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

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