Help on the term “Theonomist”

[TylerRay]

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.

 

[TylerRay]

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]

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.

 

[Grant]

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]

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.

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]

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.

Were the OT saints to interpret civil law as poetry?

 

[RamistThomist]

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]

And how many constitutional documents are written in chiastic patterns?

 

[User20004000]

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]

How many constitutional documents have poetry in them?

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]

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

It's not a caricature.

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]

It's not a caricature.

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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]

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

 

[Taylor]

...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.

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Nicely done.

 

[User20004000]

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]

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]

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.

 

[User20004000]

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]

This is unedifying. Closed for moderator review.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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.

 

[Taylor]

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, what 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.

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.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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]

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.

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.