Christian Reconstructionism

Status
Not open for further replies.

bconway52

Puritan Board Freshman
Anybody have or know of any good articles critiquing Christian Reconstruction/Dominion Theology from a theological perspective?
 
Scott Clark's new book Recovering the Reformed Confession speaks against Theonomy/Reconstruction briefly in a few places. I just got it this weekend so I'm still reading it.

Great book!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Hi Bradley,

Here are a few for starts:

Another Look At Theonomy, Raymond O. Zorn: "Another Look at Theonomy" by Raymond O. Zorn

Gordon, “Critique of Theonomy: A Taxonomy: http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/gordon_theonomy.pdf

Kingdom and Church in "Christian" Reconstruction, Rev. Ronald Hanko: Protestant Reformed Theological Journal: October 1998

Hanko Appendices: Protestant Reformed Theological Journal: April 1999

The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Theonomic Document?, by Dr. Ligon Duncan: Providence PCA Church Plant- Fayetteville, NC

David Silversides mp3 "Theonomy and the Westminster Assembly": SermonAudio.com - Theonomy and the Westminster Assembly

Robbins Theonomic Schizophrenia: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/084a-TheonomicSchizophrenia.pdf

Duncan, Moses' Law for Modern Government: Christian Ethics at Reformed.org

or http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/files/duncan_moses_law_for_modern_government.pdf (w/footnotes)

Sam Waldron on Theonomy: http://www.samwaldron.us/pdfs/Theonomy.pdf

Judicial Warfare: Christian Reconstruction's Blueprints For Dominion, by Greg Loren Durand

------

The Silversides mp3 lecture is excellent, as are most of the other materials here.

Steve
 
In my humble opinion David Silversides lecture is appallingly bad. This is an article a friend of mine has written critiquing this particularly lecture.

A number of years ago a lecture was given in my home state on the Westminster Confession and the Old Testament Penal Code, which has been renamed in recent years “Theonomy and the Westminster Assembly”. As this lecture has been promoted by a number of weblogs (one advertising it with the humanistic slogan “Should we stone our children?”, which is basically a denial of Biblical inerrancy), it is necessary for me to write this brief response.

> He begins by mocking the idea Sola Scriptura applies to the state; thus he opens the door for human autonomy. If Sola Scriptura does not apply to the state, then the state’s role is arbitrary. Moreover, what other standard is the state to be governed by?

> He mocks the idea that the state is “the enemy”; but all throughout Scripture the totalitarian state is presented as the enemy of the church.

> He introduces the subject by claiming Theonomy has led “many astray”; but what has it led people astray into? It has forced them to go back to the word of God as the sole and infallible rule for civil and social ethics. What is so bad about that?

> He makes the uncharitable assertion that some of those “led astray” by Theonomy are young men who “think they have good minds.” Imagine if a critic of exclusive psalmody said that it has “led many astray, especially young men who think they have good minds.” Would such argumentation be either relevant or legitimate?

> Accuses (by implication) lawfully ordained ministers in the RPCNA of being unconfessional. Not only that, he also accuses (by logical extension) our covenanting forefathers - like Donald Cargill, who in the Queensferry Paper called for Scotland to be governed chiefly by “the judicial law of Moses”, and Alexander Shields - who in said that the penal sanctions had not been abolished because they were part of the moral law - with being against the Confession of Faith which they fought and died for. Moreover, when one considers that the Queensferry Paper was owned by many of the Covenanter Martyrs in their dying testimonies, one can see how far removed the speaker’s views are from the early Covenanters.

> Argument from 1 Cor. 5 that excommunication has replaced the death penalty based on conjecture; Paul is not writing to magistrates. The lecture makes no response to the various Theonomic rebuttals of this argument.

> Argument that death penalty was excommunication from OT church confuses civil punishment and church discipline. The latter is for rehabilitation, the former is administered in terms of strict justice (Heb. 2:2).

> Argument that death penalty was excommunication is contrary to WCF which affirms that the ceremonial law, not the civil law, was given to Israel as a church under age (19:3).

> 1 Cor. 5 argument contrary to the views of George Gillespie and John Calvin.

> Westminster Divines cite penal sanctions as civil punishments, not ecclesiastical discipline, in the footnotes of the Standards. Moreover, the WCF and WLC cite the Older Testament penalties as part of the moral law.

> Argument that Israel was a church-state (i.e. church-civil government) is Erastianism; if the speaker applies the logic he uses to dismiss the penal sanctions, he would also have to abandon social covenanting and the establishment principle etc, saying that these things were unique to Israel as a church-state as well.

> Argument that death penalty was excommunication used by Erastians at Westminster Assembly; argument on 1 Cor. 5 used by tolerationists like Roger Williams, rejected by mainstream Puritans and Samuel Rutherford.

> Fails to deal with Biblical arguments of Theonomy. Such as, the law’s abiding validity, civil law not just for Israel, law upheld by pagan kings, penal sanctions existed before Sinai, penalties quoted and alluded to in the New Testament. Not much of a critique when it fails to examine the evidence or the arguments of Greg Bahnsen and Ken Gentry. If you do not interact with your opponents main contentions, then you cannot have offered a credible critique of their views.

> Fails to do justice to Theonomic arguments concerning WCF 19:4. No interaction with Martin Foulner, Ken Gentry, Greg Bahnsen or FN Lee’s historical arguments. Until Martin Foulner’s book Theonomy and the Westminster Confession is extensively refuted and we have been waiting 11 years for someone to attempt this - then we can safely say that Theonomy has won the historical argument.

> Arguments from Calvin taken out of context; this has been answered recently by Chris Strevel. Omits to mention Calvin’s upholding of the death penalties in various commentaries and in his sermons on Deuteronomy. Moreover, fails to explain why Calvin’s close friend Martin Bucer and his disciple John Knox both advocated the abiding validity of the penal sanctions.

> In relation to the Gillespie argument, the speaker takes the view that Aaron’s Rod Blossoming was written after Wholesome Severity just because it was published later; this is erroneous, as Wholesome Severity was a short tract written in late 1644/early 1645, while Aaron’s Rod Blossoming is a very long book which was probably written long before it came out. In Aaron’s Rod Blossoming Gillespie expresses his sympathy with those who hold penal sanctions, he does not call them deluded fools (and remember that Gillespie’s comments are only an aside, he does not go into the matter in detail). Moreover, in the Miscellany Questions, Gillespie holds the same position that he held in Wholesome Severity, yet the Miscellany Questions were written in 1649.

> Rutherford argument on whipping taken out of context. Rutherford did not believe restitution could be applied outside Israel, thus his methodology is Theonomic. Fails to mention that the book he quotes from (A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience) is at odds with his view that only murder is to be punished with death and is thoroughly Theonomic. The Puritans differed over whether restitution could be upheld today, just as modern Theonomists differ over 7 year prohibition on debt etc.

> Unsupported slander that Theonomists are not interested in upholding first table of the law - if this is true why doesn’t the speaker cite anyone? Show me a major Theonomic work where the author says that Theonomy teaches that the state is not to uphold the first table of the law? Now it may be that some Theonomists are weaker on the first table of the law than they should be, but how does that (if true) prove that Theonomy, in and of itself, is in error. It should be noted that Gary North and R.J. Rushdoony use basically the same argument as Samuel Rutherford that the death penalty for Sabbath violation is no longer binding. This was an issue earlier Reformed divines differed over; just as modern Theonomists do.

> Argument R.J. Rushdoony denied the Sabbath is false. Omits to mention that Rushdoony was closer to Puritans, Covenanters than the vast majority of modern Reformed theologians.

> Relevance fallacies concerning Regulative Principle of Worship and papal antichirst etc. Considering that two of the most recent books on the RPW have been written by Theonomists this argument is nonsense. Moreover, we would have to reject Protestantism because Martin Luther denied RPW. And even if it is the case that some people who believe in Theonomy deny the RPW, how does this prove that Theonomy as a doctrine is wrong?

> Argument that Theonomy is “not Reformed” is not proven; how is Theonomy theologically, philosophically or epistemologically anti-Reformed? Indeed, Theonomy is simply Judicial Calvinism, as it recognises that only the Sovereign God has the right to determine what is a crime and how it is to be punished in a manner which is equitable; all other views introduce Arminianism into Christian ethics.

> Claim that Theonomy is a “delusion” is highly uncharitable; how is believing in Biblical standards of justice any more delusion than being a postmillennialist, holding to National Confessionalism, Establishment Principle, Social Covenanting etc.
 
WOW. I downloaded it, thinking I MIGHT listen. I definately will now, and then come back and read those comments again, Ben. Interesting.
 
It's hard to read anything of length against Theonomy that isn't spiced with lies and distortions, or full of Kline-like pious mush. Rush just shook his head and went on with his work.

I remember when Hal Lindsey came out with The Road To Holocaust (there's a good book dealing with objections to Theonomy). I drove down to Stockton, bought a copy and within about 15 minutes found a misquote where Rushdoony was quoted as saying that so central is the Law to God that only perfect fulfillment of the law will allow anyone to be saved. The quote was even properly cited from a book he wrote. I opened the cited book and it said so central is the law to God that only perfect fulfillment of the law will allow anyone to be saved, and that is why Christ had to fulfill the law perfectly, and die in our place to provide an atonement for our sins.What a creep.

Do any of you remember Jon Zens? He did the same, but wrote that Mark Rushdoony insisted that instead of divorcing your wife you had to kill her, and he even cited the position paper. Naturally it was a big, fat, lie. Bill Downing, the leader here in California of the reformed missionary baptists was just as bad, spreading rumors that Rush wouldn't go to a restaurant that even served pork. Then when I went up to visit, he took us to the local Chinese place that had unclean food in 50 percent of the dishes.
 
Here are two more good ones I forgot in my haste: General Equity: The Divine Law of Political Israel Expired: Part I

And if you PM Tim Cunningham — timmopussycat — and request a copy of his book, How Firm A Foundation, he'll no doubt graciously email you a copy. It is a refutation of, among other things, Greg Bahnsen's use of Matt 5:17-20 to support his theonomic thesis.

I'm preparing to substantially answer the "theonomic" claims, though it will take me a while. I tentatively think to title the piece, "The Law Against 'Theonomy' ". I solicit prayer for this endeavor!

Steve
 
If you want a refutation (not directly) of Timmopussycat's thoughts read Ken Gentry's Covenantal Theonomy.

Which statement argues that BP has not read my book very carefully, if at all. Had he done so, he would have realized that I directly and indirectly address and refute a number of the points Gentry made in Covenantal Theonomy. Most importantly I show from primary sources that the pre-eminently influential figures of Covenant Theology since the Confession, (Dickson, Witsius, Brown of Haddington, Shaw, Hodge and Murray) all considered that the Mosaic judical laws, as a class, number among the discontinuites of covenant theology rather than the continiuites.
 
Last edited:
"Theonomy is simply Judicial Calvinism, as it recognises that only the Sovereign God has the right to determine what is a crime and how it is to be punished in a manner which is equitable"

Isn't this a good summary of the theonomic position? I can't see why anyone would find anything wrong with this position.
 
If you want a refutation (not directly) of Timmopussycat's thoughts read Ken Gentry's Covenantal Theonomy.

Which statement argues that BP has not read my book very carefully, if at all. Had he done so, he would have realized that I directly and indirectly address and refute a number of the points Gentry made in Covenantal Theonomy. Most importantly I show from primary sources that the pre-eminently influential figures of Covenant Theology since the Confession, (Dickson, Witsius, Brown of Haddington, Shaw, Hodge and Murray) all considered that the Mosaic judical laws, as a class, number among the discontinuities of covenant theology rather than the continuities.

You may have challenged Gentry but a refutation you do not have.
 
Be careful, there are definitely articles critisizing the good portion of the Christian Reconstruction Movement.
 
If you want a refutation (not directly) of Timmopussycat's thoughts read Ken Gentry's Covenantal Theonomy.

Which statement argues that BP has not read my book very carefully, if at all. Had he done so, he would have realized that I directly and indirectly address and refute a number of the points Gentry made in Covenantal Theonomy. Most importantly I show from primary sources that the pre-eminently influential figures of Covenant Theology since the Confession, (Dickson, Witsius, Brown of Haddington, Shaw, Hodge and Murray) all considered that the Mosaic judical laws, as a class, number among the discontinuities of covenant theology rather than the continuities.

You may have challenged Gentry but a refutation you do not have.

Your remark is exactly equivalent to a claim that statements by Calvin, Luther and Zwingli affirming justification by faith alone are insufficient to prove a claim that they were Protestants rather than Roman Catholics.
Gentry's basic argument is that the CR version of theonomy is part and parcel of covenant theology. Primary source quotation by the pre-eminent covenant theologians of the last three centuries uniformly denying the distinctive point of CR theonomy, that the continuity of all unamended Mosaic judicials must be included among the continuities of covenant theology, are therefore sufficient to refute Gentry's claim. And such statements by the most influential Reformed covenant theologians of the last 3 centuries are provided in my book.

I have just checked my files and it does not appear that I sent you a copy of HFAF. Did I do so? If not you should read it before posting as the Scripture says "he who answers before listening, that is his folly and his shame." This is particularly true if you are getting your information at second hand especially from a banned individual. The style of the Silversides review is highly characteristic and I believe I could put the authors name to it with a high probability of success.
 
Last edited:
"Theonomy is simply Judicial Calvinism, as it recognises that only the Sovereign God has the right to determine what is a crime and how it is to be punished in a manner which is equitable"

Isn't this a good summary of the theonomic position? I can't see why anyone would find anything wrong with this position.

This is a good summary of both the historical theonomic position (where theonomy meant ethical views anchored in biblical revelation) and the distinctive CR position. But no Christian active in the debate over Christian Reconstruction disputes this premise. What is at issue in the Theonomy debate are two somewhat different questions. How do we determine which events God has determined to be a crime in the new covenant era? and also how do we determine the punishments He wants instituted for those crimes?

The ethical perspective of CR (the phrase is Bahnsen's own label for theonomy) tells us one allegedly biblical way of determining which events God has determined to be a crime and which punishments He wants states to assign to such events today. Historically the Reformed have generally not followed the CR approach. Instead they have applied another allegedly biblical way of determining God's intent as far as setting crimes and punishments today. One must carefully examine the evidence for both sides to see which is correct.
 
Has anyone read Christian Reconstruction: What It Is, What It Isn't by Gary squared (North and DeMar)? Is that a good summary of CR?
 
Bill Downing, the leader here in California of the reformed missionary baptists was just as bad, spreading rumors that Rush wouldn't go to a restaurant that even served pork. Then when I went up to visit, he took us to the local Chinese place that had unclean food in 50 percent of the dishes.

Tim,

It's funny you should mention Dr. Downing. I used to sit under his ministry for about 3 years, and he personally introduced me to Rush. It was all down hill from there; I couldn't be a baptist for long.

For the record, I think that he is no longer a "missonary baptist", and he is quasi-favorable to Rushdoony, due to Ferrill Griswold's influence. However, I do think that he has stated such things about Rush; perhaps a misunderstanding on his part.

Cheers,
 
It's funny you should mention Dr. Downing. I used to sit under his ministry for about 3 years, and he personally introduced me to Rush. It was all down hill from there; I couldn't be a baptist for long.

For the record, I think that he is no longer a "missonary baptist", and he is quasi-favorable to Rushdoony, due to Ferrill Griswold's influence. However, I do think that he has stated such things about Rush; perhaps a misunderstanding on his part.

Really! I'll bet we have a lot of friends in common. Did you ever read that "The New Testament Church" he wrote?

Downing and Gene Cutler tricked me into eating some wild boar they'd shot. We were sitting around a lunch table, told me it was beef since they both knew I avoided pork (before I ever met Rush) as I didn't think the dietary laws were arbitrary. I ate the boar steak, and they laughed afterwards :lol:

It was then I heard the false story that Rush wouldn't eat at an establishment that served unclean food. I ended up living up by Rush for two years, and we were the ones who brought in house typesetting to Ross House Books (his wife's maiden name).

Even now, 20 years later, I still am amazed at the urban legends and outright lies spread about the man.
 
That was because of the modifier "good" in the OP.

As I have a lot to learn about this topic, would you be so kind as to help me understand what is not good about those critiques?

Thanks,
 
That was because of the modifier "good" in the OP.

As I have a lot to learn about this topic, would you be so kind as to help me understand what is not good about those critiques?

Thanks,

Brandon,

As a general rule, Robbins is not as even-handed as his master, Gordon Clark. If he finds something he doesn't like, he will caricture, and attack his caricature.

For instance, take his article about Reconstructionism leading to Roman Catholicism. Basically, this is an ad hominem attack on James Jordan. Something that even Greg Bahnsen would have agreed with; consider that Bahnsen disagreed with Jordan's interpretative scheme. The proposition that Robbins gives is the horns of dillemma: accept Robbins' formulation or go to Rome. Aren't there any more options available?

Also, if some of the premises of Bahnsen are correct, then Robbins' accusations could just as easily be applied to Rutherford or Gillespie's socio-political ethics. Or, to the original Westminster Standard's assertion of the magistrate's duty to call synods, and to suppress blasphemy, heresy, etc.

I don't recall ever reading Gordon Clark attack such ideas. Robbins has an axe to grind, which often clouded his assertions.

Those are some thoughts. I am a big fan of Gordon Clark, and even of Robbins on some issues. However, I believe that his attacks are at times quixotic, and unfair.

Cheers,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top