Hi everyone. One area of study that has been seemingly non-existent throughout my short years as a Reformed Christian is theononmic ethics, Christian Reconstructionism, etc. etc. Where would be a good place to start? I know Rush and Bahnsen have some great material. I've also read some Gentry. Nevertheless, I'm aware of the fact that the theonomic views advocated by these particular men differ from each other. What would you recommend that's most consistent with the Confession? Any info would be helpful. Thanks so much!

__________________
Jordan Harris
Dickson City, PA
Faith Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP)
My Blog

The best overview and justification of "the ethical principle of Christian Reconstruction" is Bahnsen's Theonomy in Christian Ethics. It stands far above everything else. For detailed application see Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law vols. 1 and 2. Rush, correctly, in my view denies that Theonomy is consistent with either Calvin or WCF 19:4. Bahnsen attempts to affirm that Theonomy is Confessional, an attempt I find not wholly convincing.

While you are getting acquainted with Theonomy, avoid almost everything by Gary North, until you have mastered the aforesaid Bahnsen and Rush volumes. Then take a look at North's commentary on 1 Timothy which has the most trenchant critique of Bahnsen yet published by a Theonomist. It will puncture any temptation to idolize Bahnsen that you may be feeling at that time, a temptation I am sorry to report that some Theonomists I have encountered show signs of having fallen victim to.

After that read the other side. Probably the best of the available critics are Sinclair Ferguson, An Assembly of Theonomists in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique Robert Godfrey's Calvin and Theonomy in the same volume and Vern Poythress' The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses. Ferguson cogently demonstrates that Bahnsen misreads the Westminster Divines and Godfrey does the same thing for Bahnsen's reading of Calvin. Poythress attempts to apply the Mosaic judicials in a way that is more faithful to the WCF and more sensitive to the differences in the covenants than Bahnsen's Theonomic hermeneutic allows.

For post Theonomic discussion see Christopher HJ Wright Old Testament Ethics for the People of God and Ivanhoe can tell you the name of the corresponding volume by Oliver O'Donovan the name of which now escapes me.

(Note: Bahnsen's exegetical work on the crucial text Matt. 5:17-20 has been relatively ignored in the Reformed discussion of Theonomy. As of this moment, nobody has published a full critique of his work from the Reformed perspective, an ommission I am in the process of rectifying. Watch the board for further announcements.)

__________________
In Christ's love and service

Mr. Tim Cunningham, Dip. CS (Regent College)
Member, First Baptist Church
Vancouver, BC

------------
"The Reformation was a time when men went blind, staggering drunk because they had discovered, in the dusty basement of late medievalism, a whole cellar of 1500-year-old, 200 proof grace—a bottle after bottle of pure distillate of Scripture, one sip of which would convince anyone that God saves us single-handedly. The word of the gospel—after all these centuries of trying to lift yourself into heaven by worrying about the perfection of your own bootstraps—suddenly turned out to be a flat announcement that the saved were home-free before they started. Grace was to be drunk neat: no water, no ice, and certainly no ginger ale." – Robert Farrar Capon

Yeah, he is so faithful to the WCF that he denies the first-table of the law is to be upheld by the civil magistrate.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

FWIW, I agree with Gary North that Bahnsen's exegesis of Matt. 5:17-19 is incomplete. However, I believe that his basic point that the moral law continues in exhaustative detail stands.

Although I do not agree with Dr. North's interpretation of Matt. 19; a minister in the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) rang me asking for help in interpreting this passage, and, in the end, we both rejected Gary North's conclusion.

Did someone mention Rush? Oh, the other Rush. Rushdooney. Here's a good link The Chalcedon Foundation - Faith for All of Life Some of his lectures are there to listen to, and theres a place to sign up for the Faith for All of Life magazine. It's free to us poor folk. Plus in the back, there's a bunch of his and other authors work on Theonomy for sale that doesn't cost an arm and a leg. I love his philosophical work. It explains alot of the presuppositions that go into a world view (which everybody has), and helps to see theonomy in relation to the world. And why we need it.

__________________
Timothy Johnson
First United Presbyterian of Moline
PCUSA (Yea, I know)
Theology/Philosophy Sunday School Teacher
Davenport, IA

Oliver O'Donovan's Desire of the Nations. It doesn't deal with theonomy (O'Donovan has likely never heard of it), but it shows how Christendom developed in the West and is a valid concept today.

TiCE is a good place to start, but not easy reading. Here is a fun and free intro to Christian Reconstructionism:

The Chalcedon Foundation - Faith for All of Life

This is more application that exposition.

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

Jacob, do you not think that Greg Bahnsen places far too much emphasis upon Matt. 5:17-19 in TiCE? Gary North's critique of some aspects of his interpretation surely proves that it is possible to be a Theonomist without embracing every "jot and tittle" of Dr. Bahnsen's interpretation (pun intended).

Yes. I mentioned that in my Chalcedon article. Theonomists need to entirely forget about Matt 5. 1 Timoth 1:8 and Romans 13 are much better.

Although I believe Matt. 5:17-19 teaches that the Moral Law remains in force, and that in extensive detail, it is not the be all and end all of the argument, as other NT passages could well prove that the OT penalties have been abolished.

All good suggestions. I would tell you to check out Theonomy: An Informed Response as well. It pretty much shows how poor and shoddy is Theonomy: A Reformed Critique. Also No Other Standard: Theonomy and Its Critics by Greg L. Bahnsen should be consulted. Ken Gentry has a nice little volume God's Law in the Modern World: The Continuing Relevance of Old Testament Law that I have read recently.

By far the greatest thing I have learned from Theonomic writings is to move me out of the antinomian malaise that is modern Christianity. It gave me a whole new respect for God's Law and the abiding validity thereof. While I have not gone full tilt Theonomist I have a newfound respect both for Paul's understanding of the Law in the New Covenant and how the Case Law works in our lives today. It should not be discarded just because it is difficult and seems antithetical to our modern worldview and makes Pagans and mainline congregants and theologians uncomfortable and look down upon us.

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser
Pittsburgh, PA,
Fairmount ARP Church
Candidate Under Care Pittsburgh Theological Seminary & Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary
"The benefit of deliverance becomes the more precious in the same proportion in which we are brought to apprehend the magnitude of the evil from which we have been rescued"
-- Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism

I do not know if "entirely forget" is entirely correct but certainly place much less emphasis on it in discussion with non-theonomists. 1 Tim 1:3-11 certainly, I think, should be a main passage.

I had kind of gotten the impression that theonomy was evil since I had read people who wanted to put everyone under the strict laws of Deuteronomy. The ones where capital punishment is instituted, even to rebellious children. But I guess there are extremes in everything. All theonomy does not have to go that far to reap good reward from it?

__________________
Erick Bohndorf, Covenant Baptist Church, KS
http://qayaqtraveler.blogspot.com/
The question for us today is, will we be like the majority of Israel and continue to look in fear at the giants in the land and urge our fellow Christians to be "realistic," or will we be like Joshua and Caleb and faithfully follow our king, trusting to fulfill every one of his promises completely?

Don't do it Jordan! You seem like a nice fellow, I would hate to see you change.

__________________
Bob Vigneault (Bawb Vēēn-yo)
"We are God's children and He's the Father of all fathers and we need to obey him." Jean-Baptiste Vigneault (5)

The Heartbeat of Heaven (blog) MySpace (Music), MySpace (Personal)
Member of Christ Presbyterian Church, Janesville, WI OPC www.christ-opc.org

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

Was God being evil in commanding that incorrigible delinquents be executed?

If we can believe in eternal punishment, what is the problem with stoning rebellious sons? Surely the former is far more terrible than the latter.

See this Thread for a discussion on the "Rebellious Children" question.

Also (this is not directed at you Shackleton, but is a overarching comment)

We must remember to try not to libel Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Numbers and/or Exodus because the Laws seem archaic or outside our milieu. They are the expressed Will of our God and are inerrant just as Paul's letters are inerrant. We must be careful not to become functional Marcionites in the way we read the Old Testament.

And as Samuel Rutherford long ago noted, crimes and punishments established by God under Sinai are not necessarily so established for us. If we are to apply the civil laws in the NT (and as Sam makes clear elsewhere, we must do so), then we must be equally careful not to stand on a biblically incorrect justification for our action. In the way some of his contemporaries justified their employment of the Judicials, Rutherford saw the evil hand of the Judaizers:

Samuel Rutherford, Divine Right of Church Government, 1646, pp. 493-494.

(BTW before anybody jumps to the conclusion that I think the Theonomy of Bahnsen etc. is Galatianism revived, I actually dissent from that view since it is predicated on two false assumptions. Bahnsen's justification for his Theonomy is not the one Rutherford here critiques and Rutherford fails to notice that becoming circumcised differs from all other Mosaic stipulations in a key way: becoming circumcised is to enter the Mosaic covenant and putting oneself under its obligations; obeying any stipulation of that covenant under the mistaken belief it remains valid in the New Covenant is not the same thing.)

But Rutherford's basic point, the importance of how we justify using the Mosaic laws today, remains valid. Bahnsen's justification of Theonomic ethics is not that of Scripture, Calvin, the Westminster Divines nor their followers either. As it is unbiblical, we cannot expect God to bless our employment of it, and as unconfessional, we cannot expect to institute it as a Christian axiom without an unnecessary civil war in the churches that will weaken and divide our witness to the world.

He is more faithful to the WCF in the heremenutic he applies, he disagrees with their conclusion in particular cases. The same situation is not unknown among Theonomists, who sharing the same heremeneutic, also disagree in particular cases.

To be fair most modern Theonomists and their opponents are all unconfessional to some degree as they all deny that the state should execute people for heresy.

I guess I am still trying to figure out how it all fits together. When reading about the Preterist view I see that they say the old way of doing things has passed away with the destruction of the Temple.

The Parousia by J. Stewart Russel, under "The Teaching of our Lord Concerning the Parouisia," page 65,
"But there was also to be a glorious change in the world. The old way for the new; the Law was replaced by the Gospel; Moses was superseded by Christ. The narrow and exclusive system which embraced only a single people, was succeeded by a new a better covenant, which embraced the whole family of man, and knew no difference between Jew and gentile, circumcised an uncircumcised. The dispensation of symbols and ceremonies, suited to the childhood of humanity, was merged in an order of things in which religion became a spiritual service, everyplace a temple, every worshiper a priest, and God the universal Father, this was a revolution great or far that any that had occurred in the history of mankind. it made a new world; it was the world to come, ...It is this that gives such significance to the overthrow of the Temple and teh destruction of Jerusalem; these are the outward and visible signs of abrogation of the old order and the introduction of the new.

It seems like the Law leads one to the gospel, and in this present age the ones in the past who were to be stoned, are to be evangelized.

I was under the impression that we are not under the penalty of the Law but that the Law leads one to the Gospel. The Law is a moral standard but the judgment for the Law was paid for by Christ. The old system of the Jews and the Old Covenant with the penalty of the Law, ceremonies, Holy Days etc, was done away with by the destruction of the Temple, which also ushe