Introduction
Not all those who don’t embrace Theonomy would assert that that it isn’t reformed. To follow I give you two examples.
Dr. Meredith Kline
Dr. Meredith Kline (Clarks beloved professor) in his critique of Dr. Bahnsen’s book “Theonomy in Christian Ethics,” wrote:
“At the same time it must be said that Chalcedon is not without roots in respectable ecclesiastical tradition. It is in fact a revival of certain teachings contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith at least in the Confession’s original formulations.”
And again:
“In support of this position, Bahsen makes precedential appeal to the Westminster Confession of Faith (pp. 537 f.) and, as already intimated, there is a degree of validity in that appeal.”
In an article I linked to in the previous post, Mr. Duncan tries to explain how Dr. Kline was wrong. Obviously, I don’t believe he supported his case in that article. However, this doesn’t change the fact that a highly credentialed and contemporary Reformed professor granted that Theonomy has roots in the reformation, even though he hated the teaching.
Mr. G.I. Williamson
Mr. Williamson is well known in the reformed camp. He has written several study guides on our confessions and catechisms. He is not a Theonomist. In an article he wrote, posted here (http://reformed.org/ethics/GI.html) at http://www.reformed.org , he says:
“Do I sound like I am on the theonomists’ bandwagon? I am not.”
However, we also see him say in that same article, speaking of Calvin:
“It was for this reason that Calvin, in his commentary on the five books of Moses, showed how every "case law" taught an abiding principle. He did this by arranging all of these laws under one or another of the Ten Commandments. He showed how each of them helps us understand the intent and meaning — and proper application — of the ten central commandments.
I remain convinced that the Reformer was essentially right. I don’t think he was always right, or that he necessarily organized every case law under its proper heading (some could arguably be placed under a different commandment). But he has convinced me that there is an abiding principle in every Old Testament case law. In my opinion, the theonomists deserve credit here. They are trying to do in our generation what John Calvin did in his.”
Conclusion
These are examples from two highly respected men in our contemporary reformed community. You can see that it isn’t just the Theonomist that is attributing Theonomy to the early reformers. Next, I’ll finally start to give you the quotes I’ve gleaned from Dr. Bahnsen’s article I referred to in the earlier posts. After reading these, you’ll start to wonder how on God’s earth anyone, let alone professors in our seminaries, could ever say that Theonomy isn’t reformed.
If you actually look into Calvin’s categorization, you will find that (a) nothing is placed under the tenth commandment, and (b) the first commandment acts as a grab-bag, like for all the purity laws, etc. Frankly, it makes more sense to organize judicial laws according to moral categories, than to organize ceremonial laws according to moral categories.