Am I Being Too Theonomic?

[rjlynam]

I experienced an issue recently that left me very very unsettled. It was a letter I received from someone explaining their position on something in response to a position I had just enumerated to them. In addition to prayer, I took the following approach to dealing with it based on the following premise:

Premise:

"If we are believers, then we have the Holy Spirit in us. If we, who have the Holy Spirit within us, are unsettled by something, it most likely is the result of sin, either on our part, or someone elses.

Approach:

Because I was very unsettled by this letter, I went and looked for sin, first inwardly, then elsewhere. Well, to be honest, most of time the looking is outward first. I read and re-read the letter and asked myself "why does this leave such a burr in the saddle?" and "why is my position so much superior (if indeed it is) that it's worth making an issue of it?".

Next, I did what I like to think I always do, and that's to hold the conflicting sides up to the Law and look for violations.

If I find no violations in either position, then I ask myself, "Self, is this a problem of your own making?" to which, most of the time, the answer has been "Yes, it is", either because they looked at me wrong some time ago, I don't agree with them on such and such points elsewhere, etc., etc., ad nauseam. This is where most issues get settled and I find myself needing to repent of wrong motives on my part.

If, however, I find violations in the Law, either on my part or another's, then a need for reconciliation exists.

My question(s):

1. Is this a valid approach to addressing issues that unsettle me? And why or why not?

 

[Zenas]

Can one be too theonomic?

 

[larryjf]

It's been my understanding that non-theonomic and theonomic sides both look to the Law of God as being normative in our lives. The theonomic side goes further and looks at the application of the Law to also be normative.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

Is face to face communication not possible with the other individual? Is it possible that the "burr" is some type of personality conflict that could be resolved by an open and honest face to face conversation?

The law was given that we might know what sin is, so that part of your approach would be biblical. But we are also commanded to do all things in love, especially as regards our brothers in Christ.

[bible]Galatians 6:1-10[/bible]

As to your approach being too theonomic, I don't think so. At least as far as I understand your method and its application.

Blessings,

 

[Christusregnat]

A quick question: Do you mean, am I being too scrupulous or theonomic? Theonomists (at least the WCF sort) will acknowledge that the law is restrictive where it needs to be, and libertarian where it needs to be. In other words, knowing and applying what the law actually says frees one from false laws. This is a major concern for theonomists.

Being over-scrupulous, however, is a non-theonomic position, because it is based on man-made laws.

Cheers,

Adam

Law, either on my part or another's, then a need for reconciliation exists.

My question(s):

1. Is this a valid approach to addressing issues that unsettle me? And why or why not?

 

[rjlynam]

Is face to face communication not possible with the other individual?

Yes, it's possible. But it didn't happen that way.

Is it possible that the "burr" is some type of personality conflict that could be resolved by an open and honest face to face conversation?

Certainly, but again, it didn't happen that way. However, if the same thing was communicated in such a venue as you pose and I have the same unsettled feeling, personalities aside, would my approach still be valid?

James 5:19-20 NKJV
(19) Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back,
(20) let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.

 

[rjlynam]

A quick question: Do you mean, am I being too scrupulous or theonomic? Theonomists (at least the WCF sort) will acknowledge that the law is restrictive where it needs to be, and libertarian where it needs to be. In other words, knowing and applying what the law actually says frees one from false laws. This is a major concern for theonomists.

Being over-scrupulous, however, is a non-theonomic position, because it is based on man-made laws.

Cheers,

Adam

I guess that's near the mark. But, you hear this "ah, let it go" and I assent to such alot of the time. But I guess it really gets down to being "unsettled" and how to validate whether I have cause to be unsettled (not right with).

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

Is face to face communication not possible with the other individual?

Yes, it's possible. But it didn't happen that way.

Is it possible that the "burr" is some type of personality conflict that could be resolved by an open and honest face to face conversation?

Certainly, but again, it didn't happen that way. However, if the same thing was communicated in such a venue as you pose and I have the same unsettled feeling, personalities aside, would my approach still be valid?

James 5:19-20 NKJV
(19) Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back,
(20) let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.

Yes, I believe it is valid in as far as you are faithful to apply God's Word to the situation. But if there are no clear sins on either party's part, it is my experience that sometimes "unsettled feelings" are just that, feelings. God's Word is given to us as propositional truth to be the standard by which we measure all things. If there is clear violation of God's Law then confrontation is necessary and reconciliation needs to be sought. If it is nothing more than a feeling then it may be best to let love cover the situation (1 Peter 1:8). But if it is something you cannot get past then it must be dealt with even if it takes a while to uncover the real issue.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

A quick question: Do you mean, am I being too scrupulous or theonomic? Theonomists (at least the WCF sort) will acknowledge that the law is restrictive where it needs to be, and libertarian where it needs to be. In other words, knowing and applying what the law actually says frees one from false laws. This is a major concern for theonomists.

Being over-scrupulous, however, is a non-theonomic position, because it is based on man-made laws.

Cheers,

Adam

I guess that's near the mark. But, you hear this "ah, let it go" and I assent to such alot of the time. But I guess it really gets down to being "unsettled" and how to validate whether I have cause to be unsettled (not right with).

Do you not understand his motives or the nature of his disagreement? Perhaps if you clarified the disagreement you would not be so unsettled either way. Many times we mull over something too much because we are trying to figure out why someone disagrees with us and why they brought it up when they did, too often assuming things rather than going straight to them for clarification.

 

[davidsuggs]

I would agree with Zenas, can one be too theonomic? But also, I would see it important to emphasize that there is never any reassurance from looking inward. All you will find is more stuff to feel bad about. Morbid introspectionism only leads to more doubt. Contrarily, the assurance comes from looking to Christ. Keep your eyes on the goal and you will not worry as much about the little obstacles in the way. The elect will persevere, that is what God has ordained. The Holy Spirit is within us but that does not necessarily signify that whatever unsettles us is sin. Our sinful bodies, which we still reside in, being worldly, will be unsettled by spiritual things within us, especially sanctification.

 

[rjlynam]

A quick question: Do you mean, am I being too scrupulous or theonomic? Theonomists (at least the WCF sort) will acknowledge that the law is restrictive where it needs to be, and libertarian where it needs to be. In other words, knowing and applying what the law actually says frees one from false laws. This is a major concern for theonomists.

Being over-scrupulous, however, is a non-theonomic position, because it is based on man-made laws.

Cheers,

Adam

I guess that's near the mark. But, you hear this "ah, let it go" and I assent to such alot of the time. But I guess it really gets down to being "unsettled" and how to validate whether I have cause to be unsettled (not right with).

Do you not understand his motives or the nature of his disagreement? Perhaps if you clarified the disagreement you would not be so unsettled either way. Many times we mull over something too much because we are trying to figure out why someone disagrees with us and why they brought it up when they did, too often assuming things rather than going straight to them for clarification.

I don't know that I want to try to understand motives or natures of disagreement. Every time I do that I get either a headache or heartache or both. For arguments sake, lets assume this a lifelong best friend. Shouldn't I first examine the issue in a sterile environment (regardless of motives) if it leaves me unsettled (not right with)? I'm not necessarily sideways of the person.

What I want to do is this:
___________________________

When I'm not right with (unsettled) over something that is communicated, regardless of method or motives, I want to make the Law the primary litmus test of whether a genuine issue exists; and I want to do this first.
___________________________

Wouldn't this make things easier? Seems to me that better than 90% of these differences don't involve clear violations of the Law and I want to get that out of the way first.

It seems to me that if I can't point to a violation of the Law as the source for my being unsettled, I probably don't have a valid beef with the person, the problem is probably on my end, and I just need to get beyond my self. Most of the time, that is.