mrhartley85
Puritan Board Freshman
Been interested in learning more about theonomy. What are your guys’ thoughts on the topic?
What are the best resources on theonomy?
- Thread starter mrhartley85
- Start date
- Status
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
A nice backdrop:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/theonomy.44536/#post-559601
Then head over to:
https://www.puritanboard.com/forums/theonomy.132/
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/theonomy.44536/#post-559601
Then head over to:
https://www.puritanboard.com/forums/theonomy.132/
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
The best defense of theonomy is No Other Standard.
The best critique of theonomy is Shadow of Christ in Law of Moses. It's not so much a refutation as showing all of the difficulties in Bahnsen's thesis.
Avoid Theonomy: A Reformed Critique. It is about as badly written a book as one can imagine. Only 1/4 of the book dealt with the theonomic thesis. Parts of the book, Silva's chapter, came close to refuting Bahnsen's biggest critic. Clair Davis's chapter rebutted Gaffin's chapter.
Other works that merit careful study:
Rutherford, Free Disputation. (If you are up to reading the font)
Gillespie, Aaron's Rod Blossoming. Refutes the Regulative Principle of Civil Govt.
The best critique of theonomy is Shadow of Christ in Law of Moses. It's not so much a refutation as showing all of the difficulties in Bahnsen's thesis.
Avoid Theonomy: A Reformed Critique. It is about as badly written a book as one can imagine. Only 1/4 of the book dealt with the theonomic thesis. Parts of the book, Silva's chapter, came close to refuting Bahnsen's biggest critic. Clair Davis's chapter rebutted Gaffin's chapter.
Other works that merit careful study:
Rutherford, Free Disputation. (If you are up to reading the font)
Gillespie, Aaron's Rod Blossoming. Refutes the Regulative Principle of Civil Govt.
I thought Ferguson's bit in TaRC was good given it was the first real attempt to put the older 'source' material in perspective. The Gillespie is ironic given the status assigned to his anonymously published Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty (on the whole less pittiless than Rutherford, if only for its brevity maybe; according to Walker's Theology and Theologians of Scotland). If I can suggest my own piece on the sources, see the front matter on the collection of the anonymous writings of Gillespie and the table of material sorted by date against the debates of the Westminster Assembly and the commentary (only the table is online; get the vol. 5 issue). See The Westminster Assembly & the Judicial Law: A Chronological Compilation and Analysis. Part One: Chronology. and Part Two by Matthew Winzer, analysis.
http://www.cpjournal.com/store/
Table is online here.http://www.cpjournal.com/articles-2/articles/
Anonymous writings available here: http://www.lulu.com/shop/george-gillespie/the-anonymous-writings/paperback/product-2390892.html
http://www.cpjournal.com/store/
Table is online here.http://www.cpjournal.com/articles-2/articles/
Anonymous writings available here: http://www.lulu.com/shop/george-gillespie/the-anonymous-writings/paperback/product-2390892.html
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Theonomy itself is seem to be outside orthodox Reformed theology though, correct?
Depends on how they define it. That's been the problem really as the definition tended to shift. If all it is, is a more rigorous or detailed use of general equity, then I don't see how it is; but those that deny the threefold division of the law would certainly be outside of it.
Southern Presbyterian
Puritan Board Doctor
It totally depends upon who you ask.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
I'd really recommend becoming thoroughly acquainted with the Westminster Standards' teaching regarding the law of God before studying theonomy. It could save you a lot of trouble in the end.
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Senior
Everyone should read Theonomy in Christian Ethics, by Greg Bahnsen
If you want to pay $170 here's the link: https://goo.gl/MSTcPc - But I have a better idea. I have two copies of the 25th Anniversary Multimedia Edition I do not want to part with. But I would be more than happy to lone one of them to you for as long as it takes you to read it. Then I would hope to get it back sometime. If you are interested, send me your address in a private message, and I will get it right out.
Ed
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Incorrect.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Ferguson's piece was certainly among the better ones. And for the record I am not a theonomist.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's okay; neither was Gillespie.
Last edited by a moderator:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Speaking as a former theonomist, one of the reasons theonomists resisted so strongly was that many of the proposed alternatives weren't that desirable:
1) Kline and Radical Two Kingdoms: Is Misty Irons the logical conclusion?
2) Principled Pluralism: any surface level understanding of logic can show the vacuity of this position.
3) Americana: This seemed to be the unexamined presupposition of many. What's wrong with America? Why not just go with the flow? That might have worked in Reagan's America. After Bush and Obama it's impossible.
For those steeped in church history, there were more attractive options:
4) The Scottish position. Yet this could be subdivided
4.1) Is Christ mediator of the nations (post-Covenanters)?
4.2) Is Christ mediator of the church only, yet ruler of the nations via "natural law?"
I lean towards 4.2.
1) Kline and Radical Two Kingdoms: Is Misty Irons the logical conclusion?
2) Principled Pluralism: any surface level understanding of logic can show the vacuity of this position.
3) Americana: This seemed to be the unexamined presupposition of many. What's wrong with America? Why not just go with the flow? That might have worked in Reagan's America. After Bush and Obama it's impossible.
For those steeped in church history, there were more attractive options:
4) The Scottish position. Yet this could be subdivided
4.1) Is Christ mediator of the nations (post-Covenanters)?
4.2) Is Christ mediator of the church only, yet ruler of the nations via "natural law?"
I lean towards 4.2.
IF they deny the threefold division of the law, they would be though.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Most of them uphold the threefold distinction. Rushdoony denied it, but neither Bahnsen nor Gentry followed him in that regard.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Criticisms from a generally more Establishmentarian position are usually better, as they can offer a non-pluralistic alternative. They also aren't embarrassed or say things like, "God's law is so mean!"
I haven't read Isbell's critique, but I plan on it.
http://www.westminsterconfession.or...f-political-israel-expired-general-equity.php
I haven't read Isbell's critique, but I plan on it.
http://www.westminsterconfession.or...f-political-israel-expired-general-equity.php
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
"The Old Testament civil laws must be obeyed in minute, excruciating detail." As John Frame said, it's the statement that died the death of a thousand qualifications.
Scottish Presbyterian
Puritan Board Sophomore
Theonomists don't advocate living under the ceremonial law.
Would 4.2 be stating then that Jesus would have the Law over His church people, but that He would not be ruling nations under that same law?
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
No; it's saying that the nations owe obedience to God, and that the natural, moral law (summarized in the Ten Commandments) is the foundation for all civil law.
So what someone like me, a premil, would see as being established by God at the Second Coming event would instead be established right now, but not through supernatural means?
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
He would be ruling over the nations via general equity.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
We're not talking about eschatology; we're talking about ethics. The classic Reformed establishmentarian view (4.2. in Jacob's post) doesn't imply a certain eschatology. To put it another way, we're not talking about what will happen, so much as what men should do.
As to the matter of supernatural means: it is unthinkable that a nation would submit to Christ apart from the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in and through the Church.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
What are you trying to say? This sentence isn't clear.
Post Tenebras
Puritan Board Freshman
What a wonderful offer! However Theonomy in Christian Ethics is such a comprehensive thesis that I would never say everyone should read it.
Bahnsen's By This Standard is what I recommend. I think it's the most accessible and fair introduction to Theonomy for the lay-person.
mrhartley85
Puritan Board Freshman
Where do you land on this topic and why?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Broadly Establishmentarian. Pluralism only works when everyone obeys the moral law.
Now, the proliferation of denominations today poses some problems for Establishmentarianism, but I don't see them as insurmountable.
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Senior
Gary North called pluralism a temporary ceasefire that eventually must end in one word -- FIRE (like in firing squad)
A fellow Establishmentarian. How very refreshing.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
