Can Baptists be Theonomists?

[RamistThomist]

Aside from the exegetical arguments pro or con for theonomy, given the essential theonomic thesis: Continuity between testaments unless God says otherwise, can Baptists be theonomists and hold to credo-baptism?

I was a Baptistic theonomist for quite a while and never gave it a second thought, until challenged on above thesis. Secondly, many vocal supporters of theonomy and Christian reconstruction are Baptists (Doug and Howard Phillips, two men I highly respect).

???

 

[crhoades]

Again...not debating theonomy pro or con....

I would say that they would have a *more* exegetical approach to theonomy. A person can agree with Bahnsen's exegesis of Matt 5:17 and following that the law is binding until heaven and earth passes away and limit it to the law.

The concept that you mentioned above is attempting to show theonomy from a more covenantal hermeneutic which I think would bring a baptist fits.

Also...take a presuppositional adhering baptist and they could dovetail into theonomy by default without the problems above - no neutrality, autonomy or theonomy etc.

Again not to get into a large debate of the above points but I see that being various ways of baptists being theonomists.

Thoughts?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Still, continuity is continuity. Baptism/circumcision are no less a commandment of God than His moral Law.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
Aside from the exegetical arguments pro or con for theonomy, given the essential theonomic thesis: Continuity between testaments unless God says otherwise, can Baptists be theonomists and hold to credo-baptism?

I was a Baptistic theonomist for quite a while and never gave it a second thought, until challenged on above thesis. Secondly, many vocal supporters of theonomy and Christian reconstruction are Baptists (Doug and Howard Phillips, two men I highly respect).

???

I dont believe that people could consistently hold to the Theomony and Credo-baptism.

CT

 

[smhbbag]

Continuity between testaments unless God says otherwise.

I'd say many, if not most, theonomic baptists are uncomfortable with this hermeneutic, and do end up accepting theonomy based on the argumentation that crhoades gave:

Also...take a presuppositional adhering baptist and they could dovetail into theonomy by default without the problems above - no neutrality, autonomy or theonomy etc.

This was actually the first theonomic argumentation I encountered - from the presuppositional perspective, not a covenantal one. Later, I did come to accept "Continuity between testaments unless God states otherwise," and these 3 things (presuppositionalism, theonomy, and that covenantal hermeneutic) radically changed the way I viewed many issues......but not baptism.

To the theonomic baptist, God has said otherwise on the nature of the covenant sign. That's really the bottom line of debate.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Theonomy, A Reformed Baptist Assessment by Sam Waldron

 

[Canadian _Shawn]

Besides the point?

Hey guys!

I would generally identify as a Reformed Baptist and as a (cautious) theonomist. So I would say that one could both be theonomic and Baptist at the same time. How is that possible? To put it simply, I think that covenant theology is essentially beside the point when it comes to theonomy.

The strength of theonomy doesn't derives from a (highly suspect) understanding of how the covenants work, but from a strong doctrine of God. The law is still binding today because its moral claims reflect the character of God. However much administrations, covenants, and dispensations are important for matters of ceremonial requirements, they are essentially beside the point when it comes to deciding moral issues.

In Him,
Shawn

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

That's not the point, though, Shawn. Theonomy cannot exist without understanding the true continuity between both Testaments - something that Baptists cannot adhere to without changing their view on the Covenant of Grace and baptism, thereby leaving them ... not Baptist.

 

[Canadian _Shawn]

It is the point

Hi Utopia,

I can't agree because, as I wrote before, it seems to me that the heart of the issue is not whether what God revealed to Moses is still binding on people today (as per the covenant arguments), but why God's ethical revelations in the law were binding in the first place. My conviction is they are binding because they reflect the holiness and righteousness of God, and not primarily because of arguments relating the Mosaic covenant to the covenant of grace and to the life of the Church after Christ, etc.

In essence, the binding force of the law doesn't depend on when the laws were revealed, or to who, because if a law was moral back then, it was moral always. Ergo, I can be a Baptist and a Theonomist. In fact, I would say you could be a Dispensationalist and a Theonomist if you agree that our standard of righteousness is God himself and that the law reflects the righteousness of God. Keep in mind, throughout all of this I'm assuming that there is a distinction between moral and ceremonial laws.

In Him,
Shawn

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Shawn, the only problem with what you're saying is this:

For Theonomy to be true, we must not only assume continuity between Testaments, but have enough Scriptural teaching to demand necessary inference that, in fact, God's moral law is to be eternally binding on God's people as the ethical standard.

For Covenant Theology to be true, we must not only assume continuity between Testaments, but have enough Scriptural teaching to demand necessary inference that, in fact, the New Covenant is the consummated outward administration, more glorious in form, of the same spiritual covenantal promise made with Adam, Abraham, Moses, and David.

In both cases, we are left with the necessity of the New Testament to speak toward continuity of both doctrinal ideas.

With God's moral law, we have such confirming evidence as to its continuous relevance and authority in the teachings of Jesus Christ and Paul (cg. Sermon on the Mount).

With the eternal covenant of promise given to Abraham most clearly, as an everlasting covenant, we have the confirming evidence of both the gospels and the Apostolic writings; that is, we are grafted into the same "tree" (Rom 11), drink the same spiritual substance and Rock that is Christ (1 Cor 10), have been brought near to the commonwealth of Israel and the covenants of promise by the blood of Christ (Eph 2), etc.

A Baptist cannot be a Theonomist without admitting this inconsistency, in my opinion. It is not a universally applied hermeneutic.

 

[Canadian _Shawn]

Hi Utopia!

I find it very telling when you write that a Theonomist would need to:

"have enough Scriptural teaching to demand necessary inference that, in fact, God's moral law is to be eternally binding on God's people as the ethical standard."

Think about that for a second, and let me ask you a question: When is a moral law ever NOT binding? Is it EVER right to murder, lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery, etc? Does understanding whether these actions are right or wrong really depend on whether or not you're a covenantal presbyterian, reformed baptist, or dispensational charismatic?

Second, you wrote: "the New Covenant is the consummated outward administration, more glorious in form, of the same spiritual covenantal promise made with Adam, Abraham, Moses, and David."

As far as the ceremonial laws are concerned I'm with you, and so is vitually every Christian I know - Orthodox, Catholic, Baptist or Covenanter - we all agree that the cermonial laws have been consummated in Christ. The shadow has come to light, and the type has been made into reality. But what does that have to do with MORAL laws?

Let's take a test case: I suspect that bestiality, which is forbidden by Moses (Lev 18:23) but not spoken of in the New Testament, is wrong at all times, in all cases, in all places, and not just under the Mosaic dispensation/covenant. Furthermore, I submit that you don't need to be a covenant theologian, or a theonomist or a dispensationalist to understand that. Why? Because the prohibition against bestiality transcends its particular historical setting by always being an affront to the holiness of God. It simply doesn't matter which covenantal scheme of continuity or discontinuity you may hold to for it to be wrong. Likewise, I would extend the universal nature of the prohibition against bestiality to every moral law, because, as I said, they are a necessary extension of the doctrine of God and don't depend on any particular covenantal setting in order to be valid.

In Him,
Shawn

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

You misunderstand.

To be plain and simple: The same hermeneutical reading of Scripture is required to prove Theonomy as to prove Covenant Theology. Therefore, for a Baptist to use such a hermeneutic to prove Theonomy yet not be in adherence to traditional Protestant Covenant Theology is to be inconsistent.