Help on the term “Theonomist”

[Jeri Tanner]

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.

Then why the label “theonomist” at all- that’s my question. Wouldn’t describing one’s self as in full subscription to the WCF be better?

@Reformed Covenanter Daniel still waving the invite in your face to tell your story of distancing yourself from the label, which I believe will be helpful.

 

[RamistThomist]

If by "the natural law guys" you mean the likes of Rutherford or Gillespie, I think their rigor is well attested.

No one can read Suarez and Grotius and think those guys are sloppy thinkers. Grotius singlehandedly created the discipline of international jurisprudence.

 

[Taylor]

Then why the label “theonomist” at all- that’s my question. Wouldn’t describing one’s self as in full subscription to the WCF be better?

That's a good question. It is not unusual to have a label for group which has differences within itself. After all, the fact that there are postmillennialists, amillennialists, Covenanters, Van Tilians, Clarkians, classical apologists, evidentialists, etc., within the Westminsterian tradition does not render the term "Presbyterian" useless or void. In the same way, that there are people under the "Theonomy" umbrella who differ on, say, the dietary laws does not render the label useless or void. What binds Theonomists together is the principle—namely, the abiding validity of the Law in exhaustive detail—not the applications of that principle.

Even so, I am essentially in favor of dispensing with the term altogether, considering the unhelpful baggage with which it is loaded (as this thread has demonstrated beyond much doubt). And I know for a fact I am not the only one who feels this way; I have a friend who told me that he overheard a couple young men at the OPC GA saying that they thought the term was unhelpful.

 

[Pilgrim]

Then why the label “theonomist” at all- that’s my question. Wouldn’t describing one’s self as in full subscription to the WCF be better?

Because a lot of theonomists don’t subscribe fully to the Westminster Standards. Some reject the teaching on the second and/or fourth commandment, for example. Some also reject the establishment principle if that means a state church.

There now seems to be a bunch of Baptists running around claiming to be theonomists, although I don’t know to what degree that is just an internet phenomenon.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Maybe instead of discussing [that which shall not be named], we should just discuss WCF 19:4 and not use new labels, which as Durham points out are sort of front loaded for causing stumbling blocks?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

@Reformed Covenanter Daniel still waving the invite in your face to tell your story of distancing yourself from the label, which I believe will be helpful.

I wanted to distance myself from the label primarily because of the baggage associated with the term. I differ with the modern theonomists on natural law, sphere sovereignty, presuppositionalism, church-state relations, libertarianism, and so on. However, if you tell people that you believe that the state should uphold the first table of the law or that the state may apply capital punishment to crimes beyond murder, then you get branded a theonomist. There is also the problem of people continually making unfair criticisms and sweeping generalisations about theonomists which constrains one to defend them (at least to some degree).

Generally speaking, the only label that I want other than Christian is the label Reformed. Real life, however, does not always allow us such luxuries.

 

[Goodcheer68]

Generally speaking, the only label that I want other than Christian is the label Reformed.

You forgot "Covenanter" : )

 

[RamistThomist]

Some notes on Natural Law:

1) I don't always agree with Rev Winzer, but he had an astute point: theonomists shot natural law out of the sky. The problem was that most of Christendom was on board.

2) Natural law changed after Hobbes. Leo Strauss makes this very clear in Natural Right and History. I'll try to have an essay on it in the next few days. To ignore this is basically to get the whole historical question wrong. Gary North is a case in point. He thinks Natural Law = Jefferson + Newton and never once exegetes any of the major Christian figures who spoke of man's telos.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

You forgot "Covenanter" : )

I would actually like to drop that label as well (primarily because many cyber-Covenanters are crazy people), but the horse has left the stable.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Another factor to consider in discussions over theonomy is the inconsistency of its critics with respect to the Westminster Confession. When theonomists are accused of being unconfessional by people who reject the civil application of the first table of the law and who reject the original Westminster Confession's teaching as "theocratic", they are understandably annoyed. To accuse theonomists of being unconfessional because you do not think that they are following WCF 19.4 to the letter, while you yourself reject the entire political theology of the Westminster Standards is completely ridiculous.

Those who reject the teaching of the original Westminster Confession on the civil magistrate need to remove the beam of unconfessional error from their own eye before they are able to remove the speck from the eyes of others.

 

[Grant]

I wanted to distance myself from the label primarily because of the baggage associated with the term. I differ with the modern theonomists on natural law, sphere sovereignty, presuppositionalism, church-state relations, libertarianism, and so on. However, if you tell people that you believe that the state should uphold the first table of the law or that the state may apply capital punishment to crimes beyond murder, then you get branded a theonomist. There is also the problem of people continually making unfair criticisms and sweeping generalisations about theonomists which constrains one to defend them (at least to some degree).

Generally speaking, the only label that I want other than Christian is the label Reformed. Real life, however, does not always allow us such luxuries.

Daniel,

Thanks for sharing this. As of late I have been reading through A‘ Brakel’s Systematic theology with a group of men. I do feel like the government is obligated to enforce and encourage the moral law. I expressed this view to two of my close friends, one being a pastor. As soon as I made the proposition, the response was “no way you’re talking like a theonomist”. This kind of confused me since my understanding of that label dealt with the judicial law.

As of late I’ve been thinking I fit more with the label of being an establishmentarian.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Daniel,

Thanks for sharing this. As of late I have been reading through A‘ Brakel’s Systematic theology with a group of men. I do feel like the government is obligated to enforce and encourage the moral law. I expressed this view to two of my close friends, one being a pastor. As soon as I made the proposition, the response was “no way you’re talking like a theonomist”. This kind of confused me since my understanding of that label dealt with the judicial law.

As of late I’ve been thinking I fit more with the label of being an establishmentarian.

In this situation, it might be a good idea to ask yourself the following question: What would Paul do? If the mere use of the word theonomy is an obstacle to what you are trying to achieve, then it is best not to use it. In another context, where you are trying to convince professed theonomists of something, it is perhaps wise to use it. Without betraying any principles (as opposed to labels), we become all things to all men in order that we might win some to our opinions.