# Was Wollebius a Theonomist?



## SynodOfDort (Oct 6, 2013)

I came across this quote from Wollebius: 

Propositions: I. As the ceremonial laws concerned with God, the political was concern with the neighbor. II. In those matters on which it is in harmony with the moral law and with ordinary justice, it is binding upon us. III. In those matters which were peculiar to that law and were prescribed for the promised land or the situation of the Jewish state, it has no more force for us than the laws of foreign commonwealths.[/I]


Was he a Reconstructionist!?


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647 (Oct 6, 2013)

Reconstructionism is a very new kid on the block - he was not a Reconstructionist. Theonomic, yes. He was but then again, all but a very small few in the Reformed church up until very recent days.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 6, 2013)

There's not enough information here to tell if he was theonomic. The theonomic thesis presumes that the Mosaic crimes and their penalties are binding on magistrates at all times, or at least that they should be made the law of the land and so become binding in civil law. Wollebius may be making an appeal to a general equity in the civil law that can - through Christian reasoning - inform the formation of suitable laws. 

The journal, "The Confessional Presbyterian", No.5, has a couple of articles in it by PB's Chris Coldwell and Rev. Matthew Winzer, that show that many of those that theonomists claim as their own from the 17th century, did not believe that just because s crime and its penalty was on the Mosaic law, that this, per se, was enough to justify it being made part of thevlegal code of a modern Christian commonwealth.

A careful look at Israel's civil laws shows that they do relate to God as King over Israel and His mediatorial anointed kings, as well as to the covenant people. Obama, Queen Elizabeth or Cameron aren't in the Davidic line, nor are the people of Britain or the US God's Old or New Testament people. Such considerations as these, and others, mean that we cannot argue from the Mosaic crimes and penalties per se to modem states but can learn from them in a general equitable way.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 6, 2013)

Sounds like he is similar to the general equity clause of Westminster.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 6, 2013)

What Wollebius says there is simply part of standard Reformed theology. Compare the Westminster Confession of Faith, XIX:4:



> To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.



The laws of other nations don't bind us in the same way that they bind citizens of those nations, and neither do the laws of Israel. But every nation ought to have, for instance, laws against murder; and we should abstain from murder whether our nation has a law against it or not.


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647 (Oct 6, 2013)

AlexanderHenderson1647 said:


> Reconstructionism is a very new kid on the block - he was not a Reconstructionist. Theonomic, yes. He was but then again, all but a very small few in the Reformed church up until very recent days.


As a disclaimer, when I refer to theonomy, I mean the application of the general equity of the law applied to modern civil states. I don't mean it in the sense that it is defined by Rushdooney or Bahnsen. The gentlemen above summarize what I was saying very well.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 7, 2013)

Theonomy is a very simplistic and erroneous response to the Scriptural data. 

For instance, I do not see either Bahnsen or Rushdoony in their major works "Institutes" and "Theonomy" pointing out that even under the Mosaic administration, the death penalty could be commuted to a monetary ransom, except in the case of murder. This would mean that the theonomy demanded by its defenders would be more severe and more absolute than the civil law of Moses. 

One of the motivations for not examining the civil laws in their context properly to bring to light the nuance of their application under the Mosaic administration is to absolutise them and present them as moral in a simplistic sense and perpetually binding. 

This approach is also illustrated by their treatment of tithing. Who'd have known from Rushdoony's examination of tithing in the "Institutes" that many people under Moses didn't and couldn't't tithe?

It means that the church is hindered in learning properly anything from the criminal laws and penology of Moses and from tithing, because the Mosaic laws as presented by unregenerate theonomists are to some extent misrepresented and "straw men".

But the substance of the Covenant of Grace continues from OT to NT while the administration does indeed change.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 7, 2013)

eh? That is a typo or you need to elaborate more.


Peairtach said:


> unregenerate theonomists


----------



## SynodOfDort (Oct 7, 2013)

Thanks for all the input! So I guess you could say he was theonomist not Reconstructionist?


----------



## py3ak (Oct 7, 2013)

Probably you wouldn't say that if by "theonomist" you meant someone like Gary North. If you meant that the moral law forever binds everyone, justified and unjustified, then the term could apply but might be a bit misleading.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 7, 2013)

NaphtaliPress said:


> eh? That is a typo or you need to elaborate more.
> 
> 
> Peairtach said:
> ...



Yes. Just a typo. Something to do with predictive text on this newfangled phone. 

Just ''theonomists'' will do. I don't look upon a person's view on ''theonomy'' as indicating whether someone's regenerate or not.

*Jacob*


> Thanks for all the input! So I guess you could say he was theonomist not Reconstructionist?



The quote doesn't indicate whether he believed in the exact crimes and penalties of Moses should be put into law per se because they are in the Mosaic law, or whether more complex additional reasoning would be needed to justify any of them being put into law on the basis of general equity. It sounds more like the latter position - Westminsterian General Equity - than the former position, Theonomy.


----------



## SynodOfDort (Oct 8, 2013)

Peairtach said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > eh? That is a typo or you need to elaborate more.
> ...



Ok Thanks!


----------

