1995 Issue 5 - What About "What About Theonomy?" A Response to Ligon Duncan's Attack on Theonomic...

8/12/2019 1995 Issue 5 - What About "What About Theonomy?" A Response to Ligon Duncan's Attack on Theonomic Ethics -

1/9

Introduction

For over twenty years, Dr.

(jreg Bahnsen has been

advocating the nonnativity of all

of (jod's law. Christ's coming

has not done away with the

authority of (jod 's law, but has

"

confinned

its authority in

exhauslivedetail. Criticaftercritic

has stepped into the ring to

challenge him. Some challenges

have been better than

others, but all of them

have failed to provide

exegetical refutation

of

Bahnsen's thesis.

Recently, another

attack

has

been

mounted upon

theonomic

ethics.

Ligon

Duncan,

Assistant Professor of

Systematic Theology at

Refonned Theological

Seminary inJackson, Mississippi,

has written a paper entitledWhat

About

Theonomy In this short

treatise, it is Duncan's contention

that

theonomy

cannot

be

sustained theologically,

historically, or confessionally.

While Duncan'sargumentsare

neither new nor particularly

compelling, his paper is of

particular importance. Some

Reformed churches

are

considering Duncan's paper as a

plausible

statement against

theonomic ethics. As a pastor, I

am intensely jealous for the

Refonned faith and sincerely

concerned that the Refonned

churches not be led astray by

Duncan's supposed refutation of

theonomy . Neither his

theological, historical,

or

confessional critiques oftheonomy

undennine

or

refute any

of

its

main points. Duncan's arguments

are frequently based upon

misunderstandings and

misrepresentations of theonomy,

and he never offers exegetical

refutation

of

theonomy or proof

for his own position.

This paper will attempt to

provide a point by point refutation

of Professor Duncan's critique of

theonomy. I have tried

to

present

Duncan's statements and

underlying premises fairly. Ifthere

is

one thing we do not need in this

ongoing debate,

it

is

further

misunderstanding

based on

arbitrary, superficial scholarship,1

The paperwill consist of four parts

and will be organized according

to that of Duncan's.

A Response to Duncan's

Assessment of

the

Christian

Reconstruction Movement

A Consideration

of

Duncan's

Theological Evidence

Against

Theonomy

A Comparison

of

Theonomy

with the Theology of

John Calvin

A Comparison of TIleonomy

with

the Theology of the

Westminster Assembly

SECTION ONE

A Consideration

of

Professor Duncan's Praises

and Critiques of the

Christian

Reconstruction

Movement

Dangerous Advicel

As

a Christian Reconstruc-

tionist, I appreciate Professor

Duncan's recognition of the

positive contributions the

movement has made.'

He

writes

that it

properly

places

a

renewed emphasis on

the relevance of (jod's

law

to

modern ethical

theory. In this, the

movement

is

seeking

to be

faithful

to

Scripture and go

against the spirit

of

pluralism which has

raped the Church of

Christ of her Refonnation vitality,

He says,

"Theonomy challenges the

church to retum to Refonnational

teaching on the grace

oflaw,

the

role of the

law

as standard in the

Christian life, and the consequent

relevance of

Old

Testament law

to Christian ethics: '

His comments in the foreword

and introduction of his paper,

however, are completely negated

by the following statement:

"For those of you with little

time

and

no specific

need

to

ruminate

on

this subject,

my

recommendation

is

that you not

read this book or any other on

TIleonomy for that matter) It

would be far better

to

devour

something that will feed your soul.

All you need to know about

May/ June, 1995

I

THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon

15


2/9

Theonomy is that

is differs from

the

rest

of the

Reformed

tradition

in demanding that

the

believer's

fulfillment ofthe

cultuml

mandate

obligates him to work for the

implementation of the whole

Mosaic civil code

in the

modem

nation-state:

Having noted some very

valuable

contributions

Christian

Reconstructionists

have

made

to

the field of Christian ethics,

Duncan tells his

readers

to ignore

them.

Since

Duncan professes to

have realized the important role

theonomy has played

in

getting

Christians to think

about

God s

law again, why does he

immediately proceed

to tell

his

readers

to

ignore

these

important

developments in Christian

ethics.

I

find

this statement dangerous,

deceptive, and unwarmnted.

First, Ood

takes

his law

very

seriously. Even

if

Duncan is corred

in his assessment of theonomy,

even if the theonomic thesis is

filled with critical errors which

make

its

position

untenable,

a

theological school which seeks

to

be faithful to the law of Ood

as

revealed in holy

Scripture,

and

which seeks to call Christians back

to observance ofthat law oughtto

be thoroughly investigated by all

Christians.

.

a man s attitude toward the

law

is

an index

of his

relation

to

Ood. While the

godly

and

righteous people of Ood delight

in the law, the man who

has

a

mind set

on

sinful human nature

does not subject himself

to

the

law (Rom.

8:7).

6

In

the law Ood

shows

what

pleases him: hence, they

who

wish

really to find

out

how

far

they

agree with Ood

must

test all their

purposes by

this rule....Let

this in

the mean time remain

as

a

fixed

principle, - that nothing pleases

him but righteousness, and

also,

thatno right estimate

can

be made

of our works

but by the

law, in

which he has faithfully testified

what

he approves and

disapproves.

There is far

more

at stake in

this debate than Duncan

apparently comprehends. If

theonomy is corred, if Ood s

people should follow the jots and

tittles of Ood s law,

Duncan's

position

is

wrong, Moreover,

he

is

leading

Ood s people to sin by

. elling them to negled a study

which will

enrich

their

ability

to

understand and

apply

Ood s

law.

Duncan should

refute

theonomy

from the Bible first. Having done

so, he-should

then

proceed towam

his

readers

to avoid its dangerous

tendencies, and those who hold

erroneous opinions should be

exhorted

to

reexamine their

position.

Second, he

is

guilty of

poisoning

the welr against his

critics. He should save such

statements forthe endofhispaper,

afterhehas demonstrated the error

of the theonomic argument with

cogent

exegesis.

Such tactics are

only too typical for many

anti-theonomists. Fierce

invective,

straw man arguments,

andhastily dmwn

conclusions are

par for the course.

Third, Duncan's

statements

are

deceptive. While Christian

Reconstructionists in general

and

theonomists in particular do

16 THE COUNSEL

of

Chalcedoil ayl

June

1995

maintain thatthe whole Mosaic

Code

ought

to

be the standardof

themodemnationstate,

he leaves

out

many

important qualifications.

Christian Reconstructionists do

not

believethatthewhole Mosaic

code

can

be thrust down the throat

of

pagan culture.

Not

one

Christian Reconstructionist

advocates

the imposition

ofOod s

law on people who do not want

it. In fact,

they proclaim

just the

opposite. They have always

maintained that regeneration and

sanctificationmustcomefirst.

8

An

unholy people

will

never want

Ood s good,

holy,

and just law.

Moreover,

there

are important

changes in the manner of

observance in today's modern

mition-state: And t

is

not only

the Mosaic law which

theonomists recognize

as

binding,

but the

entire

law ofOodfoundin

all

sixty-six

canonical books of the

Bible. Duncan needs to represent

accurately the

theonomic position

and not

mislead

his hearers with

shallow

characterizations.

The

advocate

of theonomic

ethics

believes in

the need

for

proper due

process and

does

not

promote

a

seditious,

vigilante

or

ex post

facto

use

of

the social laws

of Ood s word. Moreover,

theonomic

ethics does

not

teach

thatOod s lawshould

be imposed

with force on a

recalcitrant p opl

or society. Only when the

majority of

a

society

have

come

to

Christ as Savior and Lord, and

only when

those Christians work

out their adherence to Ood s Son

in

their

various life

involvements

including social and political

ethics--will

the

statutes

of

Ood s

lawbecome

the

law of the land.


3/9

False Dichotomy

Duncan ' s concluding

paragraph in

the foreword

demonstrates an incomplete

conception of the work

of

the

Holy Spirit in the lives of (jod's

people.

"

What

the church needs today

is nota manufactured jus divinum

strategy for civil legislation, but

revival by the Holy

Spirit, preaching with

unction, biblical pastoral

ministry, and

consecrated, praying

Christians willing to

live

out the

fa

ith-once-delivered

and think about

Christianity the whole

of their lives, before the

Lordand in theworld:"

This statement reveals a

dichotomy between lawandSpirit

in

Duncan ' s thinking, No


believes in salvation through the

political order. Regardless of

statements

to

the contrary

by

W.

Robert (jodfrey, theonomy is not

a movement

with

a political

agenda,

Theonomy

is a

movement which has a Christian

agenda

for

all levels of society:

submission

to

Jesus Christ and his

infallible Word.

It

is a

biasei

malicious caricature of the

movement to say that we believe

a Xeroxed copy of the judicial

laws of Moses thrust down the

throats of our society will

solve its

many problems.

Reconstructionists incessantly

preach

and

write of the need

for

Spirit-wrought refonnation

in

the

hearts and lives of (jod's people

and for

the conversion of the

nations. As

a matter of

fact,

that

is the only hope that this culture

will ever

give

proper heed

to

(jod's

law in all areas We would

wholeheartedly agree with

Duncan's assessment of the need

of the hour: Spirit-wroughtrevival.

But

is

such revival inconsistent

with a retum

to

biblical law in the

civil arenal If history teaches us

anything, it demonstrates that as

the Holy Spirit works in the lives

of (jod's people He brings

corresponding refonnation to aU

levels of their society.

Whyl

Because the sanctification

and

consecration of which Duncan

speaks is not limited to the closet,

family, church, and Christian

school living outthe faith means

the application of that faith to all

areas of society.

In

times of revival,

Sola

Scriptura is not a call

for

pietistic retreat but a battle cry

for

application of

(jod

' s eternal

standards to all men and nations.

We're Waiting ..

Professor Duncan promises

that his study will provide a

"positive response to the

Reconstructionist proposa\." 3

However, we come

to

the end of

his paper and no such positive

alternative to Christian

Reconstruction is presented.

In

his defense, there

is

a rumor

floating

around

in Reformed

circles

that he will write more on

the subject at a

later

date.J

Theonomists frequently urge that

you cannot beat something with

nothing. Iftheonomy is the wrong

approach to Christian

ethics, then we are

in

desperate

need for

Professor Duncan or

one of his colleagues

to

provide

us with a

biblical alternative. If

we

have no alternative

for the crisis of this

culture, then all we can

do is

complain, work

to

see a few men saved,

and hope

that

Jesus

comes back soonl

In

such a scenario, the Church of

Jesus Christ is not the light of the

world, a

ity

set on a hill. She is

on the refuse pile of worthless

trash Failure

to

provide a positive

response leaves the Christian in a

precarious position; he has nothing

with which to beat the humanism

of

man and

his institutions.

On the

Attackl

It

is somewhat mysterious

why

Professor Duncan should attack

David Chilton's "Productive

Christians in an Age of (juilt

Manipulators '

with such

vehemence. Sider's book is

socialism disguised as Christian

compassion. Few, if any of his

ideas can be supported from the

Bible. Chilton's book is hardly

"rhetoric: He endeavor's to

expose Sider's

underlying

May/June, 1995 ;. THE C O U N S E L o f C h a l c e d o n ~ 17


4/9

presuppositions of govemmental

charity by coercion (income

leveling). . Chilton affinns that

the Bible nowhere gives the civil

govemment the right to be an

agent of forced charity. t

is

the

individual's responsibility to care

for

the

poor,

not

some

misappropriating,

bungling

bureaucracy with

a messiah

complex. Christian love

is

a

matter of obedience

to (jod's

commandments,

4

not mushy,

antinomian feelings, Chilton

is

not seeking

to

formulate a right

wing

but a biblical altemative to

anti-Christian principles of charity

advocated by non-Christians and

Christians alike

in

today's world,

legal Simpletons

Duncan further obscures the

debate

with

a pOinted jab at the

"popular appeal

to

Theonomy"

which . is based

upon an

(apparently) straightfofward

biblicism and simple theological

solutions to complex

social-economic

and

political

situations: Whatever

the

reasons for the 'popularappeal of

TheoJ1omy," let it never be said

that theonomists wish

to

have

this view attributed to them, It is

because theonomists recognize the

need to make practical application

of the laws of the Bible

to

the

modem nalionslatethatthey have

urged caution and careful study,

No

' theonomist has ever boasted

of a simple solution to solve our

culture's plethora of problems.

Vern

Poythress, no theonomist,

said,

"Theonomy at

its

best takes

considerable note

of

discontinuiti.es introduced by

redemptive history in particular

by the coming of Christ

.

Bahnsen

instructs

us to

examine patiently

the particular texts

and

wams us

of the complexities involved:

,.

Bahnsen himself, the supposed

guru of

theonomic

ethics,

frequently disclaims any

simplistic

approach

to

ethics. Applying the

laws of (jod to our modem

situation will require careful

exegesis and patient debate with

Christians holding a different

opinion.

One

must not get the false

impression, however, that the

foregoing study makes

eveTything

in civil govemment a simple

matter or that finding out what

the whole

Bible

has to say on any

particularlaw of(jod can be done

without running into difficult

questions of exegesis and

application in the modem world.

Indeed,

there will

even be

problems in

understanding

whether a

law is

basically moral

. n character or restorative, and

so

forth.'7

The Pious Theonomist

Apparently, Professor Duncan

believes that theonomy

is

'overly

non-experienlialat

times:'

It is

more concemed with the 'societal

applications" of (jod's law,

"societal transfonnation," than

personal piety.'9 But has anyone

considered why theonomists

emphasize this aspect of Christian

living Duncan has already given

one good reason. The Christian

Church in this centuTY has

retreated into the closet

and

allowed this culture

to go to

hell.

If this were the only reason for

theonomy's emphasis on societal

18 IRE COUNSEL of Chalcedon " May June, 1995

renewal based upon (jod's law it

would seem a sufficient one.

It is because theonomists are

vitally concemed with inward

piety that they

stress

the

importance of societal

transfonnation by the law of

(jod.'

o

HowamanservesChrlst

in his society

is

a good indication

of the state of his heart

and

of

his

understanding of the claims

of

Christ upon culture. Theonomists

are extremely interested in piety

and

Christian experience, which

is why they are concemed with

promoting in Christian minds an

adoring, meditative; and life

consuming commitrnentto (jod's

law. They wish for the average

Christian to say with David, 0

how I love they law It is my

meditation all the day.""

Theonomists

do

not,

as

theonomists anyway, diminish,

undervalue,. or obscure

the

surpassing importance ofpersonal

salvation, a pious walk before

(jod, and the

life

of the church.

We would not

for

a moment

suggest that the New Testament

message of the accomplishment

and application of redemption to

(jod's

people by Jesus Christ -

with a view to the individual's

standing before Ciod

and

his

etemal destiny -

is

of secondary

important or merely a means

for

getting

to

what

is "really"

important, namely

social

transfonnation.

We cry out with

Paul: '

Ciod

forbid that I should

glory save in the cross of our Lord

Jesus Christ, by whom the world

is

crucified unto me

and

I unto the

world" jalatians

6:14 .22


5/9

It

is

very sad when those who

insist on scrupulous obedience to

(jod s

commandments are

condemned

as

non-spiritual by

theirsupposed Christianbrothers.

Not only is it

sad,

it is a

spiritual

and theological

crisis

that

has

resulted in ignorance

of

(jod's

law, the decimation of

true

piety

before (jod, and a Church

thathas lost its leaven

and

light in

society.

Contrary

to Professor Duncan's

intimations, true

spirituality before (jod

is

life wide

obedience to

his

law for the sake of

Jesus

Christ

Too often

the person

imbued with

meticulous

concem

for the ordinances

of

(jod and

conscientious regard

for

the

minutiae of (jod's

commandments is judged a

legalist,

while the person who is

not bothered

by

details is

judged

to be

the

practical person

who

exemplifies the liberty

of

the

gospeL

Here

Jesus

is

reminding

us of the same

great truth

which

he

declares

elsewhere:

"He that

is

unjust in that which

is least is

faithful also in

much,

and he that

is

unjust

in

the least

is unjllst

also

in

much" (Luke 16:10). The

criterion of our

standing in the

kingdom of

(jod and ofreward in

the age to come is nothing

else

than me

ticulous observance

of

the

commandments in the minutial

details of their

prescription

and

the eamest

inculcation

of such

observance

on the part

of

others '

Theonomists also stress,

however, that inward piety and

love

for Christ need not make

Christians culturally irrelevant.

Theywish to change culture based

upon (jod's law because

of

their

love for Christ.

t

is

the

love of

Christ which

constrains

them

to

go against the theological flow

and caU the Church of Christ back

to

her commitment

to

(jod's law.

Moreover, they do not wish

merely for societal transformation,

but for the reconstruction

of

aU

areas of life by

the

word

of

the

lover

of

their souls, Jesus

Christ.

In

light

of the Biblical

truths

discussed above,

Reconstructionists

are committed

to the transformation

(Reconstruction)

of

every area of

life,

including

the

institutionsand

affairs of

the

sOcio

-political realm,

according to the

holy principles

revealed throughout (jod s

inspired

word (theonomy)."

Postmillennialism

and Theonomy

Whilepostmillennialism

is one

of

the

distinctives of

the Christian

Reconstruction movement,

Bahnsen denies that theonomy is

tied to anyone particular

eschatological school.25

In other

words, one

does

not have to be

postmillennial in order

to

be a

the

onomist.

There

is no

logical

connection

between the

two,

This

is an important observation. For

Professor Duncan says that

theonomy

is

driven by

postmillennialism.

What

is the relationship

between

theonomy

and

postmillennialisml While there

may be

no

logical connection

between

theonomy and

postmillennialism, there

is

certa

inly

a theological one.

Christian Reconstruc

tionists believe that

Jesus

has been enthroned at

(jod's right hand

as

the

"King of kings, and Lord

of lords " "All things

have been placed under

his dominion

27

His

kingdom has been

established, and twill overthrow

all other kingdoms." From his

position of incomparable

exaltation

at

(jod's right hand, he

will restore all things' and put all

his enemies under his feet.'o

Throughout his rein, his kingdom

will

come

and his will

be

done by

his

faithful

people

' He will not

leave

(jod's right hand untilall of

this

is fulfilled." (jod's

people

have always believed that Christ's

mediatorial reign at (jod's right

hand would progressively result

in the overthrow of the kingdom

of

Satan,

the propagation of the

gospel, the conversion oftheJews,

and the salvation of the majority

of

the (jentiles."

Theonomy, or obedience to

(jod's law forthe

sake

ofJesus has

always played an integral part in

this hope. First, (jod's law

provides

reason

to believe that

through obedie

nce

to the law, the

nations will

be

brought to fear

ayl

June, 1995 l' THE COUNSEL of Cllalcedon

t

19


6/9

(jod and see the wisdom of His

demands," Through

the Church's

obedience

to

(jod's law, (jod will

give them victory over their

enemies and put the fear of them

upon the

nations,35

One of the

recurring themes of the Old

Testament

is

the relationship

between land occupation and

obedience, Obedience to (jod's

law brings worldwide Victory,

Remember, it was Abraham's

hope that he should be heir ofthe

entireearth,'6 The Psalrnistshares

this hope

as

well.37 So the law

itseif gives us reason to be

optimistic about the future.

Second, the law provides

curses

against disobedience and

blessings for obedience,'" The

law provides predictable,

observable sanctions in history, It

provides

motivation

for obedience

and

dissuasion against

disobedience,

(jod graciously

attaches

his

promises of

blessing

and warnings of cursing to

his

law Covenanttheology is a

key

plank of ,postmillennialism,

It

played a major role in Calvin's

theologyas wellas in the Puritans'

vision

for

the Vnited States.

Commenting on the promise of

(jod's blessing

for

obedience,

Calvin writes

The first is, that our Lord

teUeth his people, that he will not

barely give them whatsoever is

needful

for

them: but

also

give

them their fill of his

benefits,

so

that they

be

thoroughly

satisfied

with them. That is for the one.

The second is a coming

back to

that which hath been touched

already: namely, that although

(jodspeaksbutof temporal

goods,

such

as

concem but this

transitory

life, yet he leadeth them thereby.

First therefore let us understand,

that (jod not only

giveth

and

bestoweth

upon

us, such things as

he knoweth

to

be needful for us;

but also enlargeth and extended

his riches

yet

further,

by

using

a

kind of

overrneasure

...Again we

see he

vouchsafeth to pleasure us

after all

sorts,

by sending us so

many things as are in the world to

delight us withall, which are all

witnesses of

his

liberality toward

us

u

9

(jod is in

control

of history,

and

s

such, blesses that nation

whose (jod

is

the

Lord.

What

brings (jod s blessings

Adherence to his law.

40

If

there is

no future for obedience, that

is,

if

there is

no predictable relationship

between obedience and

blessing,

disobedience and cursing, the

heart, or hope, of

ethics

is ripped

out.

Then, we are

left

with a

Kantian

ethic

where the Christian

is to do

his

duty for duty's

sake,

with no thought

to

consequences,

good

or bad, in this life. He

may

expect

etemal consequences in

the

hereafter, but he sees

history as

providing no observable

relationship between

obedience

and blessing,

disobedience

and

cursing.

The

indivisible

covenantal link

between biblical

law

and

postmiUennialism, as I have

argued, is the presence of (jod's

sanctions

in

history. If there were

no guaranteed

historic

sanctions,

then

the

two positions

could

be

held independently, butcovenant

theology does not allow this.

Logically, the two may somehow

20 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon I ayl June, 1995

be

separated

,

theologically, they

cannot be. There is positive

corporate

feedback in history for

covenant-keepers and negative

corporate feedback for

covenant-breakers.

Third,

we believe thatlhereign

of

Jesus

Christat(jod'sright hand

only

intensifies

the relationship

between

blessing

and obedience,

cursing and disobedience.

He that

despised

Moses' law

died without mercy under

two

or

three

witnesses:

Of how

much

sorer punishment,

suppose

you,

shall he

be

thought worthy, who

has trodden

under foot the Son of

(jod, and

has

counted the blood

of

the

covenant, wherewith he

was

sanctified,

an

unholy

thing,

and has done despite unto the

Spirit

of

grace.

42

The coming of Christ does not

do away with this aspect of (jod' s

law. Vnderhis Mediatorial

reign,

the kingdoms

of this world

have

become the

kingdoms ofour(jod,

and

of his

Christ." Christ has

come

and demands that

all

men

everywhere repent.

44

f

lawbreakers

were

punished

under

Moses, they

willbe more

severely

punishedunder Christ' s

kingship.

After all,

he

did not

come to

do

away with one jot or tittle of his

law, but

to

restore it

to

its proper

importance and

place in

Christian

ethics.

45

Sanctions in history

aTe

still

valid

in

the

New

Covenant

days. This means, of course, that

the more history progresses, the

line between lawbreakers and

lawkeepers will become more

definite. This

gives

thetheonomist

great

confidence,

postmillennial

hope, that the relationship


7/9

between obedience and blessing,

disobedience and cursing, still

shapes the course

of

history and

will continue

to

do so until all of

Christ's enemies have been made

a footstool for his feet.

This

is

the relationship

between

theonomy

and

postmillennialism which

Reconstructionistswouldendorse.

They

are

theologically tied

together. The Church's obedience

to

Ood's lawwill make her a light

to the nations and bring Ood's

blessings upon her in history.

Christ's

coming

has not

undermined

the

covenantal

blessings

and

curses, but has

intensified it

What

does Duncan hope to

accomplish by making these

comments

He

alludes to the

particular brand of

postmillennialism adopted

by

theonomists, but he never goes

into detail.

He

seems to be content

to avoid exegetical argumentation

and raise doubts in the minds of

the godly.

Is

he saying

that

postmillennialists are motivated,

"driven, " to adopt theonomic

ethics in order to support their

particular eschatological views

Maybe theonomists are seeking

to bring in the kingdom of

Ood

on earth through taking the power

ofthe sword into theirown hands,

force

conversion

at

gun point.

and

make submission

to

Ood's

law

mandatory for everyone,

regardless of heir personal beliefs.

Let's hope thatthis is not what his

unclear statement means. If it is

then

Duncan

has

simply

misrepresented the theonomic

position once again.

The Eccentricity

of Theonomy

We

shall have occasion to

speak of this supposed

"eccentricity" of theonomy when

we

pursue a lookat the Calvinian

and

Puritan approach to the

judicial laws of Moses. For the

time being, however, let it suffice

to say that theonomy is not

eccentric nor does it endeavor to

be. They would be eccentric, and

out of line

with

historical

reformation theology, if they

embraced the .covenantal form of

observance of the Mosaic law.

They do not. They support the

application of Ood's unchanging

law, all of

it to

all areas of human

existence, including the civil

magistrate.

This is nothing new. The

greatest of Reformed theology has

understood,

endorsed, and

encouraged the application of

Ood's standards to all of society.

Any

honest study of Calvin and

the Puritans will reveal that they

applied the judicial laws of Moses

to their contemporary situations.

And by the way, this application

included the penalties attached to

the law Whether the modem

theonomic movement

is

faithful

to their understanding of this

application remains to be seen.

To accuse theonomy of being

eccentric, however, is to deceive

the audience,

and beg

the

question.

Theol1omic Noveltyl

Duncan states that the

distinctive of theonomy is its

insistence on "the abidingvalidity

of the law in exhaustive detail."

This could indeed be considered

the battle

cry

for the movement.'6

Duncan asks,

What

exactly does

a Theonomist mean by that

and

what is its

significance

47

This is

a very good question, and the key

to

the debate. Where do

theonomists get such an approach

to Christian ethics

They

derive

this exact approach from Jesus

Christ.

The theonomic foundation for

such an assertion is found

in

Matthew 5:17-19. There,

contrary

to

the

Pharisees'

hypocritical. shallow, and

incomplete observance of the law

of Ood, Jesus calls his people back

to total obedience to his holy law.

It is Christ who has told us to

follow" every ot and tittle of the

law." For Duncan to suggest that

theonomists have dreamed up

such an approach to ethics, is to

carefully sidestep Bahnsen's

careful exegesis, as well as to

disregard the impressive list of

authors whom Bahnsen quotes to

support his interpretation of this

passage.'" Such a statement will

also call for detailed exegesis

shOWing

the flaws in Bahnsen's

presentation. This is the battle cry

of theonomists because they

believe it to be the standard our

risen Lord has revealed to us and

would have

us

maintain in this

age

of

ethical

and cultural

relativism.

Thus the only subterfuge left

to these enemies of all order is to

claim that our Lord requires a

greater perfection in the Christian

church than He did of the Jewish

people.

Now

that

is

true with

respect to the ceremonies. But

that there

exists

a different rule of

aylJune, 1995 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 21


8/9

life with respect to

the

moral law

- as it

is called-

than

the

people

of

old

had is a

false opinion.

Those

who think so

have

based this on

Saint Matthew s fifth

chapter,

where it

seems,

at first glance,

that our Lord Jesus has

added

something

to

what

He

had

already commanded the people.

But

when we carefully

consider what the law

of Moses contains and

compare

the otherwith

it, we

realize

that the

intention

of

our Lord

Jesus was not

to

add

anything to it, but

solely

to

restore

the

true

meaning of the law in

its entirety, which the

rabbis had reversed

by

their

false

glosses:

9

The Marks of a Christian

Reconstructionist ITheonomistl

Duncan concludes his

theological

critique

of theonomy

by rehearsing

for

his

readers the

necessary elements ofa Christian

Reconstructionist. While

he is

right on target with most ofthem,

a

few

commentsare

in

orderhere .

The

fifth

distinctive mark

is

stated

in a deceptive

fashion.

While

Bahnsen

holds

that a fundamental

twofold division of the law

is

more exegetically

sound,

he

s

willing to work within the

tradition framework ofa threefold

division

of

the law. All ofthe law

has continuing validity in the

life

of the Christian. Jesus has made

this clear in Matthew 5:17-19.

Howeveryoo divide up the law,

aU

of

(jod s law

is

binding on the

Christian . .

When identifying

the

sixthand

eighth

distinctives of a Christian

Reconstructionist, respectively, a

conceptual confusion

becomes

apparent which Iwill

discuss

later.

The case laws were not

given to

the state. They were

addressed to

the

people of (jod,

members

of

church

and

state. The

manner

in

which Duncan

speaks

of

the

case

laws

seems to suggest

that they

are exclusively

the domain

of the

civil

government. While

they

have application to civil

governments, they

have

authority

in every other area of

life

as welL

The individual

in

his business

and the pastor

in

his

counseling

are

required

to

implement them,

where possible,

no

less than

the

civil magistrate. Hence, the


shouldbethoughtofasa Christian

who is actively

working

for the

implementation

of

all

of

(jod s

laws, including case laws,

into

everyarea of

human

life,

including

civil governments.

Finally,

the ninth

distinctive

mark is another one of those

statements

which

s

aimed

to

make

Christian Reconstructionists look

like the bad guys,

historically,

theologically, and

confessionally.

22 THE COUNSEL

of

Chalcedon ayl Jnne 1995

First of all, it has

not been

proven

by Duncan

that theonomy

is out

of

accord

with

the Confession of

Faith

or the teachings of

John

Calvin. At this

point in his

presentation,

heassumes that

this

is a firmly settled point

agreed

upon by

practically everyone.

Moreover, Christian

Reconstru ctio nists,

while being deeply

convicted

ofthe truth

of

theirposition on the law

of (jo


9/9

would be pleased to send his

victorious word abroad and that

the nations would be discipled.

Our confidence that this will be

accomplished in history is not

uplifted swords, human wisdom,

or Messianic govemments, but

the promise and power

of

Cjod

brought to bear in men's lives

through the preaching of the

gospel

of

our Lord Jesus Christ.

' ' 'May

I be enabled to write and you

to read as becomes those who

expect

in

a little while, to stand before the

judgment seatofChris t. lllis comment

was made by Samuel Miller in his

article

on infant baptism in the

Presbyterian Tracts. Let each of

us who

enter into this debate have this as our

chief concern.

'Duncan notes four positive

contributions that

Christian

Reconstruction has made to Christian

ethics.

(1)

Respect for Qod's law in the

Christian

life

() A renewed emphasis

on

tota scriptura

(3)

A renewed

emphasis

on

the social implications of

Qod's law

4)

A willingness to make

allowancesfordifferingsocial conditions

in applying Cjod'slaw.

'Ibid,

6.

'Ibid, Forward , v.

5Cjreg

L. Bahnsen, ll,eonomy in

Christian

Ethics (Phillipsburg:

Presbytelian and Refonned Publishing,

1984

p.146.

'John Calvin, Commentaries on the

Epistle

to

the Romans (Cjrand

Rapids,

Michigan: BakerBook House 1989), p.

87.

7

Timothy :5

'Ken Cjenhy,

Qod'

s Law in the

Modem

World (Phillipsburg,

New

Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed

Publishing,

1993 p.

69. Also

Cjreg L.

Bahnsen, By This Standard (Tyler,

Texas: Institutes

for Christian

Economics, 1985), p. 3,

'Cjreg

L.

Bahnsen and Kenneth

L.

Qenhy,

Jr

House Divided (Tyler,

Texas: Institutefor Ch,istian

Economics,

1989), p, 88.

10Cjreg

Bahnsen, Cjod's Law and

Qospel Prosperity: A

Reply

to the Editor

of the Presbyterian Joumal,

p.

30.

Ibid, v, vi.

12W. Robert Cjodfrey, Calvin and

ll,eonomy, ll,eonomy: A Refonned

Critique,

ed.

William S, BarkerandW.

Robert Cjodfrey (Cjrand Rapids:

Zondervan Publishing House, 1990),

p. 99.

3lbid

Foreword/' iiL

Introduction, 1

14John 14:15

15lbid,

4,

Vem

S, Poythress, Effects of

Interpretive Frameworks on

the

Application of Old Testament Law,

11,eonomy: A Refonned Critique, ed.

William

S.

Barker

and

W.

Robert

Cjodfrey (Cjrand Rapids: Zondervan

Publishing House, 1990), p.109 11

Ibid, 470, Quotation

like

the above

can be multiplied not only in Bahnsen's

writings but in othertheonomicauthors

as well. For Bahnsen references, see

House Divided

(Tyler,

Texas: Institutes

for Christian Economics,

1989

p.

41-4, No Other Standard, p. 43-47,

96, 6, ll,eonomy, p. xix, xxix-xxx,

556-557,

c.f

jaJY Demar, 11,e Cjreat

Debate Over Christian Reconstruction

(Fort Worth, Texas: Dominion Press,

1988), p. 19.

lbid,6.

Ibid, 9,

Cjreg

L.

Bahnsen,

No

Other

Standard (Tyler, Texas: Institute

for

Christian Economics. 1991),

p.

51,

Psalm 119:97

No

Other Standard 51,

John Murray, Principles of

Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics

(Cjrand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans,

1957), p. 154.

House

Divided 43.

No

Other Standard 51-5.

2OITimothy 6:15; Revelation 17:14

Ephesians 1 19-3

Daniel :44

29Acts

3:.21

Psalm 1 :8-9; I Corinthians 15:5,

Hebrews 10:13

Matthew 6:9-13

I Corinthians 15:4-8

Westminster Confession of Faith,

Larger Catechism Question #191

Exodus

34:10,

Deuteronomy

4:5-8;

Deuteronomy 11 :-8

Romans 4:13

Psalm :7, 67:4, 7:11, 17;

86:9; 117:1

Deuteronomy 8-9

John Calvin,

Sermons

on

Deuteronomy Fascimile Reprintof1538

Edition (Edinburgh: The BannerofTruth

Trust, 1987 p. 469

'Deut. 4:5-11,8:11-0,

8

41Qal)'

North, Millennialism and

Social Theol)' (Tyler, Texas: Institutes

for

Christian Economics,

1990),

p. 241.

Hebrews

10:28-29

Revelation

11 :15

Acts 17:30

Matthew 5:17-19

Ibid, 11.

Ibid, 11-1.

48Theonomy 5, 56-57, 59-60, 65,

84,86.

John Calvin, TreatisesAgainstthe

Anabaptists and Againstthe libertines

(Qrand Rapids: Michigan: Baker Book

House, 198),

p.

77-78.

50Bahnsen uses

the

term latent

antinomian to refer to theologians

who

will not allow Scripture to determine

which aspects of Cjod's law are no

longer binding on the

New

Testament

Christian,

(By

This Standard 301)

If

Prof. Duncan does

not

agree

with

Bahnsen's exegetically founded

assessment of his ethical commitments,

he

needs to refute

t

exegetically,

51 Lest you think I am speaking

100

strongly,

Duncan

later compares

theonomists to the

Anabaptists

revolutionaries in Muensler.

n

MaylJune, 1995 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 23

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	chalcedon-presbyterian-church
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

1995 Issue 5 - What About "What About Theonomy?" A Response to Ligon Duncan's Attack on Theonomic...

Documents