Theonomy is Reformed – The Current Problem

THE PROBLEM TODAY

I believe that the evidence supporting my thesis is so overwhelming that anyone arguing against it should be embarrassed, especially if one is a theological historian. However, we have had many such attempts from the last three decades that it is necessary to address this topic. Even though the notion that Theonomy is a novelty has been refuted conclusively time and time again, we still have prominent ministers today falsely asserting otherwise. Following are examples taken from two such ministers, with quotes as recent as 2 months ago:

Dr. R. Scott Clark

Dr. R. Scott Clark is a Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary California. He has written several books, and in at least one he negatively critiqes Theonomy. He is also a prolific blog writer and has a regular podcast now. To follow I’ve compiled a number of quotes from his blog to show that he adamantly asserts the novelty of Theonomy. Maybe sometime in a future post, I’ll re-quote him and deal with the specific errors in his facts and argumentation. If I were to do that now, I’d be getting off track from the purpose of this series, though I’m so strongly tempted since he’s crying out for a rebuttal! LOL

… 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 our 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. (http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/evangelicalism-and-the-reformed-view-of-the-law)

“Neither movement [FV & Theonomy] was driven by the Reformed confession.” (http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/theonomy-and-federal-vision-separated-at-birth/)

“Theonomy is a seriously contra confessional error.” from: (http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/another-area-where-a-two-kingdomsspheres-ethic-would-help/#comment-23372)

““the abiding validity of the (civil) law in exhaustive detail” is flatly contrary to the Westminster Confession. Full stop. We confess that the Mosaic civil law has “expired.” Full stop.

We confess that what remains of the Mosaic civil law is “general equity” and that term has been hijacked and abused by theonomists for more than 30 years.

One cannot say “not P and P” at the same time about the same thing. The Reformed say “not P.” Theonomists say “P.” There is a fundamental, irresolvable, basic conflict.

I know the lit. I know the history. It’s a fundamentalist movement the roots of which are in rationalistic fundamentalism not in Reformed theology, piety, and practice.” (http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/another-area-where-a-two-kingdomsspheres-ethic-would-help/#comment-23428)

“I do hope to try to encourage people in the Reformed churches and people outside the Reformed churches to see that there is an orthodox alternative to theonomy, that the theonomic/reconstructionist movements aren’t very representative of historic Reformed theology and ethics and that one doesn’t have to be theonomic/reconstructionist to be Reformed.”  (http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/is-natural-law-theocratic/#comment-3996)

“Theonomy represents a significant departure from the Reformed tradition. Judged by the tradition and the confessions, the expression “abiding validity of the law of God in exhaustive detail” is not a Reformed way of speaking.” (http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/is-natural-law-theocratic/#comment-4124)

“1. The WCF teaches the threefold distinction in the law, which it inherited from the Reformers, which they inherited from the medieval theologians.

2. The WCF says that the judicial laws have EXPIRED. Dead. Pushing up daisies. Joined the choir invisible. Done. Finito. Finished. Ended. Abrogated. No more in force. It couldn’t be clearer.

Whatever else theonomy is, it is a denial of WCF 19.4 and a denial of basic Reformed theology, of fundamental principle in the Reformed reading of redemptive history, that Israel’s civil polity was unique. It served a unique function. That function was fulfilled by Christ. That function and the the civil laws that were part of that function, are abrogated.

Yes, virtually all the 16th- and 17th-century theologians were theocrats. They were wrong, but they weren’t theonomists.”  (http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/is-natural-law-theocratic/#comment-5943)

“The civil laws have “expired.” In the words of John Cleese, they’re “pushing up daisies.” They don’t oblige any non-canonical civil entity any more than the “general equity” of the civil laws may require. Whatever “general equity” means, it doesn’t mean “the abiding validity of the law of God in exhaustive detail.” In fact the Decalogue and other biblical summaries of the natural law have usually been taken to be, in effect, the “general equity thereof.””  (http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/the-abiding-validity-of-the-creational-law-in-exhaustive-detail/)

“Reaction to theonomy? Yes and no. I encountered theonomy before I came to sem and at sem. I found it wholly unsatisfactory. It was reading Calvin that pushed me away from theonomy but reading Vos sealed it. I found it utterly foreign to the Reformed hermeneutic of the 16th and 17th centuries and utterly foreign to the biblical theology I learned from Vos et al. It is just a form of fundamentalism or QIRC.”  (http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/were-talking-about-practice-not-a-game-not-a-game-not-a-game/#comment-22367)

From his book, “Recovering the Reformed Confession,”

“Advocates of theonomy have either blurred the distinction between theocracy and theonomy or simply ignored it as they appeal to the premodern Reformed theologians in support of their agenda. When writers such as Calvin and Rutherford are read in their own historical context, they are not found to be arguing for anything like the absolute moral necessity of the application of the Mosaic civil laws and penalties to the postcanonical state.” (Page 62)

“One searches them in vain for any instruction or even intimation that the Reformed churches confess that the Mosaic civil law is still in force.” (Page 63)

I do have to comment on the last two quotes from his book. First of all, Dr. Clark constantly misrepresents Theonomy building a straw man. (Men made out of straw are easier to knock down). Theonomy does NOT argue for “the absolute moral necessity of the application of the Mosaic civil laws and penalties.”Yet, he constanstanly misquotes or infers a misunderstanding of Theonomy. Instead, Theonomy says that there is an underlying moral principle in the civil laws of Moses. Reading Clark, you’d expect to find a theonomist insisting that all of our roofs have railings around them. But you’d be hard pressed to do so. The theonomist instead recognizes that the 6th commandment requires the protection of life and an application of that moral law is to make your roof safe if you are going to entertain on it (like the Israelite culture did). Today in our culture, a theonomist might say the general equity of that law is to put a fence around your swimming pool or keep your car’s brakes in working order.

Secondly, Dr. Clark must not have searched the same primary resorces from premodern Reformed theologians that Dr. Bahnsen did. In a future post, I’ll be pulling quotes from Dr. Bahnsen’s articles (mentioned in the previous post) to show that there is plenty of theonomic thought found if one would just read them. George Gillespie is one of them, and hardly a Reformer to have ignored.

As you can see, Dr. Clark takes an easy path. Instead of offering an argument or documentation in support of his anti-theonomic stance, he just dismisses Theonomy out of hand, falsely asserting there is no early support for it. He does this over and over again in his writings that eventually it is easy to believe, that is, if you don’t check the primary sources yourself.

J. Ligon Duncan

J. Ligon Duncan III is a PhD that ministers in the PCA. A thorough read of what Dr. Duncan has to say regarding Theonomy will at least show that he tries to be scholarly and honest.It is clear he makes the effort not to misrepresent Theonomy. Still, he tries to deny theonomists access to their Reformed forefathers.  From his essay: The Westminster Confession of Faith: 
A Theonomic Document? he states:

“Whatever the claims of our Reconstructionist brethren, we are convinced that it can be conclusively demonstrated that the WCF does not support the peculiarities of the theonomic thesis.”

In this essay, Duncan tries to reinterpret the Westminster Standards in the same way that our liberal judges reinterpret the Constitution. He doesn’t examine the writings of the people who wrote the Standards, and as such brings our own cultural mentality into their reading  begging the very question at hand. Later in this series, I plan to deal with this notion head on. (Stay tuned)

Here are a few more quotes from another paper he wrote entitled “Moses’ Law for Modern Government“

“Theonomy challenges the church to return to Reformational teaching on the grace of law, the role of the law as standard in the Christian life, and the consequent relevance of Old Testament law to Christian ethics.”

“The classical Reformed view differs from Bahnsen at this point. The Theonomist says that the civil law is neither arbitrary nor circumstantial. The general Reformed consensus holds that the civil law was not arbitrary, but was circumstantial. If this latter view is correct, then there may be things peculiar to the Mosaic code which are inappropriate for the modern nation-state.

This is an area where Theonomy, in gross violation of biblical patterns and common sense, is ignoring the context of the giving of the law to the redemptive community of the Old Testament. This constitutes an approach to the nature of the civil law very different from Calvin and the rest of the Reformed tradition, which sees the civil law as God’s application of his eternal standards to the particular exigencies of his people.”

But here, he slips and says Calvin and the Puritans recognized what is essentially the theonomic thesis! He says they did it in a way that didn’t forget Israel’s circumstances as if modern theonomists do, but that is not the case (see my mention above about the railing around the roof law). Theonomists learned from these reformers, including their carefulness on exegeting properly.

“5. Mosaic Case Law a Model of Social Justice for All Cultures

Fifth, and following on the last point, Theonomy asserts that the Old Testament case law is a model of social justice for all cultures, including the penal code. To quote Bahnsen again: “The civil precepts of the Old Testament (standing `judicial’ laws) are a model of perfect social justice for all cultures, even in the punishment of criminals.” This point [the continuing validity of Mosaic penology] is clearly important in the Reconstructionist ideology. It has also occasioned some of the most vehement reactions of non-Theonomists. Abusive ad hominem and sensationalism have reigned in most responses to this issue, hence a more restrained approach and thorough reply is still needed.

Without question, none should underestimate the value of having God’s own revealed applications of his eternal character and the principles of his moral law to the civil situation in Israel. These laws may indeed give us guidance in making equitable laws and even suggesting appropriate punishments. Calvin and the Puritans acknowledged this, as has the whole of the Reformed tradition in general. However, we must not forget that the circumstances in God’s redemptive purposes may have dictated both the form and even the content of the case law at certain points. This Calvin, and the Puritans following him, clearly recognized.”

And he again give theonomists some access to the early reformers in this statement:

“Reconstructionism borrows heavily from the Calvinistic legacy not only in its high view of Scripture, but also in its views of Church-State relations, and the complementarity of law and gospel.”

CONCLUSION

These are examples from just two of the most vocal on the Internet today. There have been others over the years, but you can see the problem doesn’t stop. Stay tuned for my next post when I show that there are other opponents to Theonomy that at least grant its support in the early Reformers. There are also some that don’t embrace Theonomy in its entirety, but at least recognize the same.

Advertisement