Thread: Are you a Theonomist?

Would you consider yourself a Theonomist?

Me personally I'm leading in that direction.

Not quite, but I take the "general equity" very seriously.

Agreed, Evie. Whether one considers himself or herself to be a Theonomist, one would do well to adhere to that portion of the WCF.

Personally, because of all the baggage over the term, I prefer to utilize the term "theonomian" instead of "theonomist." Theonomian, mind you, is the opposite of antinomian. I have reliquished copyright on the term and you are all free to us it at will.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

I have reliquished copyright on the term and you are all free to us it at will.

You are too kind, sir.

Truly... madly... deeply.

I won't be offended if anyone here agrees with the "madly" part!

On a more serious note, personally, when it comes down to it, I don't think as Christians we have any choice

God is lawgiver for all men. If some reject that

I classify myself as mildly Theonomic.

Though I wouldn't classify myself as a Reconstructionist, for one, I'm Realized Millenial not Post Mil.

Originally Posted by Ex Nihilo

Not quite, but I take the "general equity" very seriously.

I agree, and by the estimation of MOST Evangelicals, that makes you a Theonomist. Here in the very narrow slice of reality called 'PB', it is another story.

No, no, no, no, no, no...

Aren't the categories "Bahnsen Rocks!" and "It seems logical not sure what the big fuss is…" essentially the same as saying "Yes"? If so, then does that mean that the number of people who voted for Theonomy would not only include those who chose "Yes" but also those who chose those two categories I just mentioned?

Not in a million years but not sure that surprised anyone.

Yes and no. And by that I mean I certainly believe in the binding of God's Moral Law over all of society. I believe what the original WCF teaches concerning the duties of the Magistrate are, etc. I don't necessarily agree that the Judicial Laws given to the Old Testament Nation of Israel are required for today, albeit they are quite informative for instruction and use of the general equity would be wise. I am not a Reconstructionist and am probably Amillenial. So maybe that makes me a little 't'heonomist and not a big 'T'heonomist?

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Agreed, Evie. Whether one considers himself or herself to be a Theonomist, one would do well to adhere to that portion of the WCF.

Personally, because of all the baggage over the term, I prefer to utilize the term "theonomian" instead of "theonomist." Theonomian, mind you, is the opposite of antinomian. I have reliquished copyright on the term and you are all free to us it at will.

or an antiantinomian. a double negative=positive.

Yes, I'm sure everyone on the PB is an antiantinomian!

Regardless, Bahnsen still rocks!

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Yes, I'm sure everyone on the PB is an antiantinomian!

Originally Posted by Chippy

Aren't the categories "Bahnsen Rocks!" and "It seems logical not sure what the big fuss is…" essentially the same as saying "Yes"? If so, then does that mean that the number of people who voted for Theonomy would not only include those who chose "Yes" but also those who chose those two categories I just mentioned?

Give that man a cigar!

I consider myself theonomic...but many theonomists would not since I don't walk lock-step with certain economic principles (i.e. Austrian school), I believe in the Lord's Day and that the 2nd commandment forbids images of Christ (for some reason, many theonomists reject these items).

I would be surprised if many who are saying they are not actually know what a "Theonomist" believes concerning the Law of God, especially given the fact that it is Righteous and Good.

theonomist, yes.

Theonomist, no.

I understand the view quite well.

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

I would be surprised if many who are saying they are not actually know what a "Theonomist" believes concerning the Law of God, especially given the fact that it is Righteous and Good.

No I'm very well studied in Theonomy as a former Theonomist having read Rushdoony's Institutes, Bahnsen, and many other Theonomist writings. So I think I'm qualified to answer in the negative with a clear conscience and comprehension of what is being asked.

Something tells me the Law of God forum is going to go the way of the EP forum here pretty soon...

I'm sympathetic to Theonomy but not nearly as over-the-top as my Purdiestness is.

Theognome

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Something tells me the Law of God forum is going to go the way of the EP forum here pretty soon...

I keep coming back to this thread to see when the awkward smiling stops and the guns start a-blazin'!

*Note: I'm not interested in a fight beginning...nor am I encouraging it...it's just that's where most theonomy/EP threads end up.

ADMIN NOTICE:

Folks, this is not a knock-down-dragout-fight between Theonomists, Theodidacists, and others. Just answer the question. There are some statements that just aren't helpful. Please try to be as charitable as possible on the one hand, and as non-defensive as possible on the other.

Thank you.

A couple of non-relevant, misleading, and unhelpful posts have been deleted from this thread. Please take the advice given above.

Originally Posted by Joshua

A couple of non-relevant, misleading, and unhelpful posts have been deleted from this thread. Please take the advice given above.

UHmm, was that me? I thought that I was very helpful.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Originally Posted by Joshua

A couple of non-relevant, misleading, and unhelpful posts have been deleted from this thread. Please take the advice given above.

UHmm, was that me? I thought that I was very helpful.

I'll never tell!

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

theonomist, yes.

Theonomist, no.

I understand the view quite well.

This is where I stand as well.

Originally Posted by Blue Tick

Would you consider yourself a Theonomist?

Me personally I'm leading in that direction.

Sinds my view has been changed towards the moral law as being the rule of life for the christian iam leading towards being a theonomist, with the exception that iam a convince non-sabbatherian (believe that the Lord's day is not the sabbath) and iam in line with Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669). John Gill (1697 –1771) and Jay E. Adams. I hold to a christian theocracy form goverment.

Originally Posted by D. Paul

Regardless, Bahnsen still rocks!

I selected "Bahnsen rocks" and "I'm working through the issue." Add me to those who take the General Equity seriously.

I am a Theonomist who believes in natural law.

CT

I agree with Fred Greco. God's law is for everyone. And I also take General Equity seriously. Therefore I am a little t theonomist, because there is no other standard.

However, we MUST understand general equity correctly, lest we merge the civil sword with ecclesiastical discipline, as did some of the Reformers.

Here is a good summary of the Apostle Paul's use of General Equity, which should guide how we interpret OT law verses:

John Frame has noted that the New Testament church "fulfills the Old Testament theocracy" (Barker 1990, 95). In applying the Old Testament laws to the church, Paul did not apply them exactly as they were applied in the Old Testament. For instance, In 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, Paul addresses a situation where a man is living with his father's wife. According to Old Testament law, the man and the woman should receive capital punishment (Leviticus 20:10). However, this was not recommended by Paul. Rather, the proper punishment of this crime for Paul is excommunication (vv. 2, 13). Furthermore, Paul's statement in verse 13 is a quotation of a formula found in Mosaic penal sanctions (Deut. 17:7, 12; 12:19; 19:21, 21:21; 22:21, 24: 24:7).

Third*Millennium*Ministries


See also: Theonomy, A Reformed Baptist Assessment

No.

While I can see the idealism of it, I do not see the capabilities of the reality without major problems.

I will be taking a class on ethics next and will be required to read Bahnsen's, "Theonomy in Christian Ethics," I will decide then. Right now all I have heard are really bad things but they are examples of extremism from the internet. (At least I hope it is extremism).

-----Added 5/8/2009 at 09:33:23 EST-----

Now I am kind of wondering if it isn't like spiritual gifts in the NT. It was appropriate for that time for the of building up the church but has since fallen out of use because they are no longer necessary. Likewise, these laws were necessary for the building upof a godly nation and are now no longer necessary because we have the church.
Now we are living in an age where the law is written on our hearts, whereas it was not then.

I love God and think that if He says His Law is perfect then it is incumbent for me to think they are perfect. That is why I am a Theonomist.

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

theonomist, yes.

Theonomist, no.

Says it well.

Theonomy is to theonomy as Fundamentalism is to fundamentalism. I claim the little letters for both, but gladly take the Big R for Reformed.

It largely depends on how one defines "theonomist". My own views line up closely with George Gillespie.

No, and I think Bahnsen is vastly overrated as a theologian. I am a recovering Theonomist so I think I understand the position.

I thought Bahnsen was a great man of God, but do not agree with Theonomy.

The judicials should be studied for their general equity, which doesn't mean e.g. the death penalty for flagrant Sabbath breakers, etc. In Old Covenant Israel, those without an animal sacrifice for sin had to be executed. Hebrews 10:26-29 explains something of the antitypical fulfilment of that.