A premil person would say God forcing the nations to obey Him, as in the Messianic Kingdom Age of Jesus would have Him as King over the Earth. Without God causing that to come to pass directly, how would nations obey God here and now then?
What are the best resources on theonomy?
- Thread starter mrhartley85
- Start date
- Status
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
I can think of several easy responses:
1) Lots of people get converted in small nations. This happened in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Netherlands, South Africa, Hungary,, etc.
2) God causes all conversions, whether individual or social, so I am not seeing why that is a problem.
3) There is no logical contradiction between the following two statements:
3*) The world can generally be getting worse
3') Some nations get saved
If someone says there is a contradiction, then he or she needs to demonstrate it.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
I would second this approach. When the word "theonomy" comes up in discussion too many people shoot from the "unconfessional" gun before asking questions. If all someone means by theonomy is emphasising the common or general equity of the Mosaic judicial laws, then such an approach is confessional. If, however, someone advocates what we find in R. J. Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law, then such an approach is unconfessional.
As for Greg Bahnsen's Theonomy in Christian Ethics, which I read three times, I consider it to be a well-meaning, but clumsy attempt to get back to a more confessional outlook. Its conclusions are not so much wrong as over-simplified.
I have never heard this term used before, as was not used in Baptist circles, but have seen it come up quit a bit in reformed circles.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Another problem in the whole discussion was that "general equity" was kind of a wax nose. Most of the people, pro and con, probably didn't grasp what equity in ethics, or justice in general, really was.
General equity clearly rebutted Bahnsen, as the whole point of equity is that the law doesn't apply in exhaustive detail.
Nevertheless, I have a hard time thinking that the Divines would have had the "principled pluralism" of Westminster Seminary in mind when they wrote general equity. The Covenanter Richard Cameron said that "the gates of Rome will burn" and that "the throne of Britain will fall" and he held to general equity.
As documented by one astute blogger:
I will tell you, the most part of the land cry out, We will have no other king but Caesar – no other king but king Charles. But we must cry we will have no other king but Christ. What is that? Say ye, Are ye all against monarchy and civil Government? We are much taken up with that, if God let pure government be established, that is most for the good and advantage of civil and ecclesiastical society. But we set up kings and princes, but not by Him. If you would have Him be for you ye must cut off this king, and these princes, and make able men be your rulers, endued with suitable qualifications both of body and mind, that may employ their power for the cause and interest of God. […] Our Lord will set up other magistrates according to His promise: “And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and queens thy nursing mothers.” And who knows but God will make out that yet? “And their nobles shall be of themselves, and their governor shall proceed from the midst of them.” Indeed by governor we principally understand our Lord Jesus Christ. But when He turns back the captivity of His Church and people, none shall be governors but such as shall be for Him, at least by profession.
Richard Cameron, ‘Sermon on Hosea 13:9-10 (1680)′ in Sermons in times of persecution in Scotland, by sufferers for the royal prerogatives of Jesus Christ, ed. James Kerr (Edinburgh, 1880), pp 413-14.
General equity clearly rebutted Bahnsen, as the whole point of equity is that the law doesn't apply in exhaustive detail.
Nevertheless, I have a hard time thinking that the Divines would have had the "principled pluralism" of Westminster Seminary in mind when they wrote general equity. The Covenanter Richard Cameron said that "the gates of Rome will burn" and that "the throne of Britain will fall" and he held to general equity.
As documented by one astute blogger:
I will tell you, the most part of the land cry out, We will have no other king but Caesar – no other king but king Charles. But we must cry we will have no other king but Christ. What is that? Say ye, Are ye all against monarchy and civil Government? We are much taken up with that, if God let pure government be established, that is most for the good and advantage of civil and ecclesiastical society. But we set up kings and princes, but not by Him. If you would have Him be for you ye must cut off this king, and these princes, and make able men be your rulers, endued with suitable qualifications both of body and mind, that may employ their power for the cause and interest of God. […] Our Lord will set up other magistrates according to His promise: “And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and queens thy nursing mothers.” And who knows but God will make out that yet? “And their nobles shall be of themselves, and their governor shall proceed from the midst of them.” Indeed by governor we principally understand our Lord Jesus Christ. But when He turns back the captivity of His Church and people, none shall be governors but such as shall be for Him, at least by profession.
Richard Cameron, ‘Sermon on Hosea 13:9-10 (1680)′ in Sermons in times of persecution in Scotland, by sufferers for the royal prerogatives of Jesus Christ, ed. James Kerr (Edinburgh, 1880), pp 413-14.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
I agree at face-value, but the problem is that the whole notion of "the law of God in exhaustive detail" died the death of so many qualifications that, in practice, it had to revert to general equity in order to avoid many absurdities. That is why I say that Dr Bahnsen's thesis is clumsy, as opposed to fundamentally wrong. He would have avoided much confusion had he simply argued for theonomy from the 3-fold division of the law, which recognises a distinction between laws of common and particular equity.
The concept of general equity, however, is itself destructive to the whole idea of regulative principle of civil government. For it to mean anything, it has to mean that the state is authorised to do more than what is literally recorded in scripture.
I had intended to go back to updating the blog regularly but health problems since August have led to me putting that idea on the back-burner. That does not make a lot of sense, as I still post stuff on Facebook regularly.
Last edited:
mrhartley85
Puritan Board Freshman
What books do you recommend to learn more about the establishmentarian view?
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Graduate
Hi Jordan,
Most of what I have learned was taught to me by a scholarly Church historian. I will get a bibliography together on Monday (or as soon as I can) if I can get in touch with my friend.
In the meantime, I have uploaded a PDF of chapter 8 of James Bannerman's book, The Church of Christ. The chapter is titled, The Church in its Relation to the State. I also included the Title page, Editor's Preface, Table of Contents, and Introduction in case you are unfamiliar with this work. This should get you started.
Ed
Oops. The board website said the file is too big (3.3MG) to upload, so here's a link to my website where you can download the PDF.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Per the "think-tanks" and publishers, modern theonomy is down for the count. It's finished. American Vision is more interested in publishing books blaming white people for everything. The leaders of Chalcedon think the sun moves around the earth (seriously). And their Faith for All of Life articles are basically blasting the state for health care.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
I'll butt my head in here:
Christ is Mediatorial King, sovereign over all right now. Further, I agree with those who've talked about the use of general equity (the Presbyterians at least). But I have no resources to help you but the book Messiah the Prince by William Symington (for the topic of Christ being King over all (see the book of Daniel)). This then has profound impact on one's view of the law, the Kingdom, and eschatology.
Eph 1:19 ...according to the working of his great might Eph 1:20 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, Eph 1:21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. Eph 1:22 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, Eph 1:23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.
Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against his Anointed...Psa 2:7 I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Psa 2:8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. Psa 2:9 You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.” Psa 2:10 Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Psa 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Psa 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
Christ is Mediatorial King, sovereign over all right now. Further, I agree with those who've talked about the use of general equity (the Presbyterians at least). But I have no resources to help you but the book Messiah the Prince by William Symington (for the topic of Christ being King over all (see the book of Daniel)). This then has profound impact on one's view of the law, the Kingdom, and eschatology.
Eph 1:19 ...according to the working of his great might Eph 1:20 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, Eph 1:21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. Eph 1:22 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, Eph 1:23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.
Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against his Anointed...Psa 2:7 I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Psa 2:8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. Psa 2:9 You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.” Psa 2:10 Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Psa 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Psa 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
ZackF
Puritan Board Doctor
Seriously? Wouldn’t figure Demar for an SJW. Do you have a reference?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Demar has stepped down. It's McDurmon's show now.
Why is McDurmon SJW? I don't follow the Theonomists but I saw folks note he had written some things against kinists and those opposed to interracial marriage and took some heat for it.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
He has gotten on the anti-slavery kick. That's fine by itself but every post looks like virtue signalling. We tried to press him on whether he believed that whitey should pay reparations. He didn't give a straight answer.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
And McDurmon has re-written the theonomic position on penalogy. It's all cherem now and the magistrate shouldn't punish a host of crimes that theonomists normally said the magistrate should punish.
ZackF
Puritan Board Doctor
So he’s not a theonomist anymore yet hasn’t formally distanced himself from the movement.
Who is we? This sounds like some kind of personal engagement. So this is hyperbole? Others may read it as a smear. I'm not sure it stands 9th command scrutiny Jacob.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
I know it will upset some people, but I have to agree with William Symington et al. on this issue. Their view, as opposed to that of George Gillespie et al., is the one that conforms most closely to scripture, though the Westminster Confession does not demand that we adhere to either position. Either way, the dispute over mediatorial kingship is a useful corrective to certain who try to argue for an apostolic succession between themselves and the early Covenanters.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Me and some others in personal conversation on facebook. But if I've caused offense, I retract. I haven't said anything untrue, but I will drop it.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
https://americanvision.org/15716/wilson-vs-mcdurmon-on-homosexuality-and-the-death-penalty/
https://chalcedon.edu/magazine/the-...eview-of-dr-joel-mcdurmons-the-bounds-of-love
https://theonomyresources.blogspot.com/2017/01/brian-schwertleys-critique-of-joel.html
https://theonomyresources.blogspot.com/2018/01/spirit-of-law-critique-of-dr-joel.html
Not only has he moved beyond theonomy, his position is softer than what the Establishmentarian position called for.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Actually, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. He calls for reparations:
https://americanvision.org/13898/the-race-issue-why-i-am-doing-this/
Admittedly, it's a tame version of reparations. He isn't saying, "Pay up until I say you have had enough." But it is still reparations.
I'm not offended; I don't know the man or even his views other than he was a theonomist of some sort and apparently is not one any more. It just seems to be a smear or hyperpole given positions you disagree with, and all he is saying is the topic should be on the table for discussion. Or maybe I don't understand the SJW term. To me it carries the baggage of what is going on in the PCA as that is the only context I am familiar with. So the label puts him in the category of Jun, Higgins, etc.
TheOldCourse
Puritan Board Sophomore
Why would it upset some people? The RP/Cameronian position is well-known and respected around here as one that is within the bounds of Confessional orthodoxy. It may be wrong (I say with tongue-in-cheek as one of Seceder convictions
) and not the view of the mainstream of Scottish Presbyterians divines, but it is worlds better than most of the modern deviations from orthodox establishmentarianism. By all means, let the blue banner continue to fly!
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
That seems about accurate. I would put him in the category of Jun et al. I don't know how I am smearing him, since he owned up to reparations (if only in a very nuanced form). He wants to steal money and give it to others. He admits in his article that it is, and here I quote, "the very socialism I decry."
So SJWs acknowledge socialism should be decried? I am going to presume his position on this is nuanced and not going to get resolved in a rabbit trail on a discussion thread. I'm off to evening worship.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Back to the topic at hand--and I realize I participated in the distraction--I think back in the day a lot of us theonomists would have been okay with natural law/equity/ius gentium if the current proponents of it (Geisler, Kreeft, etc) weren't positing some neutral realm where everyone looks at a squirrel and then comes up with just penal sanctions.
Even the Thomists favorite Thomist, Thomas Aquinas himself, had a fairly robust view of natural law (heretics punished, etc.).
Even the Thomists favorite Thomist, Thomas Aquinas himself, had a fairly robust view of natural law (heretics punished, etc.).
D
Deleted member 6112
Guest
Here's a good four-part series of addresses on the issue. It's the best introduction I know of: Gavin Beers - National Religion
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Some reject it because they fear it leads to Erastianism. I agree that Erastians could appropriate it for their purposes, but would argue that the idea is not inherently Erastian.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Here is a taxonomy of modern theonomy groups and circles:
(1) Rushdoony's immediate disciples. This would be the editorial board of Faith for all of Life. There is a temptation there to focus on all the minor issues (statist healthcare, geocentrism, etc). There is also a tendency to exegete Matthew 16 as saying, "Upon this rock I will build my parachurch."
(2) The Tyler School. This was Gary North's group. To their credit they focused on the church, but there are a lot of horror stories. It kind of fettered out when Chilton apostatized and Sutton went Episcopal.
(3) The Gentry-Bahnsen group. In general they stayed within the good graces and fellowship of a legitimate church. Unfortunately, Bahnsen's otherwise outstanding tape ministry is tied to Booth and the Federal Vision.
(4) American Vision. It's been sinking fast since Demar stepped down. In 5 years it won't be theonomic at all.
(1) Rushdoony's immediate disciples. This would be the editorial board of Faith for all of Life. There is a temptation there to focus on all the minor issues (statist healthcare, geocentrism, etc). There is also a tendency to exegete Matthew 16 as saying, "Upon this rock I will build my parachurch."
(2) The Tyler School. This was Gary North's group. To their credit they focused on the church, but there are a lot of horror stories. It kind of fettered out when Chilton apostatized and Sutton went Episcopal.
(3) The Gentry-Bahnsen group. In general they stayed within the good graces and fellowship of a legitimate church. Unfortunately, Bahnsen's otherwise outstanding tape ministry is tied to Booth and the Federal Vision.
(4) American Vision. It's been sinking fast since Demar stepped down. In 5 years it won't be theonomic at all.
D
Deleted member 6112
Guest
Several of the Tylerite distinctives live on in the Federal Vision movement (the 'FV Dark' folks, in particular). They are all disciples of James Jordan.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
