Out of Egypt:

re: the critique of theonomy i linked (response to a reader)

(See the comments on the original post for context.)

Colin, thanks for posting. Could you fill me in? I don't know who Thomas Roche is apart from the article and I'm willing to change my mind what he wrote. (Though I still believe theonomy is a serious theological error whether Roche's other remarks are correct or not.)

I believed the things that Roche said because they were consistent with what I already knew about theonomy's effects. Debates over theonomy have caused local churches to split, especially in the OPC. (In the PCA, thankfully, the movement has never made much headway.)

Re: what I said about American Vision, I find the work of people like DeMar, Grant, and Kennedy to be scary, not because I am paranoid, but because I believe them to be hurting the cause of Christians in several respects: 1) by arguing for the establishment of Christianity in the public square (as if real change could come from the top down), 2) by misrepresenting history to serve a political agenda, 3) by taking 18/19C's views on culture and gender roles as Biblically normative, 4) by making adherence to libertarian economics a test of Biblical orthodoxy, 5) by insisting upon a literal six-day creation as foundational to the Bible's teaching. I'm not trying to slander them by listing these five points - this is just my outsider's impression of what they advocate. I welcome further discussion on these matters, but may not have time to give an adequate answer to all you might say in response.

UPDATE: Colin, I've read your response to Roche now, and believe you've made a few good points. You caught some language in Roche's article that I missed - but problems with his article are a matter of wording more than substance. You're one of the first theonomists I've ever read (other than Dr. Bahnsen) who actually responds graciously to critics. Gary North certainly didn't set a high standard in this area; even if Roche should've taken a higher road in response to North, et al., he wasn't guilty of as many slurs as they.

The fundamental problem with theonomy can be stated quite easily: If the theonomic thesis is correct, then did the religious leaders of Jesus' day seek to execute him? A "theonomic Christ" would've worked to overthrow Roman rule in the Promised Land and reestablish the Mosaic Law. Now that would be "disciplining the nations"! Never mind that such a course of action is directly opposed to what Christ and the early Christians actually did.

My favorite article on theonomy is here; enjoy!

Posted by: Jared at January 14, 2007 11:08 PM

Thanks for the link, Jared, but I can't say that I enjoyed it so much. The "New Covenant law" position the author stakes out at first reminded me of Kline, but then began to be eerily unfamiliar to me. Then I saw Ward Fenley's name at the bottom, and my discomfort made sense. I don't like theonomy, to be sure, but at least it's not out-and-out heresy like full preterism.

I think that Paul's attitude toward the law of Moses is more complex than Fenley presents it to be. Furthermore, I don't think that the verse stating "whoever sins in one point of the law is guilty of all" was referring to ceremonial provisions.

Posted by: Evan Donovan at January 15, 2007 2:43 AM

Fenley, as a full preterist, would not make a distinction between "parts" of the law (i.e. ceremonial vs. moral) like most Reformed people seem keen on doing. I actually see Federal Vision coming out more cleanly here than anywhere else (besides Credenda and Doug's blog, of course) and I'm certain this article was written long before the Auburn Avenue fiasco.

I think Fenley, in spite of being a full preterist, is getting it right were Wilson and company are getting it wrong. I was a full preterist myself for the better part of four years, so maybe I just understand the direction Fenely is going better than someone who isn't intimately familiar with that type of writing. What he is doing here is changing the focus from Old Covenant law, which has been fulfilled and is being made obsolete, to New Covenant law which shows us (and makes us) what we are becoming and what we will be upon Jesus' return. Traditional theonomists want to preserve continuity between the covenants by actually preserving parts of the Old Covenant itself, that is their mistake and one that Ward, I believe, quite adequately points out.

Posted by: Jared at January 15, 2007 2:54 PM

Jared, I see what you're saying, but I think that he's going too far to say that our knowledge of God's moral law may only come now from the New Covenant. The Old Covenant, as first promulgated from Sinai and renewed at various times through Israel's history (preeminently in Deuteronomy and in the days of Ezra/Nehemiah), has passed away in its overall structure. Still, I like the idea of "general equity" which the Westminster Divines talked about - we can learn things principially from the OT, even if we're not bound by the law in detail.

I think that it's possible to make distinction between ceremonial, civil, and moral aspects of the law, though not to separate specific laws into those three classes. That's where the general equity principle comes in - to help us figure out how the Law ought to be read in the light of Christ's work.

Posted by: Evan Donovan at January 15, 2007 5:07 PM

Evan,

1) Mr. Roche is a reformed Baptist layman who holds a PhD in ancient history, and is a Librarian.

2) Theonomy cannot to be blamed for any local church splits in the OPC. Nor is Theonomy to be blamed for any "controversy" (Rather it has been the critics of Theonomy who have invented the "controversy" in the first place by their paranoid and unwarranted negative reaction to it). Also, splits in local churches can and do occur for reasons other that theological ones. But its all too easy to make Theonomy to be the scapegoat to cover up the real causes.

3) About your 5 listed charges against "American Vision". The first 3 are false (DeMar and Grant and all other Theonomists do not argue for a "top down change" in the public square. Rather they both argue for a bottom up change for social transformation. Nor is there any proof that DeMar and Grant have "misrepresented history". Nor is the 18/19C taken as a standard for being "Biblically normative" on culture and gender roles. The real standard is much older and comes from the OT and NT. But you simply beg the question that even if the 18/19C views were taught by DeMar to be "Biblically normative" that it would be "hurtful to the cause of Christians".

4) Your points 4 and 5 are accurate, but again, you simply beg the question that those points are "hurting the cause of Christians" especially when there is no evidence of such "hurt" or setbacks for Christians.

5)You imply that Theonomists are guilty of many "more" slurs than Roche, but that is highly questionable. There are no slurs in the writings of Bahnsen, Gentry or DeMar for example. And if you are really concerned about "slurs", then try reading the polemical writings of Luther and Calvin and you will find plenty there. The main problem with Roche is not so much his slurs but rather his many sweeping, undocumented and untruthful accusations. His article were it a high school term paper, would merit a failing grade by any objective teacher.

6)Re: "the fundamental problem with Theonomy". Where in any Theonomic writing is it advocated that we are to "overthrow" present government rule? Answer: No place at all. In fact, Theonomists would oppose anyone who advocated the "overthrow" of present governments. Hence, your understanding of the "Theonomic Thesis" is greatly mistaken here.

So before you claim that Theonomy is a "serious theological error", then you ought to first study what it really teaches. Here are two summary introductory articles on it:

"The Five Points of Christian Reconstruction"

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/five_points/index.html

"Theonomy: What It Is, What It Is Not"

http://www.ipc.faithweb.com/documents/THEONOMY.htm

Posted by: Colin at January 15, 2007 5:55 PM