Theonomist in serious need of help.

[caffeine_addict]

I have a problem that I really think I need to solve, and that's the problem of whether or not theonomy (more specifically the Reconstructionist kind, although not limited to that) is correct. I am a postmillennialist, and I am pretty firm in my belief, but I do accept the fact that I could be wrong, and until a few days ago I was pretty sure that the Reconstructionist idea was correct, however I was reading some of the essays from the Trinity Foundation by John W. Robbins when I stumbled across these four essays
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=69
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=65
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=184
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=67
And after reading them I have been severly shaken and have begun to question everything I've believed, especially since Robbins goes as far as to call Reconstructionism anti-Christian.
What I would like is some help with this problem, I don't want any flaming, insults or anything like that, I just want to get to the bottom of it and find out what the correct view is, since if Robbins is correct and Reconstructionism is anti-Christian, and "Some Theonomists may make it to Heaven", then I'm in big trouble.

[Johnny MacManky]

Hey caffeine addict, Welcome to Tweb

We've got a guy here who goes by the name of Theonomy. Although it pains me to admit it, he's actually a pretty smart guy, and has written some proper papers on the subject.

Generally it's a view that gets a fair hearing around here, so you should get some really helpful discussion.

[caffeine_addict]

Thanks, that's what I need most at the moment, helpful discussion, I don't mind a good debate, as long as both sides can keep their cool.

[Glenn P]

Hi c_a

Could you state the specific arguments here that you think are most effective? At TWeb we tend not to do things by web-link. Thanks :smile:

I have to say, the opening comments are not promising. The Robbins article already sounds like a drive by, kicked off when he sarcastically says, " Having set the scholarly and serious tone for the book. Dr. North turns it over to Dr. Bahnsen, who, if he were half the rigorous thinker North thinks he is, ought to be blushing crimson by now. Further, both Dr. Bahnsen and Dr. North ought to consider themselves fortunate that they have not attracted the attention of a prominent philosopher: It is all too easy to lay waste their arguments."

But let's see the arguments as you understand them, and we can discuss whether or not they are successful.

[caffeine_addict]

Hmm, OK, I'll try pick out the main parts.
The first point he makes is that Christ himself condemned dominion theology, he uses this verse to prove his point "You know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you..." (Matthew 20:25.26), then he says "Dominion over men is an anti-Christian notion." He goes on to say that in Genesis 1, dominion was given to man, all men, not just Christians, and that the Great Commission is addressed only to Christians and is not a command to exercise dominion.
So as I see it he's saying that at the very base level Theonomy can't be correct because Christians aren't allowed to have dominion.
The other main thrust of it is that Reconstructionists hold to two contradictory views of the Law, being 1: 'The abiding validity of the law in exhaustive detail" "Not one stroke of the law will become invalid until the end of the world" (Bahnsens words) and 2:"All Old Testament laws are presently our obligation unless further revelation from the Lawgiver shows that some change has been made..." (Bahnsen again), he goes on to say that "Either "Not one stroke of the law will become invalid until the end of the world" or "Some changes have been made."" and Bahnsens can't maintain that the Old Testament food laws are still valid but not binding.
As far as I can tell those are the two main thrusts of Robbins arguments, in one of the other essays about James Jordan his conclusion is that Reconstructionist James Jordan has written a book telling us that protestantism is bad and Romanism is good.
The other essay is what David Chilton thought of the Tyler Reconstructionist Church.

[Glenn P]

Hmm, OK, I'll try pick out the main parts.
The first point he makes is that Christ himself condemned dominion theology, he uses this verse to prove his point "You know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you..." (Matthew 20:25.26), then he says "Dominion over men is an anti-Christian notion." He goes on to say that in Genesis 1, dominion was given to man, all men, not just Christians, and that the Great Commission is addressed only to Christians and is not a command to exercise dominion.He cannot maintain that dominion over men is anti Christian unless he says that government is anti Christian. Since the latter claim is rdicidulous, it follows that his claim is not true, dominion is not anti Chrstian.

He is attacking a straw man if he thinks that Theonomists claim that the church should take dominion. Rather, theonomists say that we should have laws that are actually just because they reflect the justice of God. And the state has every right to excercise that kind of authority. It is not an anti-Christian notion.

When Jesus says that "it shall not be so among you," He is forbidding Christians within the church from excercising dominion over other Christians. That's why He says "among you." But there's never any suggestion here or anywhere else that Jesus taught that governmens should not excercise some sort of dominion over the nation, or that they should not do so accoding to God's standards of justice.

So as I see it he's saying that at the very base level Theonomy can't be correct because Christians aren't allowed to have dominion.Then he's flat out wrong. Theonomy isn't about Christians having a dominion that non-Christians can't have, and Jesus was talking about the way Christians should treat each other.

The other main thrust of it is that Reconstructionists hold to two contradictory views of the Law, being 1: 'The abiding validity of the law in exhaustive detail" "Not one stroke of the law will become invalid until the end of the world" (Bahnsens words) and 2:"All Old Testament laws are presently our obligation unless further revelation from the Lawgiver shows that some change has been made..." (Bahnsen again), he goes on to say that "Either "Not one stroke of the law will become invalid until the end of the world" or "Some changes have been made."" and Bahnsens can't maintain that the Old Testament food laws are still valid but not binding.Then Robbins is a very lazy man. It's that simple. Very careful explanations have been given by Theonomists - especially Bahnsen - on this very specific point, and if Robinson is not patient enough to listen, he will not gain the benefit of understanding.

When talking about the abiding authority, Bahnsen is doing neither more nor less than citing Jesus, when Jesus made His claims about jots and tittles. If Robbins wants to fault Jesus, then so be it. If he wants to say that Jesus was careless and didn't qualify His comments well enough, then so be it. But it does not good to fault Bahnsen when he quotes Jesus.

It's also much too quick to just assume that one cannot say that certain laws still apply, but our obligations to carry them out have changed. Must we still, for example, have a sacrifice offered for our sins? Yes indeed! Has such a sacrifice been offered? Yes. And any further offering would be superfluous.


As far as I can tell those are the two main thrusts of Robbins arguments, in one of the other essays about James Jordan his conclusion is that Reconstructionist James Jordan has written a book telling us that protestantism is bad and Romanism is good.Then Robbins is not only lazy, he has reading comprehension problems. Seriously listen - I\'ve seen quality arguments against theonomy. This isn't one. Why on earth did this hack pose a problem for you?

[caffeine_addict]

I'm not sure why it posed a problem, maybe it was because I respect Gordon Clark, and some of the stuff that Robbins has written has been quite good. I also have pretty much no one but Dad to help me with these issues, so I have been unable to go to anyone for support whenever it has come under attack, being unable to voice opinions without getting ridiculed may have taken a toll on me, and It may be that I was looking for an excuse to stop believing in it. I'm also not very good at stuff like this, I read a lot, but I have trouble remembering details, so it sometimes escapes me what's wrong with a persons arguments. I appreciate your help though, and next time I'll try harder to understand what could be wrong with an opponents argument.

[Glenn P]

I'm not sure why it posed a problem, maybe it was because I respect Gordon Clark, and some of the stuff that Robbins has written has been quite good. I also have pretty much no one but Dad to help me with these issues, so I have been unable to go to anyone for support whenever it has come under attack, being unable to voice opinions without getting ridiculed may have taken a toll on me, and It may be that I was looking for an excuse to stop believing in it. I'm also not very good at stuff like this, I read a lot, but I have trouble remembering details, so it sometimes escapes me what's wrong with a persons arguments. I appreciate your help though, and next time I'll try harder to understand what could be wrong with an opponents argument.
I didn't mean the question in any derogatory way, so I hope it didn't seem that way.

But basically the two responses are: Robbins is wrong about applying Jesus' words about "lording it over" others in the church to the question of applying God's law in society, because the issues are not the same. And secondly he's wrong about theonomy being contradictory on the whole continuity/discontinuity thing. He oversimplifies, and effectively says that Jesus' own words go too far.

You're always welcome to bring any issues like this up here, and you'll get a supportive hearing.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Theonomy - a quick question that I hope to interact with is Gene Cook made an anti-theonomy argument last week saying that the kingdom doesn't come with observation so to expect an optimistic future is expecting something to come with observation.

What do you think?

[Glenn P]

Theonomy - a quick question that I hope to interact with is Gene Cook made an anti-theonomy argument last week saying that the kingdom doesn't come with observation so to expect an optimistic future is expecting something to come with observation.

What do you think?
Hi, sorry I took a while to see this.

I think the idea of coming gradually is supposed to be an idea that contrasts with something coming with observation. In other words, I think that coming with observation would indicate coming all at once, whereas coming gradually involves coming little by little, sneaking up slowly without observation.