Theonomy vs Establishment Principle

[nwink]

What is the difference between Theonomy and the doctrine of the Establishment Principle?

 

[Afterthought]

It is possible for the civil magistrate to establish an official religion that isn't Christianity. To simplify things then, I assume the WCF definition of the Establishment Principle in an attempt to explain the difference.

Establishment Principle: The civil magistrate is required by the Bible to apply the Ten Commandments to civil laws and protect Christ's Church, as the 1646-1647 WCF lays out.

Theonomy: There are variations of Theonomy. The one I'm most familiar with says that the moral law and the OT moral case laws--along with their penalties--continue. There is some intramural debate over whether the penalty described is a maximum penalty or whether the penalty itself is circumstantial (e.g., someone might be allowed to be executed by some other painful, public method instead of stoning). This brand of theonomy recognizes that some laws were specific to Israel and no longer continue. The difference between this and other schemes of how the OT law applies to today's civil laws is that this version of theonomy includes the moral case laws and their penalties under the category of "general equity," along with whatever laws non-theonomists include in there. Thus, it is not a mere option to use the OT moral case laws, but each nation is required and bound by the Bible to use them. Some theonomists will then use Sola Scriptura to say that not only are nations required and bound to use these case laws, they are not to add to or subtract from them.

A simplistic way of looking at theonomy is that "whatever civil law cannot be proved to be specific to Israel and so have ceased continues because then it must be an application of the Ten Commandments and so a moral case law;" this is opposed to another seemingly popular scheme that "we must prove that such a civil law is moral in order for it to be binding." Non-theonomists are not always opposed to using the OT laws if the circumstances of the nation require it, and some would argue that the penalties given are as harsh as we are allowed to use, but they do not see the nations as bound to use them.


Now that the two have been laid out, it is easy to see the difference, given the definitions I have given. The Establishment Principle requires the magistrate to protect Christ's Church and apply the Ten Commandments in making the civil laws of a land, while Theonomy is one way of making those civil laws. So it is possible to have the Establishment Principle without Theonomy. And actually, it might be possible to have Theonomy without the magistrate protecting one Church denomination, though I would need to think some more about that.

 

[timmopussycat]

This is an over-generalization, but, Theonomy sticks closer to requiring the Judicial Laws of the O.T. being strictly and absolutely applied in our age in the same way they were in Israel. However, it is this Confessionalist's position that the Confession lays that to rest when it says the judicial law expired with the physical nation of Israel, except insofar as "general equity" applies. And that's where the crux of the argument comes to a T between establishmentarians and theonomists (currently defined). I'd much rather err on the side of Theonomy, though, than the rank antinomianism that exists today. Again, my explanation is likely an over-generalization, so I'm sure a Theonomist will seek to clarify what they think may be a misunderstanding of mine.

Josh, your reading of the WCF at this point is almost certainly not correct. While the confession says that the OT legal system, the "sundry judicial laws" which "expired" with the conquest of Judea, the Divines went on to hold that some of those laws may still be valid today provided "the general equity thereof may require" despite the change from Judea under the Sinai covenant to today's nations not in covenant with God.

 

[Peairtach]

It would be theoretically possible to have theonomy and an established church.

Another form of establishmentarianism, suggested by Stephen Perks - who is basically a theonomist - in his book "A Defence of the Christian State", would be to have a broader or narrower confessional subscription to which a range of denominations could subscribe in order to be countenanced by the state.

Books - KUYPER FOUNDATION - Promoting the Renaissance of Christian Culture

Theonomy doesn't seem to follow the general moral equity of the judicial laws and their penalties, but the specific re-application of these laws, apart from the relatively minor change in the mode of execution.

In order to understand the general moral equity of these laws, they must be seen in context with the ceremonial, and particularly sacrificial, system that co-ordinated with them.

 

[timmopussycat]

Thank you, Mr. Cunningham, for the correction; however, I thought I qualified the very point you make when I said "except insofar as 'general equity' applies." If I worded it improperly, or have given the wrong impression, please inform me (sincerely) how I should have better written it. I confess that, in my mind, I don't disagree with what you've written; so there must be something wrong with my employment of thoughts. Thanks for clarification.

Kind regards,

My apologies: when I saw your preference for erring on the Theonomic side of the divide contra antinomianism, I overreacted and forgot your correctly stated qualification. Personally, and given that we don't have to err on either side thanks to how the Divines wrote WCF 19:4, I wouldn't want to err on either side concerning the applicability of the Judicials since I think two wrongs make a blight.

 

[R Harris]

Now that the two have been laid out, it is easy to see the difference, given the definitions I have given. The Establishment Principle requires the magistrate to protect Christ's Church and apply the Ten Commandments in making the civil laws of a land, while Theonomy is one way of making those civil laws. So it is possible to have the Establishment Principle without Theonomy. And actually, it might be possible to have Theonomy without the magistrate protecting one Church denomination, though I would need to think some more about that.

From my understanding, this was essentially Rushdoony's position, although specifically he wanted a theonomic society without National Confessionalism. As Bill Einwechter and I discussed years ago, the two should really be complementary positions, according to Scripture, thus Rushdoony's rejection of confessionalism seems very odd. How can you go all the way with OT laws, then not recognize Christ's authority at the Federal level? However, most of the original 13 colonies did have the complementary position; they had many OT laws as their civil code AND recognized Christ / the Church in their official charters.

 

[jwright82]

Would one difference be, I am much more familer with Theonomy than Establishment Principle, that an Establishmnet Principle would not place an emphasis on the continuity of penalties in the OT like how a Theonomist would?

 

[timmopussycat]

From my understanding, this was essentially Rushdoony's position, although specifically he wanted a theonomic society without National Confessionalism. As Bill Einwechter and I discussed years ago, the two should really be complementary positions, according to Scripture, thus Rushdoony's rejection of confessionalism seems very odd. How can you go all the way with OT laws, then not recognize Christ's authority at the Federal level? However, most of the original 13 colonies did have the complementary position; they had many OT laws as their civil code AND recognized Christ / the Church in their official charters.

Your last sentence answers your question.

 

[MW]

Would one difference be, I am much more familer with Theonomy than Establishment Principle, that an Establishmnet Principle would not place an emphasis on the continuity of penalties in the OT like how a Theonomist would?

Historic establishmentarianism places as much emphasis on the penalties as the judicial laws themselves, but it is the rational-moral equity of the law which remains in force. The theonomic approach seeks to create an intuitive appeal to Scripture in justification of ethical principles. Traditional social and political ethics required a discursive process in which appeal is made to the nature of things and to what was universally right.

Theonomy and reconstruction are the result of an American mindset which seeks to limit social statism. Establishmentarianism was a European movement which was concerned with reformation of religion.

Theonomy arose out of the neo-Calvinist concept of sphere sovereignty whereas Presbyterian establishmentarianism (a qualification which must be made in view of the fact that there are Erastian establishments) is grounded on a two kingdom foundation. In the former there is no secular-sacred or nature-grace distinction. In the latter these distinctions are fundamental.

 

[jwright82]

Historic establishmentarianism places as much emphasis on the penalties as the judicial laws themselves, but it is the rational-moral equity of the law which remains in force. The theonomic approach seeks to create an intuitive appeal to Scripture in justification of ethical principles. Traditional social and political ethics required a discursive process in which appeal is made to the nature of things and to what was universally right.

Theonomy and reconstruction are the result of an American mindset which seeks to limit social statism. Establishmentarianism was a European movement which was concerned with reformation of religion.

Theonomy arose out of the neo-Calvinist concept of sphere sovereignty whereas Presbyterian establishmentarianism (a qualification which must be made in view of the fact that there are Erastian establishments) is grounded on a two kingdom foundation. In the former there is no secular-sacred or nature-grace distinction. In the latter these distinctions are fundamental.

Thank you for clearing that up for me Rev. Winzer. Without getting off track I am not a Theonomist anymore, like I was when I joined this site. But that being said I have made known my problems with appeals to Natural Law as a foundation, like Natural Theology which I equally regect, for ethics. So I would side with the theonomist on this without agreeing to everything they believe. But Again thanks for the clarification.

 

[MW]

Thank you for clearing that up for me Rev. Winzer. Without getting off track I am not a Theonomist anymore, like I was when I joined this site. But that being said I have made known my problems with appeals to Natural Law as a foundation, like Natural Theology which I equally regect, for ethics. So I would side with the theonomist on this without agreeing to everything they believe. But Again thanks for the clarification.

You are very welcome, James. Please let me know if you would like to discuss any specific issues over natural law. I believe it can be demonstrated that every appeal to Scripture on an issue of morality (as distinguished from precepts based solely on the will of the Lawgiver) presupposes a belief in natural law. Blessings!