# What are the best resources on theonomy?



## mrhartley85

Been interested in learning more about theonomy. What are your guys’ thoughts on the topic?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

A nice backdrop:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/theonomy.44536/#post-559601

Then head over to:
https://www.puritanboard.com/forums/theonomy.132/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

https://www.amazon.com/Greg-L.-Bahnsen/e/B001KCWMKI/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_7?qid=1527775923&sr=1-7


----------



## RamistThomist

The best defense of theonomy is _No Other Standard_.

The best critique of theonomy is _Shadow of Christ in Law of Moses_. It's not so much a refutation as showing all of the difficulties in Bahnsen's thesis.

Avoid _Theonomy: A Reformed Critique_. It is about as badly written a book as one can imagine. Only 1/4 of the book dealt with the theonomic thesis. Parts of the book, Silva's chapter, came close to refuting Bahnsen's biggest critic. Clair Davis's chapter rebutted Gaffin's chapter.

Other works that merit careful study:
Rutherford, Free Disputation. (If you are up to reading the font)
Gillespie, _Aaron's Rod Blossoming_. Refutes the Regulative Principle of Civil Govt.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I thought Ferguson's bit in _TaRC_ was good given it was the first real attempt to put the older 'source' material in perspective. The Gillespie is ironic given the status assigned to his anonymously published _Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty_ (on the whole less pittiless than Rutherford, if only for its brevity maybe; according to Walker's Theology and Theologians of Scotland). If I can suggest my own piece on the sources, see the front matter on the collection of the anonymous writings of Gillespie and the table of material sorted by date against the debates of the Westminster Assembly and the commentary (only the table is online; get the vol. 5 issue). See The Westminster Assembly & the Judicial Law: A Chronological Compilation and Analysis. Part One: Chronology. and Part Two by Matthew Winzer, analysis.
http://www.cpjournal.com/store/
Table is online here.http://www.cpjournal.com/articles-2/articles/
Anonymous writings available here: http://www.lulu.com/shop/george-gillespie/the-anonymous-writings/paperback/product-2390892.html




BayouHuguenot said:


> The best defense of theonomy is _No Other Standard_.
> 
> The best critique of theonomy is _Shadow of Christ in Law of Moses_. It's not so much a refutation as showing all of the difficulties in Bahnsen's thesis.
> 
> Avoid _Theonomy: A Reformed Critique_. It is about as badly written a book as one can imagine. Only 1/4 of the book dealt with the theonomic thesis. Parts of the book, Silva's chapter, came close to refuting Bahnsen's biggest critic. Clair Davis's chapter rebutted Gaffin's chapter.
> 
> Other works that merit careful study:
> Rutherford, Free Disputation. (If you are up to reading the font)
> Gillespie, _Aaron's Rod Blossoming_. Refutes the Regulative Principle of Civil Govt.


[/QUOTE]


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> The best defense of theonomy is _No Other Standard_.
> 
> The best critique of theonomy is _Shadow of Christ in Law of Moses_. It's not so much a refutation as showing all of the difficulties in Bahnsen's thesis.
> 
> Avoid _Theonomy: A Reformed Critique_. It is about as badly written a book as one can imagine. Only 1/4 of the book dealt with the theonomic thesis. Parts of the book, Silva's chapter, came close to refuting Bahnsen's biggest critic. Clair Davis's chapter rebutted Gaffin's chapter.
> 
> Other works that merit careful study:
> Rutherford, Free Disputation. (If you are up to reading the font)
> Gillespie, _Aaron's Rod Blossoming_. Refutes the Regulative Principle of Civil Govt.





NaphtaliPress said:


> I thought Ferguson's bit in _TaRC_ was good given it was the first real attempt to put the older 'source' material in perspective. The Gillespie is ironic given the status assigned to his anonymously published _Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty_ (on the whole less pittiless than Rutherford, if only for its brevity maybe; according to Walker's Theology and Theologians of Scotland). If I can suggest my own piece on the sources, see the front matter on the collection of the anonymous writings of Gillespie and the table of material sorted by date against the debates of the Westminster Assembly and the commentary (only the table is online; get the vol. 5 issue). See The Westminster Assembly & the Judicial Law: A Chronological Compilation and Analysis. Part One: Chronology. and Part Two by Matthew Winzer, analysis.
> http://www.cpjournal.com/store/
> Table is online here.http://www.cpjournal.com/articles-2/articles/
> Anonymous writings available here: http://www.lulu.com/shop/george-gillespie/the-anonymous-writings/paperback/product-2390892.html


[/QUOTE]
Theonomy itself is seem to be outside orthodox Reformed theology though, correct?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Depends on how they define it. That's been the problem really as the definition tended to shift. If all it is, is a more rigorous or detailed use of general equity, then I don't see how it is; but those that deny the threefold division of the law would certainly be outside of it.


Dachaser said:


> Theonomy itself is seem to be outside orthodox Reformed theology though, correct?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Dachaser said:


> Theonomy itself is seem to be outside orthodox Reformed theology though, correct?



It totally depends upon who you ask.


----------



## TylerRay

mrhartley85 said:


> Been interested in learning more about theonomy. What are your guys’ thoughts on the topic?


I'd really recommend becoming thoroughly acquainted with the Westminster Standards' teaching regarding the law of God before studying theonomy. It could save you a lot of trouble in the end.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Ed Walsh

mrhartley85 said:


> Been interested in learning more about theonomy.



Everyone should read Theonomy in Christian Ethics, by Greg Bahnsen
If you want to pay $170 here's the link: https://goo.gl/MSTcPc - But I have a better idea. I have two copies of the 25th Anniversary Multimedia Edition I do not want to part with. But I would be more than happy to lone one of them to you for as long as it takes you to read it. Then I would hope to get it back sometime. If you are interested, send me your address in a private message, and I will get it right out.

Ed


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Theonomy itself is seem to be outside orthodox Reformed theology though, correct?


 Incorrect.


----------



## RamistThomist

NaphtaliPress said:


> I thought Ferguson's bit in _TaRC_ was good given it was the first real attempt to put the older 'source' material in perspective. The Gillespie is ironic given the status assigned to his anonymously published _Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty_ (on the whole less pittiless than Rutherford, if only for its brevity maybe; according to Walker's Theology and Theologians of Scotland). If I can suggest my own piece on the sources, see the front matter on the collection of the anonymous writings of Gillespie and the table of material sorted by date against the debates of the Westminster Assembly and the commentary (only the table is online; get the vol. 5 issue). See The Westminster Assembly & the Judicial Law: A Chronological Compilation and Analysis. Part One: Chronology. and Part Two by Matthew Winzer, analysis.
> http://www.cpjournal.com/store/
> Table is online here.http://www.cpjournal.com/articles-2/articles/
> Anonymous writings available here: http://www.lulu.com/shop/george-gillespie/the-anonymous-writings/paperback/product-2390892.html



Ferguson's piece was certainly among the better ones. And for the record I am not a theonomist.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

BayouHuguenot said:


> Ferguson's piece was certainly among the better ones. And for the record I am not a theonomist.


That's okay; neither was Gillespie.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Speaking as a former theonomist, one of the reasons theonomists resisted so strongly was that many of the proposed alternatives weren't that desirable:

1) Kline and Radical Two Kingdoms: Is Misty Irons the logical conclusion? 
2) Principled Pluralism: any surface level understanding of logic can show the vacuity of this position.
3) Americana: This seemed to be the unexamined presupposition of many. What's wrong with America? Why not just go with the flow? That might have worked in Reagan's America. After Bush and Obama it's impossible.

For those steeped in church history, there were more attractive options:

4) The Scottish position. Yet this could be subdivided
4.1) Is Christ mediator of the nations (post-Covenanters)?
4.2) Is Christ mediator of the church only, yet ruler of the nations via "natural law?" 

I lean towards 4.2.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Incorrect.


IF they deny the threefold division of the law, they would be though.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> IF they deny the threefold division of the law, they would be though.



Most of them uphold the threefold distinction. Rushdoony denied it, but neither Bahnsen nor Gentry followed him in that regard.


----------



## RamistThomist

Criticisms from a generally more Establishmentarian position are usually better, as they can offer a non-pluralistic alternative. They also aren't embarrassed or say things like, "God's law is so mean!" 

I haven't read Isbell's critique, but I plan on it.
http://www.westminsterconfession.or...f-political-israel-expired-general-equity.php

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## bookslover

"The Old Testament civil laws must be obeyed in minute, excruciating detail." As John Frame said, it's the statement that died the death of a thousand qualifications.


----------



## Dachaser

Jesus fulfilled all of the ceremonial aspects of the Law, and is puzzling why someone would want to live back under something Jesus Himself did away.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian

Dachaser said:


> Jesus fulfilled all of the ceremonial aspects of the Law, and is puzzling why someone would want to live back under something Jesus Himself did away.



Theonomists don't advocate living under the ceremonial law.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Speaking as a former theonomist, one of the reasons theonomists resisted so strongly was that many of the proposed alternatives weren't that desirable:
> 
> 1) Kline and Radical Two Kingdoms: Is Misty Irons the logical conclusion?
> 2) Principled Pluralism: any surface level understanding of logic can show the vacuity of this position.
> 3) Americana: This seemed to be the unexamined presupposition of many. What's wrong with America? Why not just go with the flow? That might have worked in Reagan's America. After Bush and Obama it's impossible.
> 
> For those steeped in church history, there were more attractive options:
> 
> 4) The Scottish position. Yet this could be subdivided
> 4.1) Is Christ mediator of the nations (post-Covenanters)?
> 4.2) Is Christ mediator of the church only, yet ruler of the nations via "natural law?"
> 
> I lean towards 4.2.


Would 4.2 be stating then that Jesus would have the Law over His church people, but that He would not be ruling nations under that same law?


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> Would 4.2 be stating then that Jesus would have the Law over His church people, but that He would not be ruling nations under that same law?


No; it's saying that the nations owe obedience to God, and that the natural, moral law (summarized in the Ten Commandments) is the foundation for all civil law.


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> No; it's saying that the nations owe obedience to God, and that the natural, moral law (summarized in the Ten Commandments) is the foundation for all civil law.


So what someone like me, a premil, would see as being established by God at the Second Coming event would instead be established right now, but not through supernatural means?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Would 4.2 be stating then that Jesus would have the Law over His church people, but that He would not be ruling nations under that same law?



He would be ruling over the nations via general equity.


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> So what someone like me, a premil, would see as being established by god at the Second Coming event would instead be established right now, but not through supernatural means?


We're not talking about eschatology; we're talking about ethics. The classic Reformed establishmentarian view (4.2. in Jacob's post) doesn't imply a certain eschatology. To put it another way, we're not talking about _what will happen_, so much as _what men should do_.

As to the matter of supernatural means: it is unthinkable that a nation would submit to Christ apart from the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in and through the Church.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> So what someone like me, a premil, would see as being established by god at the Second Coming event would instead be established right now, but not through supernatural means?



What are you trying to say? This sentence isn't clear.


----------



## Post Tenebras

Ed Walsh said:


> Everyone should read Theonomy in Christian Ethics, by Greg Bahnsen
> If you want to pay $170 here's the link: https://goo.gl/MSTcPc - But I have a better idea. I have two copies of the 25th Anniversary Multimedia Edition I do not want to part with. But I would be more than happy to lone one of them to you for as long as it takes you to read it. Then I would hope to get it back sometime. If you are interested, send me your address in a private message, and I will get it right out.
> 
> Ed



What a wonderful offer! However _Theonomy in Christian Ethics_ is such a comprehensive thesis that I would never say everyone should read it. 

Bahnsen's _By This Standard_ is what I recommend. I think it's the most accessible and fair introduction to Theonomy for the lay-person.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## mrhartley85

BayouHuguenot said:


> The best defense of theonomy is _No Other Standard_.
> 
> The best critique of theonomy is _Shadow of Christ in Law of Moses_. It's not so much a refutation as showing all of the difficulties in Bahnsen's thesis.
> 
> Avoid _Theonomy: A Reformed Critique_. It is about as badly written a book as one can imagine. Only 1/4 of the book dealt with the theonomic thesis. Parts of the book, Silva's chapter, came close to refuting Bahnsen's biggest critic. Clair Davis's chapter rebutted Gaffin's chapter.
> 
> Other works that merit careful study:
> Rutherford, Free Disputation. (If you are up to reading the font)
> Gillespie, _Aaron's Rod Blossoming_. Refutes the Regulative Principle of Civil Govt.



Where do you land on this topic and why?


----------



## RamistThomist

mrhartley85 said:


> Where do you land on this topic and why?


 Broadly Establishmentarian. Pluralism only works when everyone obeys the moral law.

Now, the proliferation of denominations today poses some problems for Establishmentarianism, but I don't see them as insurmountable.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh

BayouHuguenot said:


> Broadly Establishmentarian. Pluralism only works when everyone obeys the moral law.



Gary North called pluralism a temporary ceasefire that eventually must end in one word -- _FIRE_ (like in firing squad)

A fellow Establishmentarian. How very refreshing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> What are you trying to say? This sentence isn't clear.


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?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Without God causing that to come to pass directly, how would nations obey God here and now then?



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

NaphtaliPress said:


> Depends on how they define it. That's been the problem really as the definition tended to shift. If all it is, is a more rigorous or detailed use of general equity, then I don't see how it is; but those that deny the threefold division of the law would certainly be outside of it.



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.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

Reformed Covenanter said:


> 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

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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

BayouHuguenot said:


> General equity clearly rebutted Bahnsen, as the whole point of equity is that the law doesn't apply in exhaustive detail.



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.



BayouHuguenot said:


> As documented by one astute blogger:




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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## mrhartley85

Ed Walsh said:


> Gary North called pluralism a temporary ceasefire that eventually must end in one word -- _FIRE_ (like in firing squad)
> 
> A fellow Establishmentarian. How very refreshing.



What books do you recommend to learn more about the establishmentarian view?


----------



## Ed Walsh

mrhartley85 said:


> What books do you recommend to learn more about the establishmentarian view?



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

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

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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's finished. American Vision is more interested in publishing books blaming white people for everything.


Seriously? Wouldn’t figure Demar for an SJW. Do you have a reference?


----------



## RamistThomist

ZackF said:


> Seriously? Wouldn’t figure Demar for an SJW. Do you have a reference?



Demar has stepped down. It's McDurmon's show now.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

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

NaphtaliPress said:


> 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.



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

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

BayouHuguenot said:


> 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.



So he’s not a theonomist anymore yet hasn’t formally distanced himself from the movement.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

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. 


BayouHuguenot said:


> 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.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Romans922 said:


> 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.



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

NaphtaliPress said:


> 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.



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

ZackF said:


> So he’s not a theonomist anymore yet hasn’t formally distanced himself from the movement.


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

NaphtaliPress said:


> 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.



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/



> I say we should instead start planning a comprehensive, _conservative_ biblical program of healing race relations, not even shying from considering reparations on the table.



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.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

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.


BayouHuguenot said:


> 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.





BayouHuguenot said:


> 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.


----------



## TheOldCourse

Reformed Covenanter said:


> 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.



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!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

NaphtaliPress said:


> 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.



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."


----------



## NaphtaliPress

BayouHuguenot said:


> 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

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.).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay

mrhartley85 said:


> What books do you recommend to learn more about the establishmentarian view?


Here's a good four-part series of addresses on the issue. It's the best introduction I know of: Gavin Beers - National Religion

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

TheOldCourse said:


> Why would it upset some people?



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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

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.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TylerRay

BayouHuguenot said:


> It kind of fettered out when Chilton apostatized and Sutton went Episcopal.


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.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## timmopussycat

Post Tenebras said:


> What a wonderful offer! However _Theonomy in Christian Ethics_ is such a comprehensive thesis that I would never say everyone should read it.
> 
> Bahnsen's _By This Standard_ is what I recommend. I think it's the most accessible and fair introduction to Theonomy for the lay-person.



While _Theonomy in Christian Ethics_ is such a comprehensive thesis that Dr. Bahnsen's later book _By This Standard _utterly depends on it, the problem with TICE is that the critical exegetical chapters in the book (2 and 3) contain so many errors of exegetical procedure Dr. Bahnsen's attempt to prove his vision of Theonomy must be reckoned as a gallant failure. His chapters addressing the teaching of the Westminster Standards on the point can also shown to be erroneous. The book mentioned below documents these claims.


----------

