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