Out of Egypt:

third response to colin re: theonomy

Thanks again for your response; perhaps I should've been more judicious in my criticism.

As regarding the theonomic thesis' theological correctness, I would direct you to "Critique of Theonomy: A Taxonomy," particularly the second part (on Bahnsen's misreading of the passage from the Sermon on the Mount). The third part is also a valuable critique, particularly on the matter of distinguishing that in the Sinai Covenant which has a legal focus because it relates to the Jews' inheritance of Israel. (For it must be admitted that the Old Covenant had a peculiarly "ethnic" complexion, from our perspective - see Ezra/Nehemiah, for example, and then contrast this to Paul's words about fellowship in Galatians.) Furthermore, I appreciated Gordon's refutation of the idea that God's unchanging character is necessarily in conflict with changing administrations of covenant - Christ's coming really does make a difference. (Our dispute is over exactly how, and how much.) And finally, he makes short work of the idea that all nations are parties to the Mosaic covenant at Sinai. (Interestingly enough, Jewish theology since the time of the Second Temple has never believed this.) Accurately, I believe, he traces this error back to the "a-covenantal hermeneutic" of the Westminster Divines in their treatment of the Ten Commandments. I'm glad to see the Westminster Theological Journal recognizing an error in the standards - it gives me hope that they will be revised this century, if the Lord doesn't return first.

A few clarifications and questions:

1) I wasn't saying that Christians don't have the right to educate their children as they wish. However, I find it far from proven that public schooling is a sin. (Both I and my sister went through the public schools - in Lancaster County, many teachers are Christian. I think it should be a matter of judgment for parents, as the PCA recently reaffirmed in General Assembly.)

2) I don't believe the framework hypothesis is confessionally unacceptable. I'm inclined toward it myself. The important point is the historicity of Adam and Eve.

Furthermore, even assuming the YEC 6-day hypothesis, one cannot necessarily be sure of the age of the earth based on the generations of Gen. 1-6. Hebrew genealogies are often selective, for theological reasons (see the Gospel of Matthew, for example). In Genesis, selectivity is hinted at by the parallel number of individuals in the Sethite and Cainite genealogies.

And finally, considering the amount of anthropocentric language in Genesis, I find it quite plausible that the Flood was local to Mesopotamia - i.e., it destroyed all of human life, but not all life on the earth. The alternative view requires what, to me, seems like an overabundance of the miraculous. To sum up, the YEC hypothesis seems unparsimonious.

3) You've told me that a lot of people - Wilson, Grant, Kennedy, Randall - are not representative of theonomy. Wilson maybe not, although I think he's being a bit disingenuous to deny the connection. But the others have all claimed the name at one time or another.

If theonomy is a movement, who gets the right to define who's in and who's out? Is it not at least possible that people like me have had real contact with self-proclaimed theonomists which have soured us on it (apart from the difference in theology)?

4) The splits in question may have had nothing to do with theonomy, but they were the splits of theonomists. It's hard sometimes to separate ideas from individuals - largely because certain kinds of people are drawn to certain kinds of ideas.

5) Theonomy may have increased people's awareness of corporate sins, but awareness of such can actually be relieving to the consciousness of individuals who know they're not guilty of similar sins.

Theonomists may not believe that Presbyterians are particular instruments of God, and may not have a triumphalist view of history (wishing to reinstate some kind of Golden Age - whether it be the Revolutionary period, Cromwell's Parliament, or Calvin's Geneva). But I've met people who did believe these things, even if they wouldn't say them outright, and this is certainly the perception of many outsiders. (Which doesn't prove anything, but which makes you wonder. I dispute that we don't have any responsibility to see how we're perceived by non-Christians. How are they to "glorify God on the day He visits us" if they don't see a resemblance to Christ in us?)

6) I said that theonomy wasn't racist. But did Rushdooney talk about racial separation in his Institutes or was Roche lying?

7) Our understanding of North's rhetoric is obviously quite different. I could find a quote re: Y2K where he said something to the effect of "this is what I've been waiting for most of my adult life." But I'd rather not go to the trouble of digging it up. He also said "God AIDS those who aid themselves" - that's the North that I know.

8) "Personally I think that you and Roche's smear tactics against Theonomists do more to hurt the cause of Christians in the eyes of unbelievers than anything that Gary North has ever written. You claim that you want to be "ecumenical" and "focus on what has been believed by all Christians in all places". But does that include recklessly attacking the reputations of some your Christian brethren?"

I don't think you have yet proved that I'm being reckless. This is a fight that theonomists started, last I checked. They were the ones who've been trying to reform the orthodox Presbyterian bodies in line with their ideas. I haven't posted anything that I don't believe to be true.

9) The ceremonial is fulfilled in Christ's redemptive work, but the civil is not? Well, what about things like the year of jubilee? Obviously they have both aspects. Furthermore, what about Christ's status as the "true Israel"?

10) People can be doing more theological reading, and actually be farther away from the knowledge of Christ.

11) Christian education is a good thing; homeschooling is a good thing. But I don't think theonomic historiography, for the most part, tells it like it was - cf. historians' (even Christian historians) reaction to America's Providential History).

Making history into a seamless narrative is a dicey proposition, whether done by Christians or Marxists. "Truly, O Lord, You are a God who hides Himself."

12)You may be right about Roche; I'm still not sure, though. He is admittedly biased, but his story fits in large part with other things I know.

I will leave theonomy be for a while; I think the next few years will be enough to show us whether it is a work of God.

Hi Evan,

In regards to Gordon's "Critique of Theonomy", this has been fully answered and refuted by Dr. Ken Gentry in his book, "Covenantal Theonomy: A Response to T. David Gordon and Klinean Covenantalism".

Here is an article based on that book:

http://tinyurl.com/3aeoja

As for Six Day Creationism, see:

"Genesis Creation: Literal or Literary?

http://tinyurl.com/38mcr8

Posted by: Colin at January 16, 2007 11:14 PM

Fully answered - well, I'll have to take your word for it, as I didn't find the summary to be a full answer. (Note I didn't mention the first part of his article, as I found it problematic myself. The moral, rightly, should be distinguished from the scientific.)

As for Six Day Creationism, let me get back to you on that. I've always, admittedly, focused on the issue more from the angle of science than Biblical studies. However, I know that the burden of proof is on the Framework Hypothesis advocates to show how the text can legitimately be read as having non-literal days.

Posted by: Evan Donovan at January 17, 2007 1:05 AM

Evan, my response to the first 4 of your 8 points:

1) I think the PCA was wrong in their judgment here. For IMO parents sending their covenant children to public schools are thus involved in sin, and should be a matter of disciplinary action by the church. In most places, public schooling is mandatory by state authority and thus, there is no moral option for parents but to oppose the state on this issue [Acts 5:29], especially when it comes to obeying Deut 6:7f.

"Deuteronomy 6:7ff. and the Public School Question"

http://tinyurl.com/ygslld

"What's Really Wrong with Public Schools?"

http://tinyurl.com/yo3mq4

2) "6 days are 6 days" by the faculty of Greenville Presbyterian Seminary

http://tinyurl.com/yomclx

3) Theonomy is not a "movement" but rather a theological or ethical school thought" just like Calvinism is not a movement but a theological school of thought. And in these schools of thought are many Christians who hold to a wide variety of views on other matters while still agreeing with the core concepts of each school of thought.

Thus not everyone who claims to be a "Theonomist" becomes fair game for criticism of Theonomy itself. Would you consider it fair for someone to criticize "Christianity" on the basis of the Pope's views? or some Mormon's views? (Mormons also claim to be "Christian").

As to determining who's "in or out", it is simply a matter of first understanding what Theonomy actually teaches in its essentials (as opposed to strawman versions of it), and then comparing the actual teaching of writers and preachers to the Theonomic thesis. (Bahnsen wrote a "10 point" summary thesis in his By This Standard book).

And its also important to properly distinguish the individual views of professing Theonomists from the core teachings of Theonomy itself. Just as you would do the same with Calvinists from Calvinism.

4) "Splits" among individual Theonomists is no indication of the truth or falsity of Theonomy, anymore than the many splits among individual Calvinists or presbyterians indicates the truth or falsity of Calvinism or presbyterianism. All people are fallible and sinful, and so they have their weaknesses that must be overcome. We easily recognize this with Christians and Calvinists, but apparently not so with "Theonomists". Hence, critics are displaying a double standard here.

Posted by: Colin at January 17, 2007 7:40 PM

Just something to think about re: point 1. Christian schooling would be lovely if we were able to provide it for all the people who need it. However, as it is, there are vast economic and racial disparities in access to private education of any form, including Christian. Also, sadly but truly, most Christians don't offer resources for special needs students. My sister could only have really been educated in the public schools, for this reason.

The overture to the PCA glossed over all such difficult cases. And it never said how people should be disciplined - as far as I know, there's only one real form of church discipline: exclusion from the Table. But I would hope you wouldn't want to go that far.

Posted by: Evan Donovan at January 17, 2007 8:21 PM

Colin, I thought that I would preface my remarks by stating that I am a former home-schooler. Yet I find it very hard to believe that Deut. 6:7 is a mandatory exclusion of public school education. The context regards teaching your children about the faith: parents of public school-ed children are just as capable of doing this as Christian/home-schooled parents. If I can bring in some arguments from personal experience, I will say that I've often found my public schooled friends to be more mature in their faith than my Christian schooled friends...(in fact, if for some reason I was NOT able to homeschool any future kids God sends me, I would be more inclined to send them to public school rather than to a Christian private school).

I will admit I think the public school system to be a bureaucratic, inefficient, politicized mess, but to be involved in it is hardly a sin.

Posted by: funke at January 18, 2007 8:48 AM

Evan, I will continue my response to some of your points.

5) My point is how God sees us is far more important than how the world sees us. It was the Pharisees who had made long prayers in order to impress the world.

Theonomy isn't trying to "re-instate" Geneva or Cromwell's Parliament, but rather is willing to learn from those historical reformed models or precedents without necessarily duplicating them in detail. Now if "outsiders" think otherwise, that is not the fault of Theonomists since the latter have written enough books and newsletters outlining their real aims to leave critics without an excuse for any misunderstanding.

6) Rushdoony criticized the practice of inter-racial marriages. But that is not exactly the same thing as "racism". And Rushdoony's comment in IBL is not necessarily an essential point of Theonomy (e.g. Bahnsen never taught the same prohibition, and neither did North). So even Theonomists can and do disagree with Rushdoony on that point. Roche's discussion of this issue was very sloppy and the topic should have never been introduced in his Article in the first place. But when someone like Roche is pre-disposed to say the worst possible things about Theonomists, then his inclusion of that issue is not surprising.

7) In Jan 2000 Gary North wrote a public apology about his Y2K views in his ICE newsletter

http://tinyurl.com/3y48u2

8) The so called "fight" was started by the critics back in 1978 when they first began their reckless attacks against Theonomy and Theonomists (e.g. Meredith Kline, Walter Chantry, etc). The OPC like all reformed denominations, are in need of further doctrinal and ethical reformation.

Your referencing Roche's diatribe filled article was irresponsible.

Posted by: Colin at January 18, 2007 6:41 PM

I must confess I didn't ever see North's apology. He really does sound contrite and I admit that his desire not to seek profit from his books speaks well of him.

That's all the further I'll say on this matter (that of theonomy), one way or another.

Posted by: Evan Donovan at January 18, 2007 9:56 PM

Further responses to Evan's points:

9) Yes, the OT Jubilee law was fulfilled and aborgated (contra Ron Sider), but the Jubilee law was never a continuing law in the sense that capital punishment laws for universal crimes like murder, adultery, blasphemy, and beastiality are. God's eternal standard of justice is expressed in the latter laws, but not in the former like the Jubilee.

10) Granted, but that is certainly no excuse not to do more theological reading. The solution to the dichotomy is an increase in both reading and seeking a greater knowledge of Christ.

11) I haven't read the book you cited so I can't comment on its accuracy. But its wrong to cite one book as indicative of "Theonomic historiography". And your comment merely begs the question that the cited book is, 1) "Theonomic" and, 2) in error.

12) Well what are the other sources from which you base your knowledge of Theonomy on? If an error filled work like Roche's impresses you, then I seriously question the accuracy of your other sources (especially if they agree with Roche's mistaken opinions).

Posted by: Colin at January 18, 2007 10:07 PM

My sources are primarily people, rather than books - people who I trust, but who I admit could be wrong. Though I've also read materials by Grant, Kennedy, Wilson (whom you say are not theonomists) and by Rushdooney and North (both of whom put me off, both by their presentation and by their ideas).

I think we've made some progress, though. I understand more where you're coming from - defending people like Bahnsen and Gentry is different to my mind, than defending theonomy, largely because I define theonomy more broadly than you do. But if you approach it as an intellectual phenomenon more than a cultural one, I can see why you would've been offended by what I said earlier. However, I don't think you can separate the intellectual and the cultural - reasonable people with extreme (or, to use a less polarizing term, radical) ideas can inspire cultural extremists. And thus, people who encounter the extremists are soured on the whole thing.

To make one final response to the theological argument: you made a concession which I believe to be damaging to your position, though I don't expect you will concede that it is. You said, "God's eternal standard of justice is expressed in the latter laws, but not in the former like the Jubilee."

Well, if you can say this, then you've gone back to the supposedly over-subjective criteria of "general equity," which makes distinctions between the OT laws. In your view, what gives you the epistemological certainty to know that "God's eternal standard" is shown by some laws more than others. That doesn't sound like the "abiding validity of the Mosaic law in exhaustive detail" to me.

Posted by: Evan Donovan at January 18, 2007 10:55 PM

I'm sorry I said I wouldn't say anything further. I didn't realized you hadn't responded to all my points yet.

Posted by: Evan Donovan at January 18, 2007 10:55 PM

1) Re: general equity, all Theonomists have taught the continuing of the "general equity" of the OT judicial laws as binding today cf. "The Westminster Assembly and the Equity of the Judicial Law"

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe170.htm

2) Bahnsen's expression: "the abiding validity of the Mosaic law in exhaustive detail" was simply his summary description of Jesus's words in Matt 5:18,19, and is not meant as a full definition of Theonomy per se. Yet one of the "details" of the law includes its NT modifications of the OT. (e.g. The NT modification of the 7th day Sabbath to the 1st day of the week, and the abrogation of the cultural and ceremonial OT laws of Israel).

Thus, for anyone to assert that any part of the OT law is modified or done away with, must do so on NT exegetical authority alone (either explicitly or by good and necessary consequence), otherwise we must presume its continuity for our time. So the "Jubilee law" is abrogated on just this hermeneutical principle alone and by no other.

So infact, your position concedes the Theonomic view if you believe that the New Covenant has abrogated the Jubilee law or any other OT law (e.g. ceremonial law). We cannot, like the Dispensationalist, presume discontinuity of any OT law, but rather we must presume continuity unless the NT gives us reason to think otherwise. This is the hermeneutic of historic covenant theology.

3) As for the presence "radical" ideas on the fringes of the Theonomy school, well there are also "radical" ideas on the fringes of Calvinism too (e.g. hyper-calvinists, Carpenterites, etc). Every school of thought has its share of embarassing advocates (e.g. conservative Christianity has white supremacists and snake handlers; Presbyterians have the Steelites or extreme Covenanters; Baptists have the "Trail of Blood" advocates, etc). But still Christianity and Calvinism have survived, and so too will Christian Reconstruction.

Of course many of the points I have been defending are not at all "radical", but have been the position of reformed Christians for centuries.

IMO the real "radical" ideas come from those who attempt to propose alternatives to Theonomy such as sending covenant children to public schools (which is really a rival religious institution) or allow the Government to educate our children. Or propose letting the Government to take care of poor people. Or propose allowing penal laws which contradict God's reveal penal laws in the Bible. Or who propose letting the Government to fix the economy, and confiscate the wealth of its citizens through co-ercive taxation, etc.

Thus, I find anti-Theonomy ideas far more radical from a Biblical perspective.

Posted by: Colin at January 19, 2007 8:36 PM