Critiques of Critiques of Christian Reconstruction (Robbins)

[brandonadams]

Branching off from this thread
http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/christian-reconstructionism-38604/

What is wrong with John Robbins' critiques of Christian Reconstruction?

 

[Christusregnat]

Branching off from this thread
http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/christian-reconstructionism-38604/

What is wrong with John Robbins' critiques of Christian Reconstruction?

Brandon,

Let's start with "Will the real Greg Bahnsen Please stand up": Trinity Foundation: Explaining God, man, Bible, salvation, philosophy, theology.

1. Robbins misquotes Bahnsen's teaching on the ongoing validity of the judicial laws:

Robins stated:

A third reason for his apparent abandonment of Theonomy may be this: The initial plausibility of Christian Reconstructionism and the support it has received were derived, not from the Theonomic Theorem, that is, the abiding validity of the law in exhaustive detail, but from the Confessional view. Were the Theonomists logically consistent in expounding the Theonomic Theorem, all would easily recognize them as beyond the pale of Christianity. If all the details of the Old Testament law are binding today, as the Theonomic Theorem asserts, then the coming of Christ and the writing of the New Testament are of no effect. If the details of the law are binding (as the Theonomists say), and circumcision is required by the law (as the law says), then we must all be circumcised. Theonomy is the ideology of the Judaizers.

(emphasis mine - AB)

As I mentioned previously, this is a bald misquotation/taking out of context.

Bahnsen's exegetical argument is that Christ, in Matthew 5:17ff, is referring to the Standing Laws of the Old Testament. He specifically contrasts the Standing Law with Restorative Law, or Ceremonial Law, and specific laws given to the people of the Jews (such as killing the Canaanites, or dietary and dress laws). In other words, Bahnsen sees Jesus as referring to a "default setting" that we should assume that Jesus did not come to destroy the law of the prophets, but to teach us how they are to be observed. For a helpful analysis, Bahnen's By This Standard may be reviewed, in which he fleshes out what he means by "in exhaustive detail". It does not mean what Robbins suggests.

Robbins assumes what needs to be proven in this article:

he sets forth two differing, two contradictory, views of God’s law, which I call the Theonomic view and the Confessional view.

Anyone who has read our Savior's words knows that no jot or tittle of of the Law shall be done away with, and that, in context, this means that we are to keep all of God's commands. What Robbins fails to recognize is that when Bahnsen says "in exhaustive detail", he is merely repeating what Christ said. Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

It is a misrepresentation to say that Bahnsen would require circumcision, as he (with Paul) recognized that circumcision was not part of "the law and the prophets" that Jesus was referring to. Nor were the dietary prohibitions, or the Jewish holiness codes, nor the command to wipe out the Perezites. Bahnsen labors to demonstrate that Christ is concerned with the moral law, and its application to all areas of government: personal, family, ecclesiastical and civil.

Bahnsen's book By This Standard is available for free by the publisher. Chapter 14 may be reviewed for what Bahnsen meant by "in exhaustive detail", and what our Savior meant by "no jot or tittle" passing away:

GBBS.html

The link to chapter 14 is numbered "Page 159" along the left side of the page.

Robbins' misquotation is just one example of how he treats the matter in a distorted fashion, and does not read in context.

More could be said, but that is all for now.

I would encourage you, if you have time and interest, to read Robbins' article about Bahnsen, and then read (at least) chapter 14 of By This Standard. You may find that you see my point, and you may not. If not, I would be interested in your feedback, brother.

Cheers,

 

[brandonadams]

Thanks for taking the time Adam. I've actually got a copy of Bahnsen's book, just haven't read it yet. I will take a look at Chapter 14 and get back to you.

 

[Christusregnat]

Thanks for taking the time Adam. I've actually got a copy of Bahnsen's book, just haven't read it yet. I will take a look at Chapter 14 and get back to you.

Brandon,

I'm interested in your feedback!

Cheers,

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm not a Theonomist but one thing you have to be careful about with critiques in general is those that try to critique something from a fairly simplistic basis. The major Theonomic thinkers were no dummies and wrote prolifically and lucidly. Bahnsen and Rushdoony were incredibly intelligent and well read. Critiques of their thinking will likewise need to be very sophisticated. I think what irks Theonomists is when they see something that requires more subtlety boiled down to something that ends up distorting the real position of the thinkers.

Again, I'm not trying to be a proponent of the position but just saying we need to not treat their position as if they're idiots and would obviously deny some key tenet of the Reformed faith.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

You hit the nail on the head Rich. This is really the crux of the matter.

 

[timmopussycat]

Branching off from this thread
http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/christian-reconstructionism-38604/

What is wrong with John Robbins' critiques of Christian Reconstruction?

Brandon,

Let's start with "Will the real Greg Bahnsen Please stand up": Trinity Foundation: Explaining God, man, Bible, salvation, philosophy, theology.

1. Robbins misquotes Bahnsen's teaching on the ongoing validity of the judicial laws:

Robins stated:

A third reason for his apparent abandonment of Theonomy may be this: The initial plausibility of Christian Reconstructionism and the support it has received were derived, not from the Theonomic Theorem, that is, the abiding validity of the law in exhaustive detail, but from the Confessional view. Were the Theonomists logically consistent in expounding the Theonomic Theorem, all would easily recognize them as beyond the pale of Christianity. If all the details of the Old Testament law are binding today, as the Theonomic Theorem asserts, then the coming of Christ and the writing of the New Testament are of no effect. If the details of the law are binding (as the Theonomists say), and circumcision is required by the law (as the law says), then we must all be circumcised. Theonomy is the ideology of the Judaizers.

(emphasis mine - AB)

As I mentioned previously, this is a bald misquotation/taking out of context.

Bahnsen's exegetical argument is that Christ, in Matthew 5:17ff, is referring to the Standing Laws of the Old Testament. He specifically contrasts the Standing Law with Restorative Law, or Ceremonial Law, and specific laws given to the people of the Jews (such as killing the Canaanites, or dietary and dress laws). In other words, Bahnsen sees Jesus as referring to a "default setting" that we should assume that Jesus did not come to destroy the law of the prophets, but to teach us how they are to be observed. For a helpful analysis, Bahnen's By This Standard may be reviewed, in which he fleshes out what he means by "in exhaustive detail". It does not mean what Robbins suggests.

Robbins assumes what needs to be proven in this article:

he sets forth two differing, two contradictory, views of God’s law, which I call the Theonomic view and the Confessional view.

Anyone who has read our Savior's words knows that no jot or tittle of of the Law shall be done away with, and that, in context, this means that we are to keep all of God's commands. What Robbins fails to recognize is that when Bahnsen says "in exhaustive detail", he is merely repeating what Christ said. Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

It is a misrepresentation to say that Bahnsen would require circumcision, as he (with Paul) recognized that circumcision was not part of "the law and the prophets" that Jesus was referring to. Nor were the dietary prohibitions, or the Jewish holiness codes, nor the command to wipe out the Perezites. Bahnsen labors to demonstrate that Christ is concerned with the moral law, and its application to all areas of government: personal, family, ecclesiastical and civil.

Bahnsen's book By This Standard is available for free by the publisher. Chapter 14 may be reviewed for what Bahnsen meant by "in exhaustive detail", and what our Savior meant by "no jot or tittle" passing away:

GBBS.html

The link to chapter 14 is numbered "Page 159" along the left side of the page.

Robbins' misquotation is just one example of how he treats the matter in a distorted fashion, and does not read in context.

More could be said, but that is all for now.

I would encourage you, if you have time and interest, to read Robbins' article about Bahnsen, and then read (at least) chapter 14 of By This Standard. You may find that you see my point, and you may not. If not, I would be interested in your feedback, brother.

Cheers,

You have only picked a fine example, and there are others, as to why I consider Robbins an unreliable critic of CR. I have found him making the same sort of erros in a couple of other areas he has touched with which I have firsthand acquaintance.

 

[timmopussycat]

I'm not a Theonomist but one thing you have to be careful about with critiques in general is those that try to critique something from a fairly simplistic basis. The major Theonomic thinkers were no dummies and wrote prolifically and lucidly. Bahnsen and Rushdoony were incredibly intelligent and well read. Critiques of their thinking will likewise need to be very sophisticated. I think what irks Theonomists is when they see something that requires more subtlety boiled down to something that ends up distorting the real position of the thinkers.

Again, I'm not trying to be a proponent of the position but just saying we need to not treat their position as if they're idiots and would obviously deny some key tenet of the Reformed faith.

I'll second your comment that Rushdoony was incredibly intelligent, lucid and well read by the time he wrote IBL which is a masterpiece that deserves - and well repays - careful study and thought, especially on some points where he differs from Bahnsen. But whatever may be said of Bahnsen's apologetics writings, his TiCE and other theonomic writing, although lucid, can be easily critiqued for numerous flaws in exegetical method and gaps in his historical knowledge of positions taken by various Westminster Divines, factors which taken together nullify his two major theses; i.e., that all Divinely unamended Mosaic stipulations remain valid in the New Covenant era and that a majority of the Westminster Divines and the WCF so held.

 

[TimV]

I think what irks Theonomists is when they see something that requires more subtlety boiled down to something that ends up distorting the real position of the thinkers.

Thanks, Rich.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

timmopussycat,

I'm not necessarily arguing (nor am I trained enough in Church History to do so) but the point is that it still takes some sophistication to critique Bahnsen.

 

[timmopussycat]

timmopussycat,

I'm not necessarily arguing (nor am I trained enough in Church History to do so) but the point is that it still takes some sophistication to critique Bahnsen.

Not as much as you might think. When I began the project, my academic standing was that of one midway through an MTh degree having only a basic exegesis course, a basic knowledge of Greek, the basic tools (BAGD, BDF and the Friberg ANT) and the capacity to research certain writings of key Westminster Divines under my belt. That level of sophistication is, should be, or should have been available to any senior student at a Reformed seminary, not to mention the professors and graduates thereof. The controversy produced by Bahnsen's work cried out the necessity for detailed review thereof and I remain astounded that nobody within the Reformed community anticipated what I did 20 years or so later.

 

[MW]

Not as much as you might think. When I began the project, my academic standing was that of one midway through an MTh degree having only a basic exegesis course, a basic knowledge of Greek, the basic tools (BAGD, BDF and the Friberg ANT) and the capacity to research certain writings of key Westminster Divines under my belt. That level of sophistication is, should be, or should have been available to any senior student at a Reformed seminary, not to mention the professors and graduates thereof. The controversy produced byBahnsen's work cries out the necessity for detailed review thereof and I remain astounded that nobody within the Reformed community anticipated what I did 20 years or so later.

I imagine you also had the benefit of hindsight which was created as a result of Bahnsen publishing this seminal work. As with all seminal works, Bahnsen did not have this luxury, and should be read accordingly.

 

[timmopussycat]

Not as much as you might think. When I began the project, my academic standing was that of one midway through an MTh degree having only a basic exegesis course, a basic knowledge of Greek, the basic tools (BAGD, BDF and the Friberg ANT) and the capacity to research certain writings of key Westminster Divines under my belt. That level of sophistication is, should be, or should have been available to any senior student at a Reformed seminary, not to mention the professors and graduates thereof. The controversy produced byBahnsen's work cries out the necessity for detailed review thereof and I remain astounded that nobody within the Reformed community anticipated what I did 20 years or so later.

I imagine you also had the benefit of hindsight which was created as a result of Bahnsen publishing this seminal work. As with all seminal works, Bahnsen did not have this luxury, and should be read accordingly.

Not really: although I had read one relatively full critiqe of Bahnsen's work which was published 14 years after TiCE, that work was written from a dispie perspective and the writer clearly let his theology rule his exegesis of Matt. 5:18 and consequently I could not consider his work reliable. But it did prompt me to check Bahnsen's chosen meanings of words in Matt. 5:17,18 against the known meanings documented in BAGD, then determine whether or not Bahnsen had justified his choices against all possible alternatives. This kind of review does not need hindsight: it could and should have been performed by any Reformed seminarian, professor or graduate the moment TiCE became controversial.

At the time he wrote TiCE, Bahnsen was a senior student at a Reformed seminary. He should (must, I hope!) have been taught the basic principles of determining the meanings of words in context. Yet, in TiCE, he consistently violates these principles.

Contrast Calvin, whose Institutes is a far more seminal work and unlike TiCE will stand the test of ages. Calvin wrote Institutes at almost the same age, when his primary training was the law, and without being able to draw on the four centuries worth of the language aids and historical perspective that both Bahnsen and I took for granted. The reason Institues will stand the ages and TiCE will not is that Calvin displays a mastery of grammatico-historical exegesis while Bahnsen in TiCE has turned in less than competent work in this area.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Contrast Calvin, whose Institutes is a far more seminal work and unlike TiCE will stand the test of ages. Calvin wrote Institutes at almost the same age, when his primary training was the law and without four centuries spent developing the language aids and historical perspective that both Bahnsen and I took for granted.

Calvin wrote the first version at the same age. He wasn't completely satisfied with the work until the final edition published about 22 years after the first edition and it was five times greater in length. I don't think Rev. Winzer was trying to argue that Bahnsen's work was theological genius but that it should be read with the mind that it is a seminal work. Even Calvin refined and reformed some of his thinking as he grew older.