Theonomy is “Reformed” – Introduction

Two years ago, I posted an essay regarding the question of whether reformers of old held "theonomic" views or not. I referred to the assertion that there is a difference between "Theocrats" and "Theonomists," that the reformers were the former but not the latter, and theonomy is a novelty. I also said I’d study it and get back to you. Well, here I am. It’s been a long time since I’ve posted, and I can’t promise that I’ll be back in the author’s seat very often, but I finally have a topic that I feel is worth posting.

First of all, this was prompted by a chance to speak in a rare "open forum" at Hoagies and Stogies. I spoke on this topic, but we had a very small amount of time to deliver our speeches. Since I did the work to put together an argument, I’m going to refine it and tune it for a small blog series. Here is the introduction. (When Reuben posts the recording, I’ll provide a link. Here it is: http://ruberad.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/hns-open-mic-night/). The argument that reformers were theocrats not theonomists comes directly from Dr. R. Scott Clark. He asserts this over and over again wherever he comments about Theonomy, but I wrote the essay referred to above in direct response to the last paragraph of Dr. Clark’s blog post found here: http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/evangelicalism-and-the-reformed-view-of-the-law/ In it he states:

Finally, as you seem to suggest, theonomy (the abiding validity of the civil law in exhaustive detail) is a novelty and alien to confessional Reformed theology. It’s an unfortunate development borne of more zeal than knowledge. The Reformed churches confess the civil use of the law (which confession has been modified in the modern period) so that the civil kingdom (as distinct from the Spiritual kingdom or the church) should adhere to the moral or natural law, but we don’t expect nor do we wish the civil magistrate to interfere with the church or to do the work of the church in anyway, including the punishment of heretics. In the modern period virtually all the Reformed churches have repudiated the vestiges of Christendom so that we no longer hold to the civil enforcement of the first table of the law. That said, even though out tradition was theocratic (civil enforcement of the first table) we were never theonomic (civil enforcement of the Mosaic penalties). Calvin and Bullinger repudiated that notion as Anabaptist.

Being that Dr. Clark is a professor of church history and historical theology, I didn’t want to contradict him until I felt certain that the evidence was against him. I now am certain that it is against him, so I am not going to let his degree or vocation intimidate me any longer. I’ve given his status due respect and carefully considered his claims. I do want to state up front that I have personally met him at our church, he’s done pulpit supply for us, and I do like much of what he has to teach. I really enjoy his speaking voice, having heard him on several occasions, and even though I am going to be harsh on his position regarding theonomy and the early reformers, I don’t want to give the wrong impression. Dr. Clark is a dear brother in the Lord’s kingdom and I fully accept him and love him as such. Now to the task at hand…

Theonomy is Reformed

As Americans, we are all familiar today with the problem of “judicial activism,” the practice of legislating from the bench. Laws get changed because people re-interpret the constitution in light of today’s culture and vocabulary, instead of paying attention to the founder’s original intent. Today, in reformed academia, we have the same problem regarding the Westminster Standards. People read them only in light of today’s culture and vocabulary, and forget that there is a wealth of primary sources written by the Standards authors and their contemporaries.

The thesis that I want to support today is simply this: “THEONOMY IS REFORMED.”

To be more specific: The underlying premise of Dr. Greg Bahnsen’s Theonomic Thesis is nothing new to the early reformers, but in fact was employed by many of them including influential writers of the Westminster Standards. Not only that, but the Westminster Standards themselves presuppose a commitment to a ‘theonomic’ principle.

What is Theonomy?

I’ll let Dr. Greg Bahnsen tell you that in his own words:

“The position which has come to be labeled "Theonomy" today thus holds that the Word of the Lord is the sole, supreme, and unchallengeable standard for the actions and attitudes of all men in all areas of life.” (From: http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe180.htm )

To be more precise, the controversial element of Theonomy holds that the underlying principles of the Mosaic judicial laws are still binding on all mankind today, including the civil punishments for social crimes. E.G. the just punishment for rape is death & for stealing is restitution. A society governed by God’s law is a blessed society.

I am not arguing for the truth of Theonomy

In this series, I am not arguing for or against Theonomy itself. It may very well be that some of the reformers held views that are consistent with Theonomy. But that doesn’t necessarily mean Theonomy is right. I strongly believe that it is, and I argue for that in many other places. Instead, what I do argue is that Theonomy is not new to this century, but it was employed by many of the reformers, including the writers of the Westminster Standards.

What I don’t mean

• I don’t mean that the reformers were Theonomists – that would be anachronistic. The term "Theonomy" was not used until the last 30 to 40 years to describe those of us that hold to this ethical view. Therefore, we can’t go back to the 16th century and look for the adjective "theonomist" the way we can find the adjective "reformed."Instead, I would say that the reformers were "theonomistic."

• I don’t mean that ALL the reformers or the vast majority of them were theonomic – to state that would require a lifetime of familiarity with centuries of primary sources. See what Bahnsen said regarding this:

To be sure, Reformed writers through the centuries have not always agreed with each other totally; there have been those who took a more disparaging or negative view of the judicial law and its penal sanctions than those mentioned in this chapter. For that reason I resist using such misleading phrases found in current polemics as "the historic consensus of Reformed theologians" and "the mainstream of Reformed thought" – both of which are located by those speaking of them by the process of gerrymandering the evidence. In a matter which has been debated from numerous perspectives over centuries by men who are not always clear or consistent in their statements and practices, it is quite unlikely that anyone has a familiarity with the evidence which is detailed enough in primary sources and comprehensive enough in scope to make a credible judgment as to the "consensus" or "mainstream" of Reformed thought. Consequently, my point is simply that the theonomic perspective on the current validity of the Old Testament penal sanctions is nothing astonishingly new to the history of Reformed thought. (From: http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe144.htm )

I especially like Bahnen’s customary humility and scholarly honesty regarding this subject. It is a refreshing contrast to see that Bahnsen here is not the zealot. He admits that it is extremely unlikely that anyone could state with certainty what the "mainstream of Reformed thought" is regarding civil ethics. This is a lesson from which I think Dr. Clark should take notes.

• I don’t mean that you must be theonomic in order to claim the adjective “Reformed.” If my point immediately preceding this one is true, then we can’t make this a test to determine who is and who is not "Reformed." There are other specific traits that are important and necessary to have in order to call yourself "Reformed." One’s particular view of civil ethics is not one of them while a broader understanding of the use of God’s law today might be.

What’s next?

The rest of the series will deal with the topic in this way:

1. I will document the problem today. I’ve quoted Dr. Clark above. In the next post, I will do this more thoroughly and provide quotes from other anti-theonomists that want to bolster their arguements by using the false assertion that Theonomy is new.
2. I will show that not all of our contemporaries who repudiate Theonomy do so by denying the Theonomists their appeal to the early reformers.
3. I will provide quotations from the early reformers that utterly destroy Dr. Clark’s false assertions. (For a preview, you can read Dr. Bahnsen’s articles: The Theonomic Thesis in Confessional and Historical Perspective and The Westminster Assembly and the Equity of the Judicial Law. Dr. Bahnsen already did the hard work and research into this study and provided it 30 years ago!)
4. I will explain how the Westminster Standards themselves presuppose the theonomic thesis
5. I will summarize the study and make my final remarks.

Hopefully, I will find the time to put this all together and follow through with my plans fully. May the Lord bless you and keep you, Kazoo