View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
8/12/2019 1995 Issue 5 - What About "What About Theonomy?" A Response to Ligon Duncan's Attack on Theonomic Ethics -
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.
8/12/2019 1995 Issue 5 - What About "What About Theonomy?" A Response to Ligon Duncan's Attack on Theonomic Ethics -
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
Christian Reconstructionist
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
8/12/2019 1995 Issue 5 - What About "What About Theonomy?" A Response to Ligon Duncan's Attack on Theonomic Ethics -
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
8/12/2019 1995 Issue 5 - What About "What About Theonomy?" A Response to Ligon Duncan's Attack on Theonomic Ethics -
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
8/12/2019 1995 Issue 5 - What About "What About Theonomy?" A Response to Ligon Duncan's Attack on Theonomic Ethics -
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
8/12/2019 1995 Issue 5 - What About "What About Theonomy?" A Response to Ligon Duncan's Attack on Theonomic Ethics -
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
8/12/2019 1995 Issue 5 - What About "What About Theonomy?" A Response to Ligon Duncan's Attack on Theonomic Ethics -
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
Christian Reconstructionist
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
8/12/2019 1995 Issue 5 - What About "What About Theonomy?" A Response to Ligon Duncan's Attack on Theonomic Ethics -
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