# Help on the term “Theonomist”



## Smeagol (Jun 24, 2019)

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?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Jun 24, 2019)



Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Romans922 (Jun 24, 2019)

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.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

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.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> 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 (Jun 24, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> 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

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> 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."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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 (Jun 24, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> 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. 


Grant Jones said:


> 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.


Grant Jones said:


> 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).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> 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 (Jun 24, 2019)

Pilgrim said:


> 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 (Jun 24, 2019)

Pilgrim said:


> 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._​

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jun 24, 2019)

@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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 24, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> @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.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## Smeagol (Jun 24, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> 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 (Jun 24, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> 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

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> 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 (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> 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
> 
> ...



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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 24, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Smeagol (Jun 24, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> 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 (Jun 24, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> 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/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jun 24, 2019)

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


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 24, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 24, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> 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 (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 24, 2019)

RWD said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Jun 24, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> ...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 (Jun 24, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Jun 24, 2019)

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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Jun 24, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> 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 (Jun 24, 2019)

“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.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 24, 2019)

RWD said:


> 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.


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

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 24, 2019)

RWD said:


> The concept was new, not the name.


I should have been more clear here. The concept was new, as well as the name. I've edited my post.


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 24, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Again, the rejection of natural law* as foundational to civil law* was new with the theonomic movement.



That’s a dubious claim and it’s ambiguous. Calvin and Dabney, just to name two, defended civil sanctions by appealing to special revelation. It’d be interesting to know how you think they buttressed their _hermeneutical_ foundation and _exegetical_ claims through an appeal to natural law that would not comport with Bahnsen. I detect an argument by way of false disjunction is in the making. I also detect some special pleading is coming my way as it relates to Calvin et al. not being strictly theonomic due to some vague or arbitrary distinction as it relates to his use of natural law.


----------



## Smeagol (Jun 24, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> 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.


Great read. Thanks.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



No. It's relevant. I dont' operate on the assumption that the Mosaic law is a comprehensive law code, _nor was it intended to be read as such_. That's fairly obvious from even a surface level reading of Moses (where is the discussion of water rights, for example? Every desert community has to have that codified, yet that's precisely what we don't have).

How many constitutional documents have poetry in them? 

Torah is meant to give us wisdom. So we need to ask, "What do we learn in this bizarre situation where a man breaks in and for some reason during the fight the other guy's wife grabs his crotch?" Seriously? In what situation is that possible? As a teacher I've been in the middle of a couple dozen fights breaking them up (I got pepper sprayed by the police one time on accident). That situation won't happen.

So I suggest that it was intended to be read another way.


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No. It's relevant. I dont' operate on the assumption that the Mosaic law is a comprehensive law code, _nor was it intended to be read as such_. That's fairly obvious from even a surface level reading of Moses (where is the discussion of water rights, for example? Every desert community has to have that codified, yet that's precisely what we don't have).
> 
> How many constitutional documents have poetry in them?
> 
> ...



Were the OT saints to interpret civil law as poetry?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

RWD said:


> Were the OT saints to interpret civil law as poetry?



The Poetry parts, yes. My point is that Moses didn't intend for it to be read as an issue of the Federal Register.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

And how many constitutional documents are written in chiastic patterns?


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The Poetry parts, yes. My point is that Moses didn't intend for it to be read as an issue of the Federal Register.



Is that a new concept and a new name?


----------



## Taylor (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> How many constitutional documents have poetry in them?





BayouHuguenot said:


> Moses didn't intend for it to be read as an issue of the Federal Register.



Caricature isn’t argument, Jacob. You’re better than this, brother. Can you quote me even a single reputable Theonomist who has argued that biblical Law be a constitutional document for a nation as opposed to simply an infallible source of what is to be called a crime and what punishment fits such crime?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Caricature isn’t argument, Jacob. You’re better than this, brother.



It's not a caricature.


Taylor Sexton said:


> Can you quote me even a single reputable Theonomist who has argued that biblical Law be a constitutional document



Francis Nigel Lee. Numerous sermons.

And my specific claim was not that modern day theonomists are saying we should have the Pentateuch as a constitution. My claim is that the early Israelites did not read it in the sense of a modern constitutional document.


----------



## Taylor (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's not a caricature.



It is unless you can demonstrate that such a notion is essential to the Theonomic thesis or literature.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> It is unless you can demonstrate that such a notion is essential to the Theonomic thesis or literature.



That wasn't my specific claim. My claim was that ancient man didn't view Torah as a modern day legal code, which means that some of the passages in there might not be specific legal instances. 

And I know no one likes my bringing up cutting off your wife's hand even though she helped save your life when you were fighting off a serial killer instance, but I will advance a speculation: I seriously doubt that situation ever happened. It's a bizarre one to begin with.

I do think, however, it teaches wisdom. Don't go getting involved in other people's fights. Where do we see that in the OT? The story of Josiah.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

If I see a bird's nest on the ground and I don't pick it up, etc., etc., what is the punishment?


----------



## Taylor (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> ...some of the passages in there might not be specific legal instances.



This is not against what Theonomists have written. No Theonomist I have ever read argues that every single thing mentioned in the entire Law has an exact (or _any_, in some cases) application to today. In fact, what I quoted above from the preface to the second edition to TiCE dispels that caricature completely.



BayouHuguenot said:


> ...no one likes my bringing up cutting off your wife's hand even though she helped save your life when you were fighting off a serial killer instance...



It only bothers me because it's an appeal to emotion, which is fallacious. And when it is used repeatedly, it causes me to believe that there is actually no argument to be made. The only thing being said it, "I don't like it. Therefore, it isn't true." While this argument might work for children and the monster under their bed, it's not the way we deal with Scripture and engage in theology.


----------



## Taylor (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> If I see a bird's nest on the ground and I don't pick it up, etc., etc., what is the punishment?



Is this a crime, according to the Law? What does the passage say? Again, Theonomists are very explicit that only things which are considered crimes and have specific civil punishments attached are to be considered crimes with corresponding punishments today. This is very simple, no?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Is this a crime, according to the Law? What does the passage say? Again, Theonomists are very explicit that only things which are considered crimes and have specific civil punishments attached are to be considered crimes with corresponding punishments today. This is very simple, no?



It's a law code that gives laws without punishments for breaking the law. That's not how law codes as we understand them generally act. I am not talking about whether or not all sin is crime. Of course it isn't.


----------



## Taylor (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's a law code that gives laws without punishments for breaking the law.



So, then, it appears not to be a civil crime. Trust me, instructive passages in the Law without civil sanctions are not something hidden from Theonomists. I’m kt sure why you’re acting as if not one of them has considered them.

And the fact that the Law doesn’t look or even function like a modern day Law code is irrelevant. The issue, again, is not whether the Law is to be taken as a constitutional document. That is a patent caricature. The issue is simply this: What is a crime; how should it be punished; how do we know?


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The Poetry parts, yes. My point is that Moses didn't intend for it to be read as an issue of the Federal Register.



Rather than ask, “how do you know?” (for obviously natural law didn’t reveal that to you), I’ll just ask that you please tell me how you know (or how the Israelites were to know) which parts of the civil law were to be read at a picnic sipping pomegranate wine and which parts were actually to be carried out in order to punish transgressors, if not to deter future would-be transgressors. 

I have nothing against poetry _per se, _but 
we’re to be doing analytic philosophy here and some theology too.


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 24, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> It is unless you can demonstrate that such a notion is essential to the Theonomic thesis or literature.



Nicely done.


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> And my specific claim was not that modern day theonomists are saying we should have the Pentateuch as a constitution. My claim is that the early Israelites did not read it in the sense of a modern constitutional document.



Well then, if in your opinion modern day theonomists don’t disagree with the Israelites, then why introduce the Red Herring?


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 24, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I am not talking about whether or not all sin is crime. Of course it isn't.



I agree, but how do _you_ know? (Let’s go no further than that.)


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 24, 2019)

RWD said:


> That’s a dubious claim and it’s ambiguous. Calvin and Dabney, just to name two, defended civil sanctions by appealing to special revelation. It’d be interesting to know how you think they buttressed their _hermeneutical_ foundation and _exegetical_ claims through an appeal to natural law that would not comport with Bahnsen. I detect an argument by way of false disjunction is in the making. I also detect some special pleading is coming my way as it relates to Calvin et al. not being strictly theonomic due to some vague or arbitrary distinction as it relates to his use of natural law.


If you want to be that uncharitable, that's on you. I don't have a problem expounding the moral law from either the book of nature or the book of Scripture. I believe in the general equity of the judicial law, as well as the establishment principle. I hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## User20004000 (Jun 24, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> If you want to be that uncharitable, that's on you. I don't have a problem expounding the moral law from either the book of nature or the book of Scripture. I believe in the general equity of the judicial law, as well as the establishment principle. I hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from.



It doesn’t help me understand your position at all, Tyler. Post 33 lays some defining questions at your doormat. (Additionally, I’ve been at this many years so in that post of mine I took the liberty to predict your informal fallacies in advance, but I was assuming you’d respond.)

Anyway...

The “book of nature” is flabby rhetoric (and soon to be exposed by James Anderson’s collegial critique of Fesko.) 

The natural law guys aren’t the most rigerous thinkers. I wouldn’t hitch my wagon to them.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 24, 2019)

This is unedifying. Closed for moderator review.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jun 25, 2019)

The thread is reopened with the understanding that future unedifying and unnecessary personal reflections on others will be deleted.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 25, 2019)

Basically, discussions on theonomy get tiresome very quickly for two reasons:

1. The critics of theonomy refuse to acknowledge that the theonomists have anything right - especially where it is as clear as day that there are significant areas of continuity between the early Reformed and the modern theonomists. As a Common Sense Realist, I cannot deny the blindingly obvious. Much of what the theonomists teach with respect to the Old Testament penal sanctions were not controversial in Reformed circles prior to the late 18th and 19th centuries.

2. The proponents of modern theonomy are too quick to defend its adherents on nearly every point and unwilling to admit that they had virtually anything wrong. The modern theonomic dismissal of natural law, for instance, is a serious departure from Reformed orthodoxy. You simply cannot subscribe to the Westminster Confession if you reject the notion that civil government is primarily founded in the law of nature. R. J. Rushdoony understood this point and thus he scolded John Calvin and the Westminster divines on the subject. Other modern theonomists have not gone that far, but have not paid sufficient attention to the law of nature, which, if they did, would actually strengthen many of their arguments.

Until the modern theonomists and their traditionalist critics are willing to compromise and concede the above points, dialogue on the subject is largely useless.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Taylor (Jun 25, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Basically, discussions on theonomy get tiresome very quickly for two reasons:
> 
> 1. The critics of theonomy refuse to acknowledge that the theonomists have anything right - especially where it is as clear as day that there are significant areas of continuity between the early Reformed and the modern theonomists. As a Common Sense Realist, I cannot deny the blindingly obvious. Much of what the theonomists teach with respect to the Old Testament penal sanctions were not controversial in Reformed circles prior to the late 18th and 19th centuries.
> 
> ...



I really appreciate this. I wish everyone came to Theonomy with this attitude. Unfortunately, you appear to be an exceedingly rare gem. That's sad that this is the case even in a place like PB.

As far as your second point, I do hope it hasn't come across that I defend everything every Theonomist has ever said; that is clearly not the case. That's the problem with dismissing Theonomy without any attempt at nuance whatsoever; it is a complex belief system with many adherents and defenders, all of whom say different things about different aspects of it. One can disagree with Rushdoony on the dietary laws (as I do), for example, and still be a thoroughgoing Theonomist. Anyone who acts as if all Theonomists are or attempts to present them as monochromatic replicas of one original are acting deceitfully. Therefore, I am thankful for your post here.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 25, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Unfortunately, you appear to be an exceedingly rare gem.



I am generally regarded as being exceedingly rare (in Northern Ireland, to be rare is to be very odd).


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 25, 2019)

RWD said:


> That’s a dubious claim and it’s ambiguous. Calvin and Dabney, just to name two, defended civil sanctions by appealing to special revelation. It’d be interesting to know how you think they buttressed their _hermeneutical_ foundation and _exegetical_ claims through an appeal to natural law that would not comport with Bahnsen.


My understanding of Calvin and Dabney is that they were direct realists who were happy to have their civil ethics informed by the moral law as discerned in the observable created order (what I called "the book of nature" before) and by the moral law as expounded in the Scriptures, including the general principles of equity found in the judicial laws of Moses.



RWD said:


> The natural law guys aren’t the most rigerous thinkers. I wouldn’t hitch my wagon to them.


If by "the natural law guys" you mean the likes of Rutherford or Gillespie, I think their rigor is well attested.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jun 25, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> That's the problem with dismissing Theonomy without any attempt at nuance whatsoever; it is a complex belief system with many adherents and defenders, all of whom say different things about different aspects of it. One can disagree with Rushdoony on the dietary laws (as I do), for example, and still be a thoroughgoing Theonomist.


Then why the label “theonomist” at all- that’s my question. Wouldn’t describing one’s self as in full subscription to the WCF be better? 

@Reformed Covenanter Daniel still waving the invite in your face to tell your story of distancing yourself from the label, which I believe will be helpful.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 25, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> If by "the natural law guys" you mean the likes of Rutherford or Gillespie, I think their rigor is well attested.



No one can read Suarez and Grotius and think those guys are sloppy thinkers. Grotius singlehandedly created the discipline of international jurisprudence.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Jun 25, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Then why the label “theonomist” at all- that’s my question. Wouldn’t describing one’s self as in full subscription to the WCF be better?



That's a good question. It is not unusual to have a label for group which has differences within itself. After all, the fact that there are postmillennialists, amillennialists, Covenanters, Van Tilians, Clarkians, classical apologists, evidentialists, etc., within the Westminsterian tradition does not render the term "Presbyterian" useless or void. In the same way, that there are people under the "Theonomy" umbrella who differ on, say, the dietary laws does not render the label useless or void. What binds Theonomists together is the _principle_—namely, the abiding validity of the Law in exhaustive detail—not the applications of that principle.

Even so, I am essentially in favor of dispensing with the term altogether, considering the unhelpful baggage with which it is loaded (as this thread has demonstrated beyond much doubt). And I know for a fact I am not the only one who feels this way; I have a friend who told me that he overheard a couple young men at the OPC GA saying that they thought the term was unhelpful.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 25, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Then why the label “theonomist” at all- that’s my question. Wouldn’t describing one’s self as in full subscription to the WCF be better?



Because a lot of theonomists don’t subscribe fully to the Westminster Standards. Some reject the teaching on the second and/or fourth commandment, for example. Some also reject the establishment principle if that means a state church. 

There now seems to be a bunch of Baptists running around claiming to be theonomists, although I don’t know to what degree that is just an internet phenomenon. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 25, 2019)

Maybe instead of discussing [that which shall not be named], we should just discuss WCF 19:4 and not use new labels, which as Durham points out are sort of front loaded for causing stumbling blocks?

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 25, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> @Reformed Covenanter Daniel still waving the invite in your face to tell your story of distancing yourself from the label, which I believe will be helpful.



I wanted to distance myself from the label primarily because of the baggage associated with the term. I differ with the modern theonomists on natural law, sphere sovereignty, presuppositionalism, church-state relations, libertarianism, and so on. However, if you tell people that you believe that the state should uphold the first table of the law or that the state may apply capital punishment to crimes beyond murder, then you get branded a theonomist. There is also the problem of people continually making unfair criticisms and sweeping generalisations about theonomists which constrains one to defend them (at least to some degree). 

Generally speaking, the only label that I want other than Christian is the label Reformed. Real life, however, does not always allow us such luxuries.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Jun 25, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Generally speaking, the only label that I want other than Christian is the label Reformed.


 You forgot "Covenanter" : )


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 25, 2019)

Some notes on Natural Law:

1) I don't always agree with Rev Winzer, but he had an astute point: theonomists shot natural law out of the sky. The problem was that most of Christendom was on board.

2) Natural law changed after Hobbes. Leo Strauss makes this very clear in _Natural Right and History_. I'll try to have an essay on it in the next few days. To ignore this is basically to get the whole historical question wrong. Gary North is a case in point. He thinks Natural Law = Jefferson + Newton and never once exegetes any of the major Christian figures who spoke of man's telos.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 25, 2019)

Goodcheer68 said:


> You forgot "Covenanter" : )



I would actually like to drop that label as well (primarily because many cyber-Covenanters are crazy people), but the horse has left the stable.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 25, 2019)

Another factor to consider in discussions over theonomy is the inconsistency of its critics with respect to the Westminster Confession. When theonomists are accused of being unconfessional by people who reject the civil application of the first table of the law and who reject the original Westminster Confession's teaching as "theocratic", they are understandably annoyed. To accuse theonomists of being unconfessional because you do not think that they are following WCF 19.4 to the letter, while you yourself reject the entire political theology of the Westminster Standards is completely ridiculous. 

Those who reject the teaching of the original Westminster Confession on the civil magistrate need to remove the beam of unconfessional error from their own eye before they are able to remove the speck from the eyes of others.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Smeagol (Jun 25, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I wanted to distance myself from the label primarily because of the baggage associated with the term. I differ with the modern theonomists on natural law, sphere sovereignty, presuppositionalism, church-state relations, libertarianism, and so on. However, if you tell people that you believe that the state should uphold the first table of the law or that the state may apply capital punishment to crimes beyond murder, then you get branded a theonomist. There is also the problem of people continually making unfair criticisms and sweeping generalisations about theonomists which constrains one to defend them (at least to some degree).
> 
> Generally speaking, the only label that I want other than Christian is the label Reformed. Real life, however, does not always allow us such luxuries.



Daniel,

Thanks for sharing this. As of late I have been reading through A‘ Brakel’s Systematic theology with a group of men. I do feel like the government is obligated to enforce and encourage the moral law. I expressed this view to two of my close friends, one being a pastor. As soon as I made the proposition, the response was “no way you’re talking like a theonomist”. This kind of confused me since my understanding of that label dealt with the judicial law.

As of late I’ve been thinking I fit more with the label of being an establishmentarian.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 26, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Daniel,
> 
> Thanks for sharing this. As of late I have been reading through A‘ Brakel’s Systematic theology with a group of men. I do feel like the government is obligated to enforce and encourage the moral law. I expressed this view to two of my close friends, one being a pastor. As soon as I made the proposition, the response was “no way you’re talking like a theonomist”. This kind of confused me since my understanding of that label dealt with the judicial law.
> 
> As of late I’ve been thinking I fit more with the label of being an establishmentarian.



In this situation, it might be a good idea to ask yourself the following question: What would Paul do? If the mere use of the word theonomy is an obstacle to what you are trying to achieve, then it is best not to use it. In another context, where you are trying to convince professed theonomists of something, it is perhaps wise to use it. Without betraying any _principles_ (as opposed to _labels_), we become all things to all men in order that we might win some to our opinions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

