Were 17th Century Puritans Theocrats or Theonomists?

I realize that it is anachronistic to ask a question such as this. But lately I’ve encountered the argument that there is a difference between the reformers (called Theocrats) and modern day Theonomists. Every time I read some of the earlier primary sources, I find myself wondering what differs in their view that makes them a Theocrat and me a Theonomist. I find myself agreeing very often with the early reformers that I’ve read, both in Europe and very early New England.

Anyway, realizing that the very question is anachronistic, the real question is if modern “Theonomy” is very consistent with the early “Theocratic” doctrine.

I’m just starting to study this question in-depth for myself so that I can know for sure when having this discussion with professional historians. But until I am done with that study (read: a long time from now), I will share some material that I found on The Reformed Covenanter blog. It’s a good read that quotes a lot from 3 Puritans in the mid 1600’s. When I read the quotes given from them, it sure sounds a lot like Bahnsen to me. So, maybe Bahnsen was a Theocrat and not a Theonomist after all! Seriously, I’m not taking this subject lightly. It is certainly one that I am committed to study for myself. I’m not new to Theonomy. I was introduced to Bahnsen over 10 years ago from my pastor who graduated with a doctorate at Westminster Escondido. But I’m now taking a deeper look at these early reformers by reading the primary sources. We’ll see how it all stacks up and I’ll keep you informed.

Take a look at the following post, and then let me know what you think.

http://reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com/2007/08/03/the-new-england-purtian-theocracy-the-new-england-purtian-theonomy/

EDIT: I forgot to add that sometimes you’ll find someone referring to the title of the second chapter in Greg Bahnsen’s book, “Theonomy in Christian Ethics” in a way that makes it seem as if Theonomy teaches that that every detail of the mosaic judicial laws should be enforced in every nation today. The chapter’s name is “THE ABIDING VALIDITY OF THE LAW IN EXHAUSTIVE DETAIL.” As you can see, the word ‘judicial’ or ‘ceremonial’ isn’t in front of the word ‘law.’ Plus, this is the chapter that presents his thesis and goes into a painstakingly detailed exegesis of Matthew 5:17-19. The rest of this 600+ page book goes into all of the qualifications and explanations, which indeed shows that he is NOT gunning for every detail of the case law to be enforced. I can’t go into the detail to support this right now, but I think it was worth noting in this post for now.

kazoo