Help on the term “Theonomist”

[Grant]

What does this mean most often in our day when someone throws the term around? I mean the big “T”.

My understanding is that a Theonomist believes the civil law should still be enforced and binding. Can anyone help my ignorance?

I hold to the general equity of the civil and I tend to think our government is obligated to uphold and support the moral law. Does that make me a Theonomist?

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

 

[Romans922]

Where’s Jacob? From your last paragraph, I would say no. But it is all based on how you define it. I’m thinking when I hear Theonomist Bahnsen, North, and Rushdoony. But they all have different applications/views.

I’m a Covenanter and I believe Christ is the Mediatorial King over all nations for the sake of the Church. As such, all nations/rulers must bow the knee to Christ and kiss the Son lest they perish. I believe all governments should use the general equity of of the civil law and rule according to those principles. They are also under the moral law for it is forever binding.

 

[RamistThomist]

A "T" theonomist believes that the case laws of the OT are the general equity of the Ten Commandments. They have to be enforced today.

A "t" Theonomists believes the general equity is much weaker and doesn't have to be enforced, since those laws have expired.

My own take is that the "Law of God" isn't really a constitutional code/law in the sense we understand it. It is filled with poetry and narrative and declarations of love. Those usually don't belong in a law code. Further, it doesn't deal with key issues that every ancient society had to deal with, such as water rights.

 

[Grant]

A "T" theonomist believes that the case laws of the OT are the general equity of the Ten Commandments. They have to be enforced today.

A "t" Theonomists believes the general equity is much weaker and doesn't have to be enforced, since those laws have expired.

My own take is that the "Law of God" isn't really a constitutional code/law in the sense we understand it. It is filled with poetry and narrative and declarations of love. Those usually don't belong in a law code. Further, it doesn't deal with key issues that every ancient society had to deal with, such as water rights.

Jacob,

What is your take on the moral?

 

[RamistThomist]

Jacob,

What is your take on the moral?

The ten commandments are the sum of the moral law. The following chart might help. I posted it on the natural law thread because it perfectly summarized the universal Christian position on natural law, only to see it not read and my getting (repeatedly) asked, "You never told us your position on natural law."

Natural law is an application of the moral law

 

[Grant]

The ten commandments are the sum of the moral law. The following chart might help. I posted it on the natural law thread because it perfectly summarized the universal Christian position on natural law, only to see it not read and my getting (repeatedly) asked, "You never told us your position on natural law."

Natural law is an application of the moral law

Jacob,

I promise I read over it a few times. Admittedly it is hard for my tiny brain to follow. So at the end you state the Natural Law is an application of the Moral Law. This leads me to believe the the "Eternal Law" in the chart is the "Moral Law"?

So do you think the government is obligated to punish transgressions of the first 4 commandments? If you need me to get more specific, then take the 2nd commandment, should the government prohibit images of God?

Thanks in advance for taking time to answer my ignorance on the matter.

 

[RamistThomist]

So at the end you state the Natural Law is an application of the Moral Law.

It will never be 100% exact, since in every society there is always a tension between the ideal social order and its current manifestation.

This leads me to believe the the "Eternal Law" in the chart is the "Moral Law"?

Close but not quite. Per divine simplicity, the eternal law is the mind of God. It is the ratio of God. I guess you could say that the moral law is for us, rather than the eternal law as it is in the mind of God.

So do you think the government is obligated to punish transgressions of the first 4 commandments? If you need me to get more specific, then take the 2nd commandment, should the government prohibit images of God?

Historically, that has been the case. (except for the 2nd Commandment violations, since much of Christian history has been okay with images of Christ. I'm not endorsing it. Just making an observation).

 

[Pilgrim]

A "T" theonomist believes that the case laws of the OT are the general equity of the Ten Commandments. They have to be enforced today.

A "t" Theonomists believes the general equity is much weaker and doesn't have to be enforced, since those laws have expired.

My own take is that the "Law of God" isn't really a constitutional code/law in the sense we understand it. It is filled with poetry and narrative and declarations of love. Those usually don't belong in a law code. Further, it doesn't deal with key issues that every ancient society had to deal with, such as water rights.

Doesn't a capital "T" Theonomist also believe that the penalties must be enforced "in exhaustive detail?" Execution must be by stoning if the Bible says it is to be by stoning, etc. I seem to recall that language used by Theonomists/Christian Reconstructionists and it being a big difference from the Magisterial Reformers.

 

[RamistThomist]

Doesn't a capital "T" Theonomist also believe that the penalties must be enforced "in exhaustive detail?" Execution must be by stoning if the Bible says it is to be by stoning, etc. I seem to recall that language used by Theonomists/Christian Reconstructionists and it being a big difference from the Magisterial Reformers.

The penalty must be carried out. The form of it might change.

 

[Taylor]

Doesn't a capital "T" Theonomist also believe that the penalties must be enforced "in exhaustive detail?" Execution must be by stoning if the Bible says it is to be by stoning, etc.

No. Theonomists have written extensively and repeatedly what they mean by "exhaustive detail." The way I have come to explain it is that there is a difference between exhaustive detail and exact detail. So many people act as if Theonomists want to read and apply the law as if the rest of Scripture were not written to inform them how and to what extent they ought to go, biblical-theologically speaking. (This isn't directed at you, by the way. I am just pointing out a common misguided understanding of Theonomy.)

Here is Bahnsen himself:

[W]e must be warned that some people have been kept from an accurate analysis of theonomic ethics—sometimes by the author’s manner of expression, sometimes because the order of discussion (especially qualifications) is not that expected by some readers, and sometimes because the book has simply not been read, or read completely, or read at a safe distance from distorting preconceptions and prejudices. For instance, a combination of such factors has misled some to maintain that Theonomy, because it often speaks of our obligation to the exhaustive details of God’s law (“every jot and tittle”), cannot allow any change or advance over the Old Testament at any point, even by God Himself, and must follow without exception every single Old Testament precept strictly, literally (even the cultural trappings necessitate verbatim application), and without qualification or modification.

[...]

t should be perfectly plain to any student of Scripture, theonomic or not, that God requires obedience to the underlying principles illustrated by Scripture’s cultural expressions. Theonomy plainly observed: “the case law illustrates the application or qualification of the principle laid down in the general commandment,” and it is “the underlying principle (of which the case law was a particular illustration)” which “has abiding ethical validity.” We are not bound to the cultural details of flying axheads and rooftop railings, but to the principles about unpremeditated homicide and safety precautions, etc. Those who have ridiculed the theonomic position for requiring observance of ancient cultural details should give responsible reflection to their ill-conceived criticism. Such disdain would equally ridicule New Testament ethical directives with their cultural trappings as though “Go and do likewise” at the end of the story of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:37) literally obligates us to pour oil and wine on the wounds of half-dead victims of robbery on the Jericho road today, setting them on donkeys (not in cars) and paying for their stay at roadside inns with (literal) denarii. Critical ridicule which is blind to this feature of Biblical interpretation in general is too superficial and inconsistent to warrant serious attention.

—From "Preface to the Second Edition" as found in Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, 3rd ed. (Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Foundation, 2002), xxiii-xxv.​

 

[Jeri Tanner]

@Reformed Covenanter Daniel, I remember that at some point you made the decision to distance yourself from the label of being a theonomist due to problematic issues with it. I remember some didcussion with Rev. Winzer about it. A recap of your arrival at that decision would be helpful, I think, if you don’t mind sharing.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

@Reformed Covenanter Daniel, I remember that at some point you made the decision to distance yourself from the label of being a theonomist due to problematic issues with it. I remember some discussion with Rev. Winzer about it. A recap of your arrival at that decision would be helpful, I think, if you don’t mind sharing.

Just when I thought that I could escape being dragged into this party, someone sends me an invite. I am in the middle of something else right now, but I will try to say more later, dv.

 

[Grant]

Just when I thought that I could escape being dragged into this party, someone sends me an invite. I am in the middle of something else right now, but I will try to say more later, dv.

 

[User20004000]

Just when I thought that I could escape being dragged into this party, someone sends me an invite. I am in the middle of something else right now, but I will try to say more later, dv.

https://giphy.com/gifs/time-will-crawl-iHCi2sYO2rP4Q

 

[RamistThomist]

as if the rest of Scripture were not written to inform them how and to what extent they ought to go, biblical-theologically speaking.

How does "the rest of Scripture" inform me of this principle?

If two men get into a hand-to-hand fight, and the wife of one of them gets involved to help her ... one striking him, and she reaches out her hand and grabs his genitals, 12you are to cut off her hand

If I am in a fight with another guy and my wife for some odd reason grabs his genitals. Sorry. I am not cutting off her hand. Not doing it. That might make me a bad Christian. I'm okay with that.

On a more serious note, that goes back to my earlier position that the Mosaic law wasn't written to be a modern day Constitutional law code. That's evident from what it includes and what it leaves out.

 

[User20004000]

How does "the rest of Scripture" inform me of this principle?

If two men get into a hand-to-hand fight, and the wife of one of them gets involved to help her ... one striking him, and she reaches out her hand and grabs his genitals, 12you are to cut off her hand

If I am in a fight with another guy and my wife for some odd reason grabs his genitals. Sorry. I am not cutting off her hand. Not doing it. That might make me a bad Christian. I'm okay with that.

On a more serious note, that goes back to my earlier position that the Mosaic law wasn't written to be a modern day Constitutional law code. That's evident from what it includes and what it leaves out.

It’s interesting that this particular criminal act God has determined to be punished by maiming the perpetrator. Maybe it’s because the women is messing with a man’s lineage. Or just maybe it is pleasing to God to require such punishment given the impropriety of a woman who would grab another man’s private parts. Regardless of God’s secret counsel, who are we to judge God’s law?

Some food for thought...

1. By what standard do we determine that such a sin should no longer be constituted a crime? If it should be constituted a crime, then by what standard do we determine an equitable punishment in a fallen world?

2. Should have pagan nations ~3500 years ago instituted such laws? If so, why not ours today?

3. How did the cross of Christ make God’s moral imperative for Deuteronomy 25:11-12 irrelevant for us today? In other words, how does the cross of Christ make such wise and righteous laws somehow worthy of our modern-day disdain?

4. Can it be determined that God would not want such penal sanctions implemented today? In other words, would it be disobedient to legislate such laws today? Or is it acceptable to do so - just as long as we don’t justify it with Scripture?

5. Does natural law forbid such laws today? If so, then did natural law contradict Moses under the older economy, or has natural law changed since the time of Moses?

6. No question here, just a general observation if I might. I grasp that some will find sundry OT laws, such as this one cited, outlandish for today. But rarely does mockery ever seem to indicate that such would have found these law tolerable to their own sensibilities had they lived under Moses. In other words, I find that the disdain for such laws is not a matter of which Testament we live under but rather the criticism would seem to transcend Testaments. I draw this inference because typically the mockery seems to be indexed to the alleged absurdity of the punishment relative to the transgression. It’s as though simply by stating the ridiculous punishment to 21st century hearers, we are led to conclude the law’s rightful abrogation.

 

[TylerRay]

What does this mean most often in our day when someone throws the term around? I mean the big “T”.

My understanding is that a Theonomist believes the civil law should still be enforced and binding. Can anyone help my ignorance?

I hold to the general equity of the civil and I tend to think our government is obligated to uphold and support the moral law. Does that make me a Theonomist?

Theonomy started in the 60s(ish) with Rushdoony. A lot of people don't like that being said, but it's true. The idea that the judicial law of OT should be the basis of the legal codes of all nations, and that natural law is nonexistent or so obscure that it cannot be appealed to, is a manifestation of 20th century biblicism.

People who embrace this view are not in agreement with the WCF, plain and simple. At its foundation, it is a different doctrine of law than what the Confession teaches.

 

[Grant]

Theonomy started in the 60s(ish) with Rushdoony. A lot of people don't like that being said, but it's true. The idea that the judicial law of OT should be the basis of the legal codes of all nations, and that natural law is nonexistent or so obscure that it cannot be appealed to, is a manifestation of 20th century biblicism.

People who embrace this view are not in agreement with the WCF, plain and simple. At its foundation, it is a different doctrine of law than what the Confession teaches.

Thanks Tyler.

 

[RamistThomist]

The idea that the judicial law of OT should be the basis of the legal codes of all nations, and that natural law is nonexistent or so obscure that it cannot be appealed to, is a manifestation of 20th century biblicism.

They'll point to codes from King Alfred the great which have "Mosaic judicials" in them, but that's not what the theonomic thesis says. And the most radical theocrats, like Rutherford, clearly promoted natural law. I linked to that in my outline of Lex, Rex (which was dismissed).
https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/review-and-outline-of-lex-rex/

 

[Grant]

Back story, I was labeled. “T”heonomist for advocating that our government should uphold the moral law.

 

[TylerRay]

Back story, I was labeled. “T”heonomist for advocating that our government should uphold the moral law.

The person who labeled you that either seriously misunderstood you, or doesn't know what a theonomist is.

 

[User20004000]

Theonomy started in the 60s(ish) with Rushdoony. A lot of people don't like that being said, but it's true. The idea that the judicial law of OT should be the basis of the legal codes of all nations, and that natural law is nonexistent or so obscure that it cannot be appealed to, is a manifestation of 20th century biblicism.

People who embrace this view are not in agreement with the WCF, plain and simple. At its foundation, it is a different doctrine of law than what the Confession teaches.

That’s an interesting post, Tyler. I’ll touch on a few of your notions.

1. Regarding the label Theonomy being relatively recent, when do you suppose the labels Trinitarian and Calvinist came about? Does late arrival terminology, relative to the apostolic tradition, falsify the doctrine implied by the terms? (Of course it doesn’t.)

2. If natural law cannot contradict the law found in special revelation, then why must we appeal to natural law instead of law found in special revelation? And how does natural law distinguish the set of all sins from the set of all crimes?

3. Do you find 1647 to be theonomic? It’s pretty uncontroversial that it is. Accordingly, can you delineate the changes to the Confession to which you subscribe that rid it of Theonomy?

 

[Taylor]

If two men get into a hand-to-hand fight, and the wife of one of them gets involved to help her ... one striking him, and she reaches out her hand and grabs his genitals, 12you are to cut off her hand

If I am in a fight with another guy and my wife for some odd reason grabs his genitals. Sorry. I am not cutting off her hand. Not doing it. That might make me a bad Christian. I'm okay with that.

Jacob,

With all due respect, you bring this up every single time we have been in a discussion surrounding Theonomy, as if citing this one single verse defeats the entire system. It doesn't. Just because you personally don't like something or wouldn't do something doesn't invalidate the injunction. It's just your personal opinion, and nothing else. There are many people who use the same argument against the continuing validity of the Sabbath, and no one here would grant them such an argument. Frankly, this cheap shot is getting tiresome. It makes you appear as unwilling to have an actual discussion.

Even so, there is one serious problem with your use of this passage. Namely, it wouldn't be you that would have to execute the penalty, but the state.

But, regardless of who has to do it, the fact that you happen not to like it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it has continuing validity, whatever that may look like.

 

[TylerRay]

That’s an interesting post, Tyler. I’ll touch on a few of your notions.

1. Regarding the label Theonomy being relatively recent, when do you suppose the labels Trinitarian and Calvinist came about? Does late arrival terminology, relative to the apostolic tradition, falsify the doctrine implied by the terms? (Of course it doesn’t.)

I defined what I meant by theonomy. The concept was new, as well as the name.

2. If natural law cannot contradict the law found in special revelation, then why must we appeal to natural law instead of law found in special revelation? And how does natural law distinguish the set of all sins from the set of all crimes?

Again, the rejection of natural law as foundational to civil law was new with the theonomic movement. Prove me wrong. It's a historical question, not a theoretical one.

3. Do you find 1647 to be theonomic? It’s pretty uncontroversial that it is. Accordingly, can you delineate the changes to the Confession to which you subscribe that rid it of Theonomy?

I do not find it theonomic. Neither does any denomination that strictly subscribes the original confession.

 

[Taylor]

...the rejection of natural law as foundational to civil law was new with the theonomic movement.

This seems to me to be a fallacious argument to begin with. There is a difference between saying a concept in its entirety is new, and saying a concept in its maturity is new. Could it be that Theonomy as seen in Bahnsn, et al., is new in terms of maturity, finding the seeds in the Reformed heritage? You seem to be positing a false dichotomy—namely, "either the concept is there in early Reformed literature, or its not"—while completely forgetting that the building blocks of the concept could very well be there, waiting to be compiled into something that, while in its mature form is new, is entirely in line with what came before. The volumes of literature written by men such as Gentry, Strevel, Bahnsen, Foulner, and others, seem to indicate this to be the case.

It just doesn't seem fair to me to argue that just because a concept came into maturity in the twentieth century it is therefore totally new and, therefore, totally false. This has dangerous implications for, for example, the doctrine of the Trinity, which took centuries to formulate into maturity. It's form was new, but the building blocks for Nicaea are all over Scripture and the Apostolic Fathers. Simply to say, "It's new," therefore, is both saying not very much, and seems overly dismissive.

 

[TylerRay]

This seems to me to be a fallacious argument to begin with. There is a difference between saying a concept in its entirety is new, and saying a concept in its maturity is new. Could it be that Theonomy as seen in Bahnsn, et al., is new in terms of maturity, finding the seeds in the Reformed heritage? You seem to be positing a false dichotomy—namely, "either the concept is there in early Reformed literature, or its not"—while completely forgetting that the building blocks of the concept could very well be there, waiting to be compiled into something that, while in its mature form is new, is entirely in line with what came before. The volumes of literature written by men such as Gentry, Strevel, Bahnsen, Foulner, and others, seem to indicate this to be the case.

It just doesn't seem fair to me to argue that just because a concept came into maturity in the twentieth century it is therefore totally new and, therefore, totally false. Simply to say, "It's new," is both saying not very much, and seems overly dismissive.

Taylor,
Let me preface this by saying that I used to be a theonomist, I have a lot of theonomic/reconstructionist literature on my shelf, and that Rushdoony is one of my favorite authors.

The Reformed theory of law up until the theonomic movement was classical natural law theory (of the Christian sort). Rushdoony et al. rejected it on the basis that it was grounded in common sense, which they regarded as "autonomous reason." They constructed a new theory of law that they understood to fit their vantillianism. I don't see how that can be gainsaid.

 

[Taylor]

For @Grant Jones and for everyone else here, I found this article by G. I. Williamson to be very instructive for both sides of this debate.

 

[Taylor]

The Reformed theory of law up until the theonomic movement was classical natural law theory (of the Christian sort). Rushdoony et al. rejected it on the basis that it was grounded in common sense, which they regarded as "autonomous reason." They constructed a new theory of law that they understood to fit their vantillianism. I don't see how that can be gainsaid.

Perhaps this is true. Even if it is, I still find it fallacious so quickly to say, without any real qualification, that anything that is new is entirely new in substance as oppose to simply new in terms of maturity. There is a reason so much ink has been spilled on this issue. It is not that simple. I am just asking for some caution and fairness. That's all.

 

[User20004000]

“I defined what I meant by theonomy. The concept was new, not the name.”

The concept of Trinity evolved, or are you suggesting that orthodox theology proper was all worked out in the first century? Do new “concepts” falsify doctrine? Is the concept of the CoR false?

“Again, the rejection of natural law as foundational to civil law was new with the theonomic movement. Prove me wrong.”

Your point is vague. It can be both rejected and affirmed with consistency. For instance, Bahnsen, a presuppositionalist, did not reject natural law in toto. In fact, he appealed to it in his apologetic to show the arbitrariness and inconsistency of unbelievers who’d appeal to laws of nature and moral standards. What Bahnsen the theonomist rejected was the epistemic usefulness of natural law with respect to (i) distinguishing crimes from other sins and (ii) determining penal sanctions.