The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum The Quote By J. Ligon Duncan & The Way Of Theonomy

Greetings theonomists and nontheons,

An online article by Dr. Duncan, "Moses' Law for Modern Government" had a link to this forum so I had to sign up. A friend asked me to read this article and I responded to him on my blog at www.tulipman.wordpress.com. I'm thinking there are some good thinkers around here who wouldn't mind speaking their mind on my blurbage?

I apologize if that article has been beaten to death around here, but rather than get into the myriad of points raised by either Bahnsen or Duncan in their thesis, counter-thesis, etc., I opted for a high level critique of Duncans low-level assumptions. When I read that one sentence, I simply put the paper down and wrote. I was done. It seemed clear. I hope my blog does.

The nontheons, I surmise, have only philosophical pragmatism as the other option for their philosophical foundation and even that is presupposed by that autonomous mind Dr. Van Til railed against. Striking, since we do not presume such folks as Dr. Duncan to take such a tack.

Hope I've whetted your whistle. ;-)

Tulipman
www.barrytme.wordpress.com

Tulipman

Though you haven't received any bites as of yet; you might find the following thread of interest.
https://www.the-highway.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/posts/34802.html
I especially liked to excellent contribution of JEdwards.

Tom

Thanks Tom. Yes, good reading.

JEdwards is definitely a student of Frame (his language bears the flavour of Frame's gentle propriety), while I am more purely a Van Tillian of the Bahsenite persuasion I would say ;-). I learned quite early from the Van Tillians I hung with the be very careful with Frame's approach.

I've only corresponded with John Frame once, over a critique Bahnsen made of Frame's approach to presuppositionalism, but Dr. Frame didn't want to discuss it. He is a very gentle bear compared to Bahnsen IMO, I just think one needs to be guarded with Frame's approach to presuppositionalism, I enjoy a lot of his stuff from RTS downloads at iTunes U, for example.

Funny, but a few of the students I have trained in presuppositionalism have gone on to pummel and thrash atheists, but enjoy the thrill of leaving them stuttering so much they simply walk away at that point. I could have borne a little of Frames genteel-ness and in my teaching stress a bit more, as Van Til did, that evangelism is integral to what we do when we pummel the opposers. Gotta remember that last step, kids ;-) It's funny because it's a trait of Van Til's, and Bahnsen learned it, to have a certain "in your face" approach. An elder in a church I attended was a student of Van Til's, who recollected that one day as he and Van Til were finishing up a discussion, the Dutch Dr. Van Til finished it with, "...and you'll shave that beard off, too, won't you!". You probably would not have heard that from Bahnsen, but I think it's certain you would never hear that from Frame.

Anyway, I just find the perceptibility of inherited traits of the teachers in their students interesting.

I, for example, was trying very hard to be throttled and collected in my approach to Dr. Duncan....bottle the acid and all that. But some of us get perturbed as we see Christians, who ought to know better, carry the baby all the way and then throw it out with the bathwater.

Schaeffer is, as JEdwards notes, definitely "presuppositionalism lite", which is an interesting phrasing because it is quite how a Frame-trained presupper would say it I think....to me Schaeffer just plain misses the most powerful point of the presuppositional approach to epistemology altogether, treating it like another option among the various approaches to knowledge that one could take (from his still-excellent book "How Should We Then Live?"). But it is not that. I grant it's very, very tricky for a Christian to pick up, because we constantly assume it and so it's just so familiar.

Aside from that, stellar fellow also.

Thanks again,

Tulipman

Frankly I can't believe someone is bringing up that old chestnut I had thought it had been done to death and gone away. But if you want to be theonomic by all means go ahead I for one can't take it serious anymore.

Well Peter, all I can say is that when I became too serious for too long about anything I eventually dropped it. If we can't have fun and enjoy theology, eschatology, theonomy, or collecting baseball cards and these suddenly become just "serious" to us then we've lost something, for sure.

I find the greatest enjoyment of the Christian worldview in it's vast coherence. My joy is in searching out apparent conflict and contradiction and chasing it like it's a zany grouse running from my shotgun (sorry, hunting season is open, just another coherent add-on).

So in that little matter of earths governance 'neath the claim of the Sovereign One enthroned, I suppose I still get a little giddy, jutting His words into this time and this space, too. Therein lay the fun; it fits. Like a puzzle. One more piece.

I try to show readers that to think Christianly on matters concerning government there is indeed a Christian way of thinking, and that thinking goes by a certain name. And if that name is all tangled up in somebody's seriousness because they were vexed by it for too long, then maybe it's time for a new name because how it matters and how it's true hasn't changed one bit, despite experiences.

For the record, I know several people for whom the chestnut is brand new.

So I encourage you to keep looking into the matter, but don't forget to have fun ;-) Maybe in not taking it seriously anymore, it'll matter to you again?

Barry

No I think Sam Waldron's assessment made up my mind years ago. If your interested you can read it here: Theonomy a Reformed Baptist Assessment

Yes, I'm aware of his article and I intend to answer Dr. Waldron on my blog on a portion of his paper, since I can dispense with his arguments regarding postmillenialism (I'm not a postmillenialist).

Well I am (the few, the proud, the postie) but I still think his argument is sound. Oh and just to make it clear I am a non-theonomic postmillenialist which I believe is the proper postie position.

You might find my latest blog entry the "Theonomic Way vs. Postmillenialism" of some interest then (www.faithtoreason.wordpress.com). I don't think you'll agree with it much, except that for different completely reasons we come to entirely the same conclusion ;-), but it's still interesting that a non-postmillenarian theonomist and non-theonomic postmillenialist both agree that the two are incompatible.

I might hazard a guess to say that you are seeing theonomy as a doctrine and not as a way of thinking, but take a look at my little article...interested to hear your thoughts.

Barry

Barry

To quote your article's first paragraph:
"Postmillenialism is incompatible with theonomy. Theonomy is not a doctrine or a belief; it is, in short, thinking that is governed by the word of the Christian God or, in long version, that Gods word is the sole, supreme, unchallengeable standard for the actions and attitudes of all mankind, whereas postmillenialism is an eschatological (end times) doctrine. This is not what makes them incompatible; this is just something that makes them different types of things."

How is Theonomy not a doctrine or a belief? It seems to me that your description of what Theonomy is a doctrine itself. The question to me is whether it is biblical or not.
All true Christians are Theonomists in what I would call the narrow sense of the word. Meaning that if Christ is Lord of their lives, they are putting off their old selves and putting on Christ as they learn from Scripture to put it in into practice.
I am reminded of Psalm 1:1-3.
1 Blessed is the man
Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly,
Nor stands in the path of sinners,
Nor sits in the seat of the scornful;
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
And in His law he meditates day and night.
3 He shall be like a tree
Planted by the rivers of water,
That brings forth its fruit in its season,
Whose leaf also shall not wither;
And whatever he does shall prosper.

Tom

Tom,

Good question; "How is Theonomy not a doctrine or a belief?"

My diatribe here will be about this; that Theonomy has been given that new label regarding a particular position about civil government, a very popular topic in the latter half of the twentieth century and even today. That is a new label for "theonomy", which if understood in its broadest and truest sense is not limited to that topic alone, but is rather a way a human being thinks in general, ie it is one of two approaches in epistemology and is antithetical to the other, called autonomy.

I'll try to answer how it is both a doctrine, and not a doctrine in the same sense. You're right, it does need some clarification, and I think I see why.

I find theonomy being thought of in two ways, and only one of these ways is in the common discourse right now-and that I believe is adversely affecting how Christians think-something I would like to see adjusted;

1) Theonomy is the political position regarding civil governance, that the Mosaic law and Old Testament precedence is still valid for all societies today, or

2) theonomy is the epistemological sense of being a presuppositional "way of thinking" where all thought is governed by Gods law, antithetical to 'autonomy' or freethinking.

In the former sense, (capital "T" theonomy if you wish) Theonomy is most often these days taken to be a formalized political position because among reformed Christians this is the hot topic....there is simply no debate about Gods law governing our personal morality, family governance or church governance so nobody who believes murder is a sin is being labeled a "theonomist". The only big public debate is about whether or not Gods law, taken for granted in those other spheres, should also govern the civil realm. With all the discussion and literature being about that particular aspect of being theonomical, 'theonomy' tends to get associated with only that. That leads Christians to say things like "I am not a theonomist" when they then turn and teach their children it is good to obey the Word of the Lord. They are, in my opinion, confused about theonomy and some of us are hoping to remedy that.

So if a Christian is being consistent with the 2nd definition of "t"heonomy and not resorting to autonomy in his thinking, he will, of necessity, be a Theonomist in the first sense if he's being consistent. But if a Christian is going to break with that manner of thinking, he must resort to autonomy, the only other option. This is never the right thing to do and this is what J. Ligon Duncan does in his article. This leaves him talking about the Bible as an "ideas suggester".

It's true, though, even the idea "theonomy is a way of thinking and not just a political belief" could rightly be called a 'doctrine' or a belief and therein lay my clarification for your question. It is in this sense a "doctrine" but that is more akin to being a definition of the word. It is not so much a doctrine in the same sense that the first definition of "T"heonomy is spoken of like a limited, political doctrine of how society should be governed.

Maybe I could clarify this further by looking at the idea or 'doctrine' that is the opposite of theonomy......

Consider the word "autonomy", which is never seen as a formal "doctrine" to Christians. It's from the Greek autonomia "freedom to live by one's own laws". It is defined at dictionary.com where "the individual human will is or ought to be governed only by its own principles and laws". If you then apply that to the topic of, say, how society is governed, you might come up with a formal, doctrinal position and vote for the "Freethinkers" political party. Though it may not be a stated doctrine about how a church should be governed, it is certainly the pattern of thought of a rebellious church. That is, you'll not see "autonomous way thinking" on any church's statement of faith if they've rejected God's word as governing their church. They're simply doing it that WAY and it shows in their works...more on what the book of Revelations below.

When that notion of autonomy is then applied as an approach to epistemology, ie "how we know what we know", all kinds of doctrines and beliefs spring forth (like atheism, for example).

The Christian idea that stands against the notion of 'autonomy' is 'theonomy'. It's an antonym to autonomy. Like autonomy, it too can be applied to "how society should be governed" or any number of topics. It can apply to raising children, running a home, how we behave at a hockey game. It can also be applied to the field of epistemology in philosophy and it is in this sense I am struggling to get Christians think more closely, and carefully. It is in this sense that it is most broad, most deep in our thinking process, and most significant and powerful.

You said "All true Christians are Theonomists...Meaning that if Christ is Lord for their lives...." You are speaking about the limited sense of personal morality, personal governance. But there is also Church governance, and family governance. Reformed Christians see these, too, theonomically. No debate.

Yet it's important for Christians to know that "Mosaic law for society" can only be acceptable to anybody once the Christian accepts theonomy as a way of thinking in all of life, once theonomy is rooted deeply enough in their thinking process. It is not Biblical and not logical to simply and suddenly get off the epistemologically Christian bus when we talk about societal governance and say things like the things Mr. Duncan was saying in his article, any more than we can simply stop thinking theonomically when we discuss personal morality; God judges both. To do so, a Christian must abandon thinking in a theonomic way (what you called the "narrow sense of the word") and switch allegiance to an autonomous way. The autonomous way of governing society outside the Law of God must not be considered just another, broader sense of the word "theonomy"...it is no theonomy at all and it is not Christian, not Biblical, to leave Gods law out that little aspect of life called "governing planet earth". That is why I say Mr. Duncan has nowhere else to turn as a Christian....the moment he strikes out in autonomy to consider the proper way to run civil society in general he is going to have to come back to the Word of God and abide by its principles, or else abandon it. He thinks he does neither when he speaks of using the Bible as a source of ideas...ideas about what? Ideas about how to govern that do not include the Law of God as the legal code, that is all he's left with. Such societies do so at their peril.

This notion of theonomy being a way of thinking vs autonomy is not a new notion at all, but in fact got a major shot in the arm as an issue during the Renaissance and Enlightenment as men struggled with new notions of human autonomy without recourse to Christian faith in their knowing process....the implications are devastating and secular philosophy has not recovered, I don't think. It simply abandoned larger worldview considerations for the most part.

In considering these things, Van Til said, "There is no alternative but that of theonomy and autonomy". He was speaking about epistemology. He meant these two words in the latter sense of what I've written above, what you called the "narrow sense". It is, I think, the broadest sense of all.

Given the above, then, I say that neither theonomy nor autonomy are formal, narrow "doctrines" or particular beliefs in the sense of the contemporary debate over civil governance, but rather they are doctrines or beliefs about thinking about anything at all.

When Christ speaks to the Church in Laodicea, he invites them, not to autonomy, but so close to him in their thinking that he likens it to sitting and eating with him, the one who "also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne." (Rev 3:21) When the churches did not follow Gods law, he rebuked them, "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches." (Rev 3:22).

Consider the next Psalm, Psalm 2, which switches scenes from the personal experience of Gods law in chapter 1, to the requirement of all nations on earth....

1Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

2The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,

3Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

4He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.

5Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
...
10Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.

11Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

12Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

I hope this has helped clarify, and add to the thinking about the way of theonomy.

Tulipman
Although I certainly plan on studying this matter further, at this point I think I have stretched as much out of myself as I can.
I find the matter extremely hard to wrap my mind around; therefore it would probably be best for me just to be a learner and perhaps ask the odd question if I need to.

It would appear that there doesn't seem to be all that much interest in discussing this matter further. This is ok because there is a point when further discussion is no longer fruitful. But, that doesn't mean that I don't think a lot of what you said makes sense.

This issue sure isn’t black and white.

Tom

Barry, I hope you don't mind me calling you that, I have a question for you: What is the dominant eschatology of the founders of Theonomy?

Maybe I should be a little clearer, the dominant eschatology of the Christian Reconstructionests?

The eschatology of most American Christian Reconstructionists is postmillenialism.
-Bary

So while Theonomy doesn`t have to be postmillenial in its eschatology as a general rule the founders of the system did hold to that view and attributed their view of the civil law as finding its fulfilment in the postmillenial eschatology.

For clarification, by "founders" if you mean that the first American Reconstructionists of the 1960's and 70's did/do hold to that view, then yes, you're correct I'd say.

Barry

Ok now if your postulating that Theonomy has evolved to the point that eschatology no longer matters then I have to ask can you be a Theonomic pre-millenialist?

Peter do you mean Theonomic historical pre-millenialist; rather than Theonomic dispensational pre-millenialist?

Tom

Using a strict understanding of Theonomy, I would say not. However, there are some close commonalities between the 'real' theonomists and those (Barton, I think his name and others) who preaches for the USA returning back to its Christian roots. The latter may very well be pre-millenialists.

I suppose that it could be possible to have a progressive dispensational Theonomist but since dispensationalism by it's very hermenuetic hold that the Law was a different economy than Grace I find it unlikely.

Wallbuilders aka David Barton's group doesn't espouse an eschatological view on their website. And in all seriousness I would call Barton a Rushdoony-lite at best.

"if your postulating that Theonomy has evolved to the point that eschatology no longer matters then I have to ask can you be a Theonomic pre-millenialist?"

I think the answer is already in your question.

That is, if I am saying that eschatology no longer matters to being a Theonomist, then yes you can be a Theonomic pre-millenialist. You could be a Theonomic anythingist if eschatology no longer matters.

Perhaps it's a Canadian thing, but from the perspective up here there is still a solid difference between formal or "high" theonomy (a'la Rushdoony & Bahnsen) and the social conservatism trumpeted by the hoy polloy of the American religious right.

While there is a good deal of American nationalist rhetoric among writers like Gary DeMar and Gary North (who have a distinctly young-activist "Franky Schaeffer" tone about them, don't they?), American Reconstructionism is not the same political and polemical stuff of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell....though on the face of it the difference may be hard to spot for many. In fact, some even label the polemics of the fundies as a kind of "theonomy" but it's just a cultural knee-jerk reaction to the abhorrent evil wrought by secular man since the running of the fundies to the sounds of J. Vernon McGee's 1950's call to retreat: "You don't polish brass on a sinking ship." You see the subtle view in that notion that America was once entirely afloat. Yet America was never a theonomy and it's still not what the dispensational right wants.

I'm not saying it's wrong to have a nationalist "flavour" to your own tribe's theonomy, but I must step up on my soapbox and holler that 20th Century American Reconstructionism IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF THEONOMY! Ahem. (he dismounts his soapbox).

And so if there happens to be inconsistencies, if pretribbing,right wing American dispensationalists are trying to be 'theonomists', if postmillenialists are theonomist because of some dogma of eschatological extension that may or may not involve the wholesale conversion of the American states, then I say there is no accounting for that in my view of things except to say it is an inconsistent theonomy.

Only a theonomy that can fully apprehend both a King in heaven ruling ALL nations and a 'narrow way' where 'few enter' in ANY nation is one that comports with Scripture. (or maybe that's a Canadian thing, too ;-)

I think your being obtuse. High Theonomists (your term not mine) didn't think their eschatology could be separated from their theonomic position. You argue for an Amillennial eschatology ipso facto what you're calling Theonomy isn't.

Peter
If you are correct, I think you are onto something. However for the sake of clarity explain why Amillenialism and Theonomy are not compatible.

Tom

Tom:

I don't know if your intentionally giving those on the forum an insult or not, if your in the dark and need clarification on some issue then say so. But just so you understand where I am coming from.

Since Theonomy is intent on reconstructing society along lines expectedly set forth in the Old Testament law, to put it simply they intend that government is once again to model the theocratic kingdom of Israel. And this is to reflect their idea of what the kingdom is supposed to be under Christ.

Now this is in direct contradiction to how Amillennialists view how the kingdom of Christ is, to them the kingdom is completely spiritual in nature. The only physical earthly representation of Christ's kingdom is found in His servants I.E. Christians/Church. They don't look to anything remotely looking like a theocratic state as the kingdom. For that matter most Amillennialists view the law as ceremonial, civil, and moral. As did the classic postmillennialists such as Boettner. Boettner saw the spread of the gospel as the factor in Christianizing the nations. It was this and not the Law that would bring about the change. (Notice there is a distinction between Law and Gospel with the classical posties.)

Contrast that with this quote by Ray Sutton:

Frankly this is a distortion of what the Bible teaches whether you are A or Post, yes all rule has been given to Christ but not as a continuation of the theocratic kingdom of Israel that is Old Covenant and was fulfilled in Christ. The New Covenant brings us a kingdom that isn't shaken by those that rebel against the laws, as Israel did. We aren't thrown out or judged by other nations because Christ fulfilled all that. We get the blessings not the curses the curses are for those that are outside the covenant. We are under Grace and thank you Jesus for that.

BTW if you want to read a great article that shows why Bahnsen/Rushdoony/North and the rest of the theonomists were not the same type of postmillennialist as Boettner and Hodge read this: Theonomic Postmillennialism

Hi Peter,

You have said that you are of the position that "Theonomy doesn`t have to be postmillenial in its eschatology" . You say now that the likes of Bahnsen and Rushdoony " didn't think their eschatology could be separated from their theonomic position".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you and I would agree then, that IF those high theonomists do insist you must be Post to accept theonomy at all, that they are probably wrong. You and I would say that it isn't necessary to have theonomy in your approach to civil morality aand be force-fed Postmillenialism as well.

Now for a clarification of my own. I am aware that Bahnsen and Rushdoony, for example, saw their eschatology as fitting in very nicely with theonomy, even that it was the superior and most consistent eschatological view. But I have never heard that they would deny that you could be a theonomist if you weren't Post. In that sense they most certainly did make the separation between theonomy an their eschatology.

Bahnsen writes whole articles in support of Post and never mentions theonomy and I have and have yet to find in "Theonomy in Christian Ethics" the suggestion (maybe it's there and I've just not seen it) that there is no real theonomy without Post. The word "postmillenial" doesn't even appear in his index of subjects, and any eschatology is rarely mentioned at all. Maybe I stand to be corrected, but while they saw Post as the superior view with theonomy they by no means insisted it was never theonomy without it.

They do say you are an inconsistent theonomist of you deny Post, but then I've said the same thing about not being A. However, the eschatology in both my opinion and their opinion does not deny theonomy if you don't accept our eschatology.

Therefore, I think you're wrong to say that what I argue for theonomy isn't really theonomy at all just because I am not Post. In fact, if you really hold that view yourself, then some clarification on your part is needed given your own statement " "Theonomy doesn`t have to be postmillenial in its eschatology".

A final note re "high theonomy", that Bahsen writes his book Theonomy with a distinct tone that separates it as a purely American document, as if theonomy in the US was the sole and particular end he had in mind. Bahnsen doesn't use the word "America", rather he uses "the state". I don't say they are "high" theonomists in any moral sense, that they are somehow better, I only mean that they have not gotten down into any regional situation per se, as if campaigning purely for one country's reconstruction. I don't think there's anything wrong with "American" Reconstructionism or "Canadian" Reconstructionism or "Ugandan" theonomy at all. I just wouldn't want people to think "Canadian Reconstructionism" every time they heard the word "theonomy".

Anyway, maybe "high theonomy" was a poor choice of words.

Barry

Peter,

Tsk tsk.

You should know that theonomists believe that the Christianizing of nations will come through the preaching of the gospel, and not the institution of Mosaic law. Theonomy teaches that the preaching of the gospel and the conversion of souls will effect the change, a change that ought to (or in the case of Postmillenialist Theonomists, will) include the desire the abide by the law for civil society, as well as for the other arenas of life.

Even Gary Demar is adamant about that.

The view that theonomy means to pursue a political overthrow that will institute Old Testament law as a means of Christianizing the world is just error. No wonder you think "this is a distortion of what the Bible teaches ".

I hope I have clarified things for you?

-B

Peter

You said:
"I don't know if your intentionally giving those on the forum an insult or not, if your in the dark and need clarification on some issue then say so. But just so you understand where I am coming from."

I assure you that no insult was intended at all. As a matter of fact, I don't understand how you could have taken my comments as an insult; especially seeing that I am not a Theonomist.

I was trying to understand where you were coming from, because your statement though very direct didn't give any solid proof of your position. It is not helpful to make such a direct statement, without backing it up with proof.
That being said, thank you for trying to clarify your statement anyway, it gave me something to chew on

Tom

Tulipman said: "You should know that theonomists believe that the Christianizing of nations will come through the preaching of the gospel, and not the institution of Mosaic law. Theonomy teaches that the preaching of the gospel and the conversion of souls will effect the change, a change that ought to (or in the case of Postmillenialist Theonomists, will) include the desire the abide by the law for civil society, as well as for the other arenas of life."

Reformed Christians believe that the elect become Christians by the proclamation of the Gospel. They also believe that obedience to God and His laws are a bi-product of a truly regenerate person.
If I understand what you are saying, this is not quite the same as what you are saying concerning Theonomists.
I guess my problem with reconciling A-millennialism with Theonomy is if I understand you correctly when you mentioned "Christianizing of nations" it sounds more like an optimist view such as Post Millennialism than it does with a more pessimistic view like Amillenialism.
I don’t remember reading any material written from an A-millennial position that talked about the Christianizing of nations.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying? All I know is I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around this subject, despite the fact that I have been reading a lot of material pro and con on the matter.

Tom

Hi Tom,

You picked up on the right thing about how that statement doesn't sound very Amillenial, but first let me clarify; To "Christianize" here simply means the effect in a society of turning the population towards Christ...you're not disagreeing with me there. The elect are saved by the proclamation of the Gospel.

However in Postmil, most hold that one day the vast majority of earth will convert and most theonomists are Post....in the context of my discussion with Peter I was emphasizing how those Postmil Theonomists believe that the Christianizing of nations comes from properly from Christianizing the masses through preaching the gospel and not by the imposition of the Mosaic Law, a misconception some have about theonomy. That's probably where I threw you...I was speaking about majority of theonomists who are Postmil so my fault not yours.

-B

I have always thought that the only major difference between Postmils and Amils is in their views of what the Lord will find on the earth when He returns: Postmils say He will find a world largely converted to Christ and governed by godly men - a "Christian culture" being predominant on the planet; and Amils say He will find a tiny, persecuted remnant "purified" by their suffering, and rescue them.

Attempts to "hasten the Lord's coming" by using the civil magistrate to enforce "Christianity" have historically failed. And some have done incalculable damage to the Church. That is the great temptation of a Postmil eschatology I guess.

-R

Robin with all due respect I would say that is the great temptation of any society that tries to use the civil authority to enforce the civil laws of Israel upon society. True Posties see the change wrought upon society via the gospel and changed lives Theonomic Posties see the Christianizing of society via the use of the law: Again I'll quote Ray Sutton:


Sutton's quote is illustrative of those who say that they want to change via the gospel but in actuality once they are established into office they want to impose the law of God upon the unregenerate. This isn't the same as the traditional postmillennial view which saw the gospel as the vehicle that changed the culture.

Boettner:

We are completely agreed on the subject, I think, Peter. My friend Dan likes to describe old-style Postmillennialism (or "true Postmillennialism" if you prefer) as "Optimistic Amillennialism" because of it's emphasis on the transforming power of the gospel rather than reliance upon the State to impose "Christian character" on an unregenerate population.

That said, I do believe that civil laws sooner or later boil down to someone's idea of "morality," whether Christian or not. Most folks, Christian or not, agree that laws against the use of force and fraud in the ordinary dealings of citizens is immoral and therefore good for the State to enforce, but that religious laws or laws that impose religious values on the population are "immoral."

-R

Interesting that you should mention this.

See here: Libertarianism's Folly

All disclaimers apply.

Every criticism of Libertarianism I have ever read includes one also found in that article, completely ignoring the distinctions between moral laws against force and fraud and those that don't involve force or fraud in any way. A comparison of recreational marijuana use (which involves neither force nor fraud) with rape, or with abortion (both of which involve the use of force applied against an unwilling recipient) is completely illegitimate.

I do agree though, that a truly libertarian society could only exist among a moral people, just as George Washington warned. When the people abandon Christian values, liberty without morality becomes a liability; the people become wanton and savage, and the society is doomed to decline and self-destruct.

But neither extreme - merging Church and State as some so-called Theonomists would do; nor creating a pure Libertarian state with no civil penalties for immoral behavior - is appropriate in a society like that of my own, with a rich Christian heritage abandoned several generations ago. The answer is a God-sent revival among the remnant of His people, who should influence the culture as salt and light instead of imposing "Christian" values on God-haters using the power of the State. Republics give way to Empires because liberty only works in a moral society. When the society abandons morality, it must also surrender liberty, or else suffer decay, collapse, corruption, and even conquest.

-R

Robin,

I presume by "Christian values" you mean those that Christians find either in the Bible, or that are entirely in accordance with the Bible? or like Dr. Ligon Duncan seems to suggest, are we able to invent Christian value as something new as we go along, using the Bible as an ideas generator?


re "merging Church and State as some so-called Theonomists would do;" Your statement suggests that you may be unaware that Theonomy, while advocating Mosaic law and Old Testament precedence as the foundation for the civil law of any nation, does not by any means promote the union of Church and State. God's law is universally true because truth is one, isn't it? When our countries pass laws that say murder is a crime, is just a little bit of mixing of Church and State? Or is the Church still separate? Would it be a mixing of Church and State if blasphemy against the true God is a crime? Or could the governance of our State still be separate from the Church? Let's not equate "Church" with "morality" as if they mean the same thing. If a Theonomist does advocate a union of Church authority with State authority, then you are quite right that they would be only "so-called" Theonomists.....or maybe my blurbage above is what you meant already. I digress.

re "....or creating a pure Libertarian state with no civil penalties for immoral behavior is appropriate in a society like that of my own, with a rich Christian heritage abandoned several generations ago" I wonder, where would a pure Libertarian state with no penalties for immoral behaviour ever be appropriate in our God's world? Again, your statement seems to suggest that righteous law-making is only appropriate for countries that used to have a lot of Christian influence. Would it be an evil thing, a wrong thing, or inappropriate if today Somalia passed laws honouring to God?

re "The answer is a God-sent revival among the remnant of His people, who should influence the culture ". If everybody was a Christian, there would be no more "influence" necessary, am I right? We would all be on the same page, so to speak. To talk of influencing the culture still presumes a situation of Christians in a culture full of, or containing, non-Christians in which case, wouldn't your influence be an imposition to the non-Christians there? Your statement also seems to suggest that we have no right to control the culture, only influence it, that we must abandon real authority to non-Christians and come at them obliquely with our "influence." If that's your belief, 'm not sure where you'd get that.

So if the predominant philosophy/culture of a society is indeed non-Christian, and by our great bulk of numbers in a revival we add our overwhelming influence, would this not mean that our Christian influence is being imposed upon people who are not Christians? And is this not just the sort of behaviour you condemn theonomy for?

If "influencing" the culture does not mean the actual establishment of anything formally "Christian", ie Biblical, in the civil law of the State, then do you envision a society where immorality is entirely legal by the Government but people aren't choosing the immoral way because they're all Christian? Abortion is payable on demand because governments do evil, but nobody has an abortion anymore because they don't believe in it? I wonder if that's the acceptable version of a non-theonomists ideal state.

Is it acceptable for a country's laws to be evil simply because there are no Christians in it? Or should a country's laws be in line with "Christian values" and thus honouring to God whether or not there are Christians there? Is it more appropriate to have evil laws now if a country has no rich Christian heritage such as yours?

People think that it's only ok to be a Christian country because you have Christians in control, or because in some opinions it once was Christian. But I don't believe it is ever right, objectively true and proper before God, for any country to be immoral just because it lacks a Christian head-count, or used to. Our presence does not create the rightness of God's law in society, God's presence does and when people make assumptions that we only have the moral right to insist on moral right just because we're there, we commit the sin of relativism committed by the empiricists.....that a tree does not exist when no human eye sees it, that there is no propriety to enact a God-honouring law when there are no Christians to follow it, to which I respond as I have responded elsewhere on this site recently, and which I now amend to suit our discourse;


There once was a man who said God
must think it extremely odd
when he finds that the rules continues for fools
when no Christians are here in the Quad.

The rely came;

Dear Sir,

Your astonishment's odd
for I am always about in the Quad
and that's why the rules continue for fools
since observed by

Yours Faithfully,

God.

Remember, God annihilated Sodom and Gomorrah not because the communities were immoral in spite of a 51% majority of Godly men who testified to the truth, but because the cities were evil. Period.

-Barry

All righteous civil laws ultimately, I think, find their origins in God's word. In a perfect world of righteous people, Libertarianism probably would work. In the world we live in, pure libertarianism is bound to fail, since the civil law would be grounded not in God's word, but in whatever seems right in the eyes of those in power.

My use of the words "so-called" was in reference to what passes as Christian theonomy today, not in historic Christian theonomy.

I am not well qualified to debate much on this subject, since my only real exposure to anything like it has been in a non-Reformed, Charismatic-style "Kingdom Now" theology, and in evangelical efforts to "hasten the Lord's coming" which were aimed at getting Republicans elected rather than being salt and light and "conquering the culture" by means of the gospel lived out and demonstrated.

My further contributions to this thread would be the fruitless ramblings of a kid making uneducated guesses more than informed debate. Thus I won't attempt to justify any position, but rather ask questions to clarify things that seem unclear to me.

For example, the observation I made earlier:

Is that an accurate summary of the difference, or have things changed in the common definitions of Amil and Postmil? Apparently the common understanding of the word "theonomy" has been changed by to refer to the views of more recent writers like Gary North. It looks like it has changed to one of more political activism in recent times than one of the "cultural conquest by the gospel." Is that correct as well?

Respectfully retreating so as not to confuse myself any further,

Robin

If I sound too much like I know what I am talking about, then it is to the degree that I have a brain to think (therein lay my limitations) and a Bible to read. I've read precious little about theonomy and am not it's best student, so you are in good company. We needn't read much Calvin and to an arminian look like a Calvin PhD. Folks here on the forum are mostly honest, direct, and inquisitive and we're all learning, far as I'm concerned. So ask away.

And still slightly on point, you do have the problem there of American context...a problem not because a Christian there can't be American in their topical approach to matters (what else could they be in local matters?) but that so much of the latter development of theonomy is/was in the US by Americans talking about the context of American politics, including all the rhetoric of the American right, which does not always help us. But I think you've already overcome that when I read that you are focused now on "being salt and light and "conquering the culture" by means of the gospel lived out and demonstrated." Don't do like Duncan did and look elsewhere for what to conquer with....you have the Law.

I had the pleasure once of being at a Reformed (Baptist) Church in the States one Sunday July 4th. The sermon was usual, not nationalistic, people didn't worship draped in flags and they weren't lighting off firecrackers during the picnic....you could have been in Canada and not have been able to tell the difference (except you guys say "about" kinda funny) but people focused on the Lord. I have to say, I was suprised...I thought all American Christians blended Jesus with America like a John Haggee, especially on a July 4th. But they didn't. I felt more like I was in a Christian brotherhood than I ever had. Next day things got wierd, but in a good way. You guys spend a lot of money on firecrackers.

And in just that way you, indeed most of us, already have what is needed to understand the theonomic approach to the society around us...as the Baptist Catechism and Westminster say, we have the light of nature in us and the works of God around us and that is sufficient for us to all be judged by him for not submitting to him....the people in Noahs day and at Sodom had the same criteria and suffered the same wrath and neither had much of Godly heritage in theonomy so far as we know. And we have the Word giving us greater detail than common man can know and that's it...that's all we really need I think. So don't worry about not being studied ... it wearies the flesh to read it too much.

"the only major difference between Postmils and Amils is in their views of what the Lord will find on the earth when He returns: Is that an accurate summary of the difference, or have things changed in the common definitions of Amil and Postmil?" I would say you're right. Amillenialism is a form of postmillenialism, and is generally taken to precede it in Church history in case that statement suggests to anyone that Amil came from Postmil. Postmil gave a new impetus to hurry up and prepare for theonomic bliss because that's what's needed before the end can come. I've always been convicted that he could return right now, save for the fact that there are elect left to save, thus the purpose of the great Commission and thus the implication of theonomy for societies. That is the purpose of history, to save the uttermost, not to muck around making suitable arrangements like a war here or there or Apache helicopters launching stinger missiles at Jack Van Impe. Or even making a theonomic society; that's not a criteria for the end, though it should continue to be our ethic until the day he arrives. We're supposed to do be doing that because, much more simply, it is the right thing to do. Churches should be governed after the law of God, families should be governed after the law of God, and so should our own Christian lives and all the while show how we love the law...there is no flaw in it and it was a graceful act of God to give it. And with all my reason, and all my Bible it is sufficient for me that all the world should submit to his revealed law now....all the world will be judged accordingly by it sooner or later.

"Apparently the common understanding of the word "theonomy" has been changed by to refer to the views of more recent writers like Gary North"

Not among theonomists it hasn't changed. That the Bible teaches that all the world should submit to God, from the individual, through families, all the way to state level, is unchanged by the fact that Gary North wants a Christian America.. Can you sense how those are subtly different things? North et al are simply being particular in the application of a universal principle. We must all do that...I must do it here for my own country, too. But that Canadian aspect I may apply to theonomy for Canada does not nullify all of theonomy, nor does it change it universally. Once you read Gary North et al, you see they are not trying to define theonomy, they are trying to take the universal truth of it and apply it to one country in one time. If different theonomists in the US want to apply it differently this way or that, great...that's called political debate and it is a great tradition, it is part of what healthy debate and sharpening the ideas is all about. Where would America be if it's founders gave up on the notion of "America" just because some people had nutty ideas about it? The crude, crass, ore being fashioned by Rushdoony and North and DeMar and Bahnsen today is just to get the fire lit so that real examination can get going....what it will ultimately be still remains to be seen and even they are ALL humble enough to admit that, at least in the texts I've read. Applications in theonomy are in their infancy because the rebirth of the doctrines of grace are still going on around the world. Like the way in which collectible cars increase in number by moving from mass production to being kept, true Christians may become more apparent in a society, more refined and outstanding, but that's probably just because the hoy polloy is being consumed around them. We're not really growing like Postmils might say, it just seems that way because we're being refined. But more minds doing more work seeing farther may yet produce the right reconstruction, the good theonomy, for a particular time and place. The key is to continue, and not give up, on thinking as Noah did and as Abraham did, thinking theonomically despite the fact that not all the world is turning to God.

Theonomy is right and proper for a Christian to believe. If North is too polemic or some moron tells you all Baptists or Presbyterians would have to die under theonomy (oh yes, in the infant years all manner of wierd sounds are made) then that is still no reason to abandon it for the ethical relativism of human autonomous thinking that got us all here in the first place. Forget North if you want to, and examine a less polemical theonomy in Bahnsen or let's just take our Christian minds to Scripture and just read it, and then read the newspaper, then read the Bible, then read the paper, then the Bible and it really will not take any confessing Christian long to to understand...theonomy is a way of thinking, about anything, including a way of thinking about our society.

Thanks, Barry.

I think you would have been pleased had you worshiped with us at my (PCA) church on July 4th as well. We simply continued with our study of Isaiah and the song service was in keeping with the sermon content, not the date. It's not as uncommon as you might expect. Though it probably was much more rare a few years ago when American evangelicalism had almost as much faith in the Republican Party as it did in the Scriptures.

Since the party betrayed it's Christian base of support, however, it may never recover. Incumbents even in the GOP are being rejected if they have any history of voting against our values. Many have rejected the Republican party altogether and have found our way to "minor" political parties, but most importantly, I hope, evangelicals have learned a lesson from this long-term betrayal by the party they once had so much faith in: That it is God alone in whom we should trust, not in horses, chariots, wealth, nor even Grand Old Parties.

-R

Barry said:
“Theonomy is right and proper for a Christian to believe. If North is too polemic or some moron tells you all Baptists or Presbyterians would have to die under theonomy (oh yes, in the infant years all manner of wierd sounds are made) then that is still no reason to abandon it for the ethical relativism of human autonomous thinking that got us all here in the first place. Forget North if you want to, and examine a less polemical theonomy in Bahnsen or let's just take our Christian minds to Scripture and just read it, and then read the newspaper, then read the Bible, then read the paper, then the Bible and it really will not take any confessing Christian long to to understand...theonomy is a way of thinking, about anything, including a way of thinking about our society.”

You will get no argument from me about thinking biblically about everything. All mankind is ultimately responsible and without excuse for not thinking biblically.
However, only Christians can and will think biblically.

Robin mentioned being “salt and light” and other that I may not be the sharpest pencil in the box, but what you seem to be saying would involve not only Christians thinking biblically, but everyone. That is highly unlikely seeing that unregenerate man thinks autonomously.
Am I misunderstanding you

Tom