Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Posted some great resources.
If you want a refutation (not directly) of Timmopussycat's thoughts read Ken Gentry's Covenantal Theonomy.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
I haven't seen these listed yet,
Will the Real Greg Bahnsen Please Stand Up?
The Reconstructionist Road to Rome
Theonomic Schizophrenia
Jospeh's Apes
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?
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.
Where can I get something about Kline's anti-theonomic views? How his views differ from theonomy?
That was because of the modifier "good" in the OP.
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,