# R-D vs T



## Theognome (Oct 12, 2008)

I left Southern California almost four years ago. I attended an OPC church there, not very far from the Escondido campus of Westminster Theological Seminary. When I relocated to Missouri, I did not choose to remain in the OPC due to a schism that has reared it's head in many OPC Churches- a division that, in reality, should never have occured.

Greg Bahnsen was a tremendous influence on the OPC, who established the Theonomic hermeneutic through his studies of Van Til, Rushdoony and others. Theonomy, in its basic form, teaches that all scripture has a literal and practical application in all spheres of life and government. When applied in moderation, this principle can be very helpful in understanding the answer to Schaefer's question, 'How should we then live?'.

His OPC arch-nemesis was none other than Meredith Kline. Now I don't mean that these two actually fought eachother, but their teachings on OT hermeneutics were very diferent. Kline, who chaired Westminster Theological Seminary California, developed a principle that he called, 'Redemptive History'- the main tenant being that Christ is found, one way or another, on every page of the OT.

Who could argue agains't that? Surely our redeemer, by whom the Scripture came into being, would ensure that His presence was in every verse of the OT, and that the events of biblically recorded history reflect the depth of Christ's work.

The problem is that both men are right. The Old Testament both teaches about the life, person and ministry of Christ as well as teaches practical application of individual as well as communal Christian living. The problems arise when either of these two theologian's positions are taken exclusively to their logical conclusions- which is exactly what many OPC churches have done. Some take Theonomy to the extremes, preaching a return to Theocracy and complete social Reconstructionism; while others go the Kline route, going so far as to deny the Christian's involvement in society whatsoever.

Try sitting through an OPC service that has a chip on it's theological shoulder. I dare you. You'll find these two camps rearing their 'I am of Kline! I am of Bahnsen' ugly heads. It's easy to figure out which camp any particular OPC is in. If the sermon is a theology lecture full of big words and reasons why these words point to Christ, then you're in the Kline zone. If the sermon addresses politics, Christmas, Kosher eating and applications of deuterocanonical law, then a Bahnsen talking head is in charge. In both cases, what you won't hear in most cases is the simple Gospel of Christ preached.

These two camps hate each other, despite the fact that both of these theologians based much of their work on the same man- Vos. What makes this even worse is that they are both wrong- exclusivity will always result in error. The 'I am of Paul! I am of Apollos!' factions only accomplish the destruction of Christian unity, a shallow knowledge of God's word and irresponsible stewardship of the keys to the Kingdom.

Thankfully, there are many OPC churches that have realized the error of this kind of exegetical exclusivity, and endeavor to bring forth from the Word what is plainly presented. I pray that, across the OPC, this schism will not produce a victor, but a mutual surrender- that both sides of this camp would see the folly of attacking each other.

Theognome


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 12, 2008)

The pastor of the OPC church I attended for about 2 years was something of a protege of Bahnsen's and I believe studied under him at RTS prior to Bahnsen having to leave in the late 70's. However, I am thankful that he doesn't have any particular axe to grind and preaches the whole counsel of God. Otherwise I wouldn't have been able to join.


----------



## Theognome (Oct 12, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> The pastor of the OPC church I attended for about 2 years was something of a protege of Bahnsen's and I believe studied under him at RTS prior to Bahnsen having to leave in the late 70's. However, I am thankful that he doesn't have any particular axe to grind and preaches the whole counsel of God. Otherwise I wouldn't have been able to join.



That is good news. When we moved to KC, we couldn't join the local OPC's because of their axe grinding- both were rabidly anti-Bahnsen to the suffering of God's word.

Theognome


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Oct 12, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> The pastor of the OPC church I attended for about 2 years was something of a protege of Bahnsen's and I believe studied under him at RTS prior to Bahnsen having to leave in the late 70's. However, I am thankful that he doesn't have any particular axe to grind and preaches the whole counsel of God. Otherwise I wouldn't have been able to join.



Exactly. I attended the same church, and never felt that our pastor over-emphasized theonomy -- in fact, I can't recall its being mentioned directly in sermons more than occasionally. I can't say whether over-emphasis of theonomy occurs elsewhere.


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 12, 2008)

Ex Nihilo said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > The pastor of the OPC church I attended for about 2 years was something of a protege of Bahnsen's and I believe studied under him at RTS prior to Bahnsen having to leave in the late 70's. However, I am thankful that he doesn't have any particular axe to grind and preaches the whole counsel of God. Otherwise I wouldn't have been able to join.
> ...



I knew of his background with studying under Bahnsen and Shepherd and was leery. But he was unaware of my concerns, at least at that time. He put me at ease one evening when he said he wasn't interested in novelty or needless controversy. I never saw any "Shepherdism" or emphasis on theonomy, other than his quoting Van Til's statement that it must be autonomy or theonomy. On his old website Fred Greco wrote that he stood for "Vanilla Westminsterianism" and that's a pretty good description of this brother's ministry.


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 12, 2008)

Theognome said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > The pastor of the OPC church I attended for about 2 years was something of a protege of Bahnsen's and I believe studied under him at RTS prior to Bahnsen having to leave in the late 70's. However, I am thankful that he doesn't have any particular axe to grind and preaches the whole counsel of God. Otherwise I wouldn't have been able to join.
> ...



What you relate is somewhat ironic since the impression I've gotten of the SoCal Presbytery is that it was sharply divided between Klineans and theonomists for years, culminating in the Irons case, although there were extenuating circumstances there, particularly Mrs. Irons writings on homosexuality. No doubt there were a good many churches in the presbytery that didn't have an axe to grind one way or the other on those issues. I know of some historic premils in that presbytery as well.


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 12, 2008)

Theognome said:


> I left Southern California almost four years ago. I attended an OPC church there, not very far from the Escondido campus of Westminster Theological Seminary. When I relocated to Missouri, I did not choose to remain in the OPC due to a schism that has reared it's head in many OPC Churches- a division that, in reality, should never have occured.
> 
> Greg Bahnsen was a tremendous influence on the OPC, who established the Theonomic hermeneutic through his studies of Van Til, Rushdoony and others. Theonomy, in its basic form, teaches that all scripture has a literal and practical application in all spheres of life and government. When applied in moderation, this principle can be very helpful in understanding the answer to Schaefer's question, 'How should we then live?'.
> 
> ...




Bill,

Not having ever been a member of an OPC, I can say that I find this post to be a bit confusing. For instance, you say that they are both right, and are both wrong; which is it?

Also, Bahnsen is most famous for his apologetics material, not his theonomy material, and to make him out as a one-track minded theologian is, I believe, a misrepresentation. I know less about Klein, but it seems to me that it may be oversimplifying his program; but then again, I don't have the OPC background.

I know for a fact that Bahnsen didn't hold to the dietary laws, or make theonomy his only issue. He merely defended his thesis when it was challenged. He preached through the Confession, Calvin's Institutes, taught on philosophy, apologetics, epistemology, and a host of other issues. His most famous book is "Always Ready", and is not about God's Law. 

The theonomic principal may safely and confessionally hold that Christ is to be found in the Old Testament. However, the R-H principal seems to have a tougher time using the Law in its first use, and even at times in its third use. This is not confessional.

Also, someone earlier confused theonomy with Shepherdism; this is either a slip of the key-board, confusion, or misrepresentation; more likely is that I'm misunderstanding. Perhaps we could have some clarity on this?

Cheers,


----------



## Theognome (Oct 12, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> > Pilgrim said:
> ...



I left the SoCal pres. as the Irons case was at it's climax, and when I traveled to the Midwest, the issue was in brood (The Midwest tend to be a few years behind the west coast in most things cultural). I was surprised to find the issue very hot in the local OPC's- and in particular that the Kline camp was in vogue so strongly. 

Personally, I'm sympathetic to- but not an adherent of, the Theonomic position (My wife Toni tends toward exclusivity, and my job is to reign her in- no easy task), and since in my area the new pastors are bred from MARS, I really was shocked to see the issue in the OPC so vibrant here. So like you, the idea of the problem going beyond SoCal astounded me- until I confronted it with my own eyes.

I attended some of the SoCal Presbyterian meetings regarding Irons, and in my opinion (yes, it's an opinion, not a fact) sympathies for or against the issue are still held as grudges in those OPC Churches that got close to it; and thus the primary theological issue that underlines the session's findings are still in debate in pocket areas. This is a problem- The GC already spoke to the issue, and thus folks should move on. Unfortunately, not all have.

I wrote this post not to seek more debate on what should be a dead issue, but out of frustration. I didn't want to go through the whole issue again in the Midwest, yet the polarization was so manifest that I had no choice but to leave the denomination. I do hope that the whole of the OPC, and not just regional Presbyteries, can put the whole issue behind them and move forward in the spirit of fellowship.

Theognome


----------



## TimV (Oct 12, 2008)

I was a member of Rushdoony's church for two years, and I don't recall any axe grinding. I'd never heard of Kline until a few years ago; evidently someone who sees so little practical in the Old Testament that Genesis may not really have happened. My pastor at the PCA church I attended until recently quoted him a lot, and described himself as "Klinean" and preached a sermon about how Genesis couldn't be true because it was contradictory. 

PS we had a staff meeting at Rush's church every Tuesday morning at a local diner, and Otto Scott ordered bacon, and Rush paid for it.


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 12, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Also, someone earlier confused theonomy with Shepherdism; this is either a slip of the key-board, confusion, or misrepresentation; more likely is that I'm misunderstanding. Perhaps we could have some clarity on this?
> 
> Cheers,



No confusion here. I have never stated that one necessarily entails the other. In that post I simply noted that a certain minister was influenced by both men. But it is undeniable that _some_ theonomists have liked, identified with and defended Shepherd's views.


----------



## Theognome (Oct 12, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Bill,
> 
> Not having ever been a member of an OPC, I can say that I find this post to be a bit confusing. For instance, you say that they are both right, and are both wrong; which is it?



I didn't say that both were wrong. What I did say is that to take the teaching of either one exclusively will lead to error.

Both are right in that there isn't only one way to understand God's word on specific points. Specific passages of Scripture often address many issues, and to deny applications at the expense of specific exegetical principle can often lead to problems.



Christusregnat said:


> Also, Bahnsen is most famous for his apologetics material, not his theonomy material, and to make him out as a one-track minded theologian is, I believe, a misrepresentation. I know less about Klein, but it seems to me that it may be oversimplifying his program; but then again, I don't have the OPC background.
> 
> I know for a fact that Bahnsen didn't hold to the dietary laws, or make theonomy his only issue. He merely defended his thesis when it was challenged. He preached through the Confession, Calvin's Institutes, taught on philosophy, apologetics, epistemology, and a host of other issues. His most famous book is "Always Ready", and is not about God's Law.



Bahnsen's work on Theonomy wasn't well recieved by his mentor, Van Til, who spoke against it. And yes, Bahnsen didn't adhere to dietary laws, but some teachers in the reconstruction camp take his work to that extreme. 



Christusregnat said:


> The theonomic principal may safely and confessionally hold that Christ is to be found in the Old Testament. However, the R-H principal seems to have a tougher time using the Law in its first use, and even at times in its third use. This is not confessional.
> 
> Also, someone earlier confused theonomy with Shepherdism; this is either a slip of the key-board, confusion, or misrepresentation; more likely is that I'm misunderstanding. Perhaps we could have some clarity on this?
> 
> Cheers,



Thus my problem with adherents to exclusive Covenant Theology. If you remove the importance of the Law from God's word, you by default lessen the impact of the Gospel, for if we, as sinners, have not the law, how will we know that we are in the state of sin? 

Shepherdism grew from the Auburn group and is, to some extent, a 'baby with the bathwater' use of Theonomy. Most of the early Auburn group were died-in-the-wool Theonomists, but, like the Kline group, took the teaching exclusively and thus into the realm of error and divisiveness.

Theognome


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 13, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > Also, someone earlier confused theonomy with Shepherdism; this is either a slip of the key-board, confusion, or misrepresentation; more likely is that I'm misunderstanding. Perhaps we could have some clarity on this?
> ...



Chris,

Thank you for clearing up my confusion!

Cheers,


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 13, 2008)

Theognome said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > Bill,
> ...



Bill,

If you will re-read your OP, you stated that "both were right", and then, toward the end, stated:



> These two camps hate each other, despite the fact that *both of these theologians* based much of their work on the same man- Vos. What makes this even worse is that *they are both wrong*- exclusivity will always result in error.



My point about Bahnsen is that he was NOT an exclusivist, but was a Confessionalist, who defended some of the neglected/despised principals of the Confession: establishmentarianism, the applicability of the laws (moral and judicial), and a godly magistrate. He then defended those Confessional teachings when they were attacked. I don't think he was exclusivist, and would ask that you remove that charge, unless I'm misunderstanding, and you're talking about some of his followers. I'm a little slow on the uptake 





Theognome said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > Also, Bahnsen is most famous for his apologetics material, not his theonomy material, and to make him out as a one-track minded theologian is, I believe, a misrepresentation. I know less about Klein, but it seems to me that it may be oversimplifying his program; but then again, I don't have the OPC background.
> ...



Again, you have not recognized that Bahnsen was not an exclusivist. Would you please acknowledge this? If you do not, I believe you are speaking ill of a dead man needlessly. Rushdoony held (personally) to the dietary laws, and seeks to make a case for it, at times. If you wish to trace such ideas, you may not trace them to Bahnsen's doorstep; this is an error on your part. Bahnsen's brand of theonomy is much more tightly tied to the Confession, and to the writings of the puritans than Rush's brand was. So, when you say that _his_ work is taken to an extreme, you are wrong.



Theognome said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > The theonomic principal may safely and confessionally hold that Christ is to be found in the Old Testament. However, the R-H principal seems to have a tougher time using the Law in its first use, and even at times in its third use. This is not confessional.
> ...



Bill, I think you are right about some people choosing to use the baby-with-the-bathwater approach. It makes an easier case for them against theonomy.

Most of the Auburn Avenue crowd *were* theonomists. It was at the same time that Schlissel and Wilson had rejected theonomy and reconstructionism that they began being taken in by Shepherdism and (some of them at least) by NPP. They followed Jordan's departure from these points, and began to be critical of, and distance themselves from these two movements a few years before the Auburn Avenue conference. I'm not so sure about Wilkins, but I'm fairly certain that his rejection of theonomy has taken place by now.

Also, the first presbytery to issue any form of complaint or condemnation against the Auburn Avenue theology (in June 2002) was a group of Bahnsen-brand theonomists.

I believe that other ideas were what led to the Auburn Avenue theology:

1. Paradox theology: allowing people to assert and deny the same points (such as election meaning election, and meaning non-election)

2. Monocovenantalism: rejecting the covenant of works in favor of a "grace-based" relationship between Adam and God

These two points, to the best of my knowledge, were not defended by Bahnsen. One could argue that they were defended by VanTil; who, by the way, defended Shepherd at his trial in the Philadelphia presbytery. Funny how VanTil took up umbrage with Bahnsen's theonomy, but not with Shepherds theses on justification. 

Cheers,


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 13, 2008)

Theognome said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > The pastor of the OPC church I attended for about 2 years was something of a protege of Bahnsen's and I believe studied under him at RTS prior to Bahnsen having to leave in the late 70's. However, I am thankful that he doesn't have any particular axe to grind and preaches the whole counsel of God. Otherwise I wouldn't have been able to join.
> ...



I have found in my young life that the anti-Bahnsen/Rushdoony/etc... factions are much more cutthroat and not charitable in the least to those who may be supporters of the aforementioned theologians.


----------



## Scott1 (Oct 13, 2008)

> Theognome
> Puritanboard Freshman
> 
> since in my area the new pastors are bred from MARS, I really was shocked



You really have to be a Puritan Board insider to understand things like this!


----------



## Theognome (Oct 13, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> My point about Bahnsen is that he was NOT an exclusivist, but was a Confessionalist, who defended some of the neglected/despised principals of the Confession: establishmentarianism, the applicability of the laws (moral and judicial), and a godly magistrate. He then defended those Confessional teachings when they were attacked. I don't think he was exclusivist, and would ask that you remove that charge, unless I'm misunderstanding, and you're talking about some of his followers. I'm a little slow on the uptake



The point about both being wrong was aimed at the two camps that emerged, not the two teachers. My apologies for not making that more clear.





Christusregnat said:


> Again, you have not recognized that Bahnsen was not an exclusivist. Would you please acknowledge this? If you do not, I believe you are speaking ill of a dead man needlessly. Rushdoony held (personally) to the dietary laws, and seeks to make a case for it, at times. If you wish to trace such ideas, you may not trace them to Bahnsen's doorstep; this is an error on your part. Bahnsen's brand of theonomy is much more tightly tied to the Confession, and to the writings of the puritans than Rush's brand was. So, when you say that _his_ work is taken to an extreme, you are wrong.



I most certainly acknowledge that Bahnsen was not an exclusivist- and I also will state that his work on Theonomy was probably the least of his works. His studies in apologetics are among the finest available.



Christusregnat said:


> Bill, I think you are right about some people choosing to use the baby-with-the-bathwater approach. It makes an easier case for them against theonomy.
> 
> Most of the Auburn Avenue crowd *were* theonomists. It was at the same time that Schlissel and Wilson had rejected theonomy and reconstructionism that they began being taken in by Shepherdism and (some of them at least) by NPP. They followed Jordan's departure from these points, and began to be critical of, and distance themselves from these two movements a few years before the Auburn Avenue conference. I'm not so sure about Wilkins, but I'm fairly certain that his rejection of theonomy has taken place by now.
> 
> ...



I've noted a root similarity between the AA view of forensic justification and Van Til's treatment of Teleological and natural law, in the Van Til's definition (as seen in Defense of the Faith, for example) demands a comprehensive knowledge of natural law. Personally, I've not comfortable with claiming mankind as being able of comprehensively knowing _anything_- especially the nature of the universe and the Law of God.

Theognome


----------



## Jon Peters (Oct 13, 2008)

A couple of things. I think it misrepresents Kline to say he doesn't believe in Genesis. He holds to a different interpretation but it is very uncharitable to say he doesn't believe it. It also misrepresents Kline to say he doesn't believe the OT teaches anything practical. True, the OT is interpreted through the new covenant lense, but doing so does not eliminate, necessarily, practical aspects of the OT. It is a bit more nuanced than that.

BTW, I was a member of a Klinean church for several years (Lee Irons' church) and was a theonomist during that time. Never once did Lee try to beat me up. I even got the sense that he liked me a little bit.

It is also silly to think that this debate is only an OPC debate. It may have its most dramatic effect in the OPC, but it is not isolated to the OPC. SoCal Presbytery was also sort a hot bed for that sort of thing. There were a bunch of theonomists and there was WSC. Presbytery was often quite interesting.


----------



## Theognome (Oct 13, 2008)

Jon Peters said:


> A couple of things. I think it misrepresents Kline to say he doesn't believe in Genesis. He holds to a different interpretation but it is very uncharitable to say he doesn't believe it.



Absolutely. Thankfully, I don't think anyone in this thread has even suggested such a thing.



Jon Peters said:


> It also misrepresents Kline to say he doesn't believe the OT teaches anything practical. True, the OT is interpreted through the new covenant lense, but doing so does not eliminate, necessarily, practical aspects of the OT. It is a bit more nuanced than that.



That's where the 'hyper-Kline' challenge comes in. Nuances are often lost when a scholar's work are used beyond their context.



Jon Peters said:


> BTW, I was a member of a Klinean church for several years (Lee Irons' church) and was a theonomist during that time. Never once did Lee try to beat me up. I even got the sense that he liked me a little bit.



I'm glad to hear that. Thank you for that testimony.



Jon Peters said:


> It is also silly to think that this debate is only an OPC debate. It may have its most dramatic effect in the OPC, but it is not isolated to the OPC. SoCal Presbytery was also sort a hot bed for that sort of thing. There were a bunch of theonomists and there was WSC. Presbytery was often quite interesting.



The only place I've encountered it is in the OPC. If others wish to expound on some of the issues from this caused in other denominations, by all means share them. 

Theognome


----------

