unfortunately, the Reformed world has never been able to agree on the specifics of "general equity."

On the PB over the years many folks have made this distinction by big "T" Theonomists (the strict definition) and the little "t" theonomists (the broad definition).

Hope that helps.

**Prufrock** · #4 (**permalink**) 06-15-2009, 10:33 AM

I personally don't have time to address this at the moment; but a quick answer from the historic Reformed perspective is that the definition provided is far too broad and slightly misleading. General equity affirms showing mercy to the inhabitants of the country of one's enemy; this has nothing to do with Theonomy, strictly speaking.

TimV · #5 (**permalink**) 06-15-2009, 11:11 AM

Quote:

General equity affirms showing mercy to the inhabitants of the country of one's enemy; this has nothing to do with Theonomy, strictly speaking.

Hmmmm...speaking of terms with broad meanings......

larryjf · #6 (**permalink**) 06-15-2009, 12:38 PM

Let's take a closer look at the OP passage...

Deuteronomy 20:19-20 (ESV)
19 “When you besiege a city for a long time, making war against it in order to take it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an axe against them. You may eat from them, but you shall not cut them down. Are the trees in the field human, that they should be besieged by you? 20 Only the trees that you know are not trees for food you may destroy and cut down, that you may build siegeworks against the city that makes war with you, until it falls.

It's man's responsibility to manage the land that God gives to us. It would not be good management of the land that they were conquering to kill all of the fruit trees...not because the enemy could not eat, but because once the city was conquered the Jews could not eat. God was giving them a fruitful land....therefore they were not to destroy the very fruit that God was giving them.

The enemy would not have enjoyed the fruit of the trees since the city spoken of was besieged.

TimV · #7 (**permalink**) 06-15-2009, 01:35 PM

Other translations including the KJV (odd that you would quote the ESV on this given your translation beliefs

) say that the life of the man is in the tree. And in addition, verses 15-18 of chapter 20 are parenthetical in that they deal specifically with the Canaanite genocide.

R Harris · #8 (**permalink**) 07-22-2009, 05:59 PM

I have been amazed over the years at the responses that theonomy brings. Mostly heated emotion on both sides, with a minority of thoughtful discussion.

I struggled with Chris' poll on "are you a theonomist?", because definitions are not standard and there is a broad spectrum of where one might be on the "yes" side.

As an example, I would view myself as a "theoretical theonomist." In other words, when a civil magistrate is debating new legislation or legislation to modify existing law, what is to be the standard by which they determine the moral of ethical issues of the legislation?

Should the civil magistrate consult the Koran? The Hindu Vedas? Buddhist principles? Confucious? Or that great secular wiggly worm called "natural law"? The civil magistrate MUST determine what is authoritative for its reasoning. I believe the Scripture is clear that the civil magistrate should consult it for wisdom and guidance.

Having said that, I do think the Westminster delegates did sort of squirm out of the debate with the non-specific "general equity" clause. I believe their position, which is my position, is that there are no hard and fast rules in Scripture for determining what is continuing and literal and what is optional for progressing cultures.

The really sticky point for me is the issue of sanctions for broken laws. I to this day am not at all clear about the sanctions for homosexuality. I confess I have not read all theonomic works, so perhaps someone can point me to a source or provide me a readers digest view of the matter.

Richard Tallach · #9 (**permalink**) 07-22-2009, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R Harris

I have been amazed over the years at the responses that theonomy brings. Mostly heated emotion on both sides, with a minority of thoughtful discussion.

I struggled with Chris' poll on "are you a theonomist?", because definitions are not standard and there is a broad spectrum of where one might be on the "yes" side.

As an example, I would view myself as a "theoretical theonomist." In other words, when a civil magistrate is debating new legislation or legislation to modify existing law, what is to be the standard by which they determine the moral of ethical issues of the legislation?

Should the civil magistrate consult the Koran? The Hindu Vedas? Buddhist principles? Confucious? Or that great secular wiggly worm called "natural law"? The civil magistrate MUST determine what is authoritative for its reasoning. I believe the Scripture is clear that the civil magistrate should consult it for wisdom and guidance.

Having said that, I do think the Westminster delegates did sort of squirm out of the debate with the non-specific "general equity" clause. I believe their position, which is my position, is that there are no hard and fast rules in Scripture for determining what is continuing and literal and what is optional for progressing cultures.

The really sticky point for me is the issue of sanctions for broken laws. I to this day am not at all clear about the sanctions for homosexuality. I confess I have not read all theonomic works, so perhaps someone can point me to a source or provide me a readers digest view of the matter.

I think the definition of a theonomist is fairly straightforward : they believe all or most of the crimes and penalties of the Mosaic law that can be, should be applied by modern (Christian) governments.

The Westminster Divines were very wise to talk of GE; what is equitable for one situation may not be equitable in another. A system with typological sacrifices, to be properly upheld, needs the death of a person where there is no provision for a sacrificial substitute animal's death, and that person's physical life must be spared if the person has been allowed a sacrificial animal for sin.

Backwoods Presbyterian · #10 (**permalink**) 07-22-2009, 06:37 PM

How about we allow Dr. Greg Bahnsen speak for himself?

What Is "Theonomy"?
By Dr. Greg Bahnsen

BoldBeliever · #11 (**permalink**) 07-23-2009, 09:17 AM

I got involved in the Reconstruction Movement in the 1980s through a believing friend in Baltimore. In retrospect, while the theonomy movement appears to make sense on the first glance, I'm not so sure it's Biblical.

Since Christ has come and died and resurrected and FULFILLED the Law, why do we need to dredge it up again? I believe the Law is God's standard; the Holy Spirit uses the Law written in our hearts to convince us of sin and the need for repentance. The Law to sinners, however, is something to be ignored; by their very nature, they DO ignore it. Since Believers have largely eschewed the idea that we should be in government positions, making laws based on the Law of God, Theonomy is moot. No heathen legislator will consider the Law as anything more than outdated and repressive and unworthy of thought. Christian influence has all but died worldwide, replaced with humanistic Magogism.

Richard Tallach · #12 (**permalink**) 07-24-2009, 09:31 AM

Re fruit trees Christians should be concerned to look after God's world and future generations. Individual Christians up to Christian civil government should be concerned about this.

The Q of global warming depends on the other hand depends on which science/scientists you believe.

As a postmillenialist I believe the earth will get through any environmental crisis/crises and thrive. We should take reasonable precautions with God's creation; things like pollution are often related to Man's sin and fallenness e.g. sheer laziness or disregard for one's fellows can lead to pollution.

Sometimes with the OT laws there is typology (sometimes ceremony), morality and civil practice all rolled into one.

brianeschen · #13 (**permalink**) 07-24-2009, 12:09 PM

Anyone who wants to understand the Westminster understanding of Theonomy needs to read Martin A. Foulner’s book, Theonomy and the Westminster Confession, published in 1997. There are many misrepresentations floating around on these Theonomy threads . . . especially from those that are anti-theonomic.