What is Theonomy?

[Glenn P]

What is Theonomy? Well, it's my nickname, and people often ask me what it means. It's a compound of theos and nomos, "God" and "law." Autonomy means "self-rule" or to live according to one's own law. Heteronomy means to live ccording to the law of another. Theonomy means to live according to the law of God.

In the broadest possible sense, all Christians are committed to "Theonomy" to the extent that all Christians think that there are moral rules that God wants us to follow. If you don't believe that, then you have no interest in Christian ethics at all. But the term Theonomy has come to refer to something more narrowly defined. It refers to the position that God's law, revealed in the Bible, is the moral norm for humanity, to the extent that it reveals moral law at all. In short, "Fear God and obey His commandments, for this is the whole duty of humanity" (Ecclesiastes 12:13).

What troubles Christians about Theonomy probably more than anything else are these two things: Firstly, it presumes the continuity of the Old Testament law (subject to fairly careful explanation, something lacking in many critiques of Theonomy), and secondly it does not drive a wedge between ethics and politics, meaning that the ethical duties stipulated by God have bearings on the governments of nations today. The kind of laws that we have today should reflect the standards expressed in biblical law. It is just at that point of understanding Theonomy that many reject it, because it offends some widely held views of ethics in Christian circles, views that I think are best described as "pietistic."

This is not meant to be a long or detailed post, but just a good clear introduction to my view, so I'll try to stick to just the main points.

Theonomy entails the rejection of moral relativism. Moral relativism is the ethical doctrine that morality is relative, either to the individual or to a specific culture. In the individualistic variety, what's morally right for me might not be morally right for you, and what's morally right for you and me might not be right for our neighbour. There just are no trans-personal moral standards, there are just a whole bunch of individuals who construct the moral standards that they live by, and everyone's standards are right for them, even if not right for you. This kind of relativism is called moral subjectivism.

The second kind of moral relativism is called conventionalism. In conventionalism, morality is not determined by the individual, but by collaboration. A group of people put their heads together and simply agree to buy themselves by a set of rules, and they are correct, not because of what anyone outside the group might think of those rules, but just because this is what they have agreed to. For example, if, as a society, we agree that any Asian people who come to our country will be shot on sight, then this is morally okay, for no other reason than the fact that we agreed to it. If some ancient near Eastern societies live by a convention whereby they sacrificed their children to Molech, then so be it, this is just how their culture decided to live. Likewise, if in ancient Israelite society that God made a deal with them whereby they would treat sodomy as wicked, they required thieves to pay restitution, and it was mandatory to put murderers to death, all on moral grounds, then has no necessary implications for us, since it was a long time ago, in a culture other than our own. Since God was not speaking to us when he said those things, what was morally true in that context might not be morally true in ours.

Theonomy rejects moral relativism. This in itself is not a radical, since most Christians, when asked, will say that they too reject moral relativism. What to make theonomy radical is not that it claims to reject moral relativism, but the fact that it actually does so, even at the risk of making it wildly unpopular.

Here's an example. Popular ethicist/apologist Norman Geisler for (rightly) rejects “Antinomianism,” where there are no “objective moral laws.” [1] An objective moral law is, of course, one that is not sujective, that is, it is independent of what people believe about it, as it stands outside of trend, culture and so forth. It is objectively true that some things are moral true, and even if moral practices change, that moral fact will not. He also gives his criteria of the Christian system of ethics: It is based on God's will, it is absolute, it is based on God's revelation, it is prescriptive and it is deontological (that is, duty-based). [2] The theonomic reader agrees with all of these, and sees that Theonomy has just been described. However, when it comes to Theonomy, Geisler says (as one of his responses) that “not all of the Ten Commandments are repeated in the New Testament,” and also “nowhere does the New Testament state, as does the Old Testament, that capital punishment should be given for adultery.” [3] But what happened to “absolute” ethics that are “prescriptive” and based on revelation? It seems Geisler wants to use the terminology of fidelity to revealed ethics given by an immutable God, yet when his mind his on other matters, he reveals his own unwillingness to accept the challenge of consistency.

When we say that we believe that morality is grounded in truth, that is, in fact, that it is objective, and that it is prescriptive, revealing God's will, we've said a lot, and it can be difficult to stick to our guns. Geisler did not stick to his guns. This view of ethics means that we cannot presume that unless a moral requirement is repeated, it must have disappeared. Aside from being a fairly obvious argument from silence, it supposes that moral facts are not so objective after all, that what is morally required yesterday can be either not morally required - or perhaps evenmorally forbidden - today.

This anti-objectivist and culturally relative view of morality has some obviously unacceptable implications for Christians. For example, bestiality, humans having sex with animals, or kidnapping for that matter, are sins that are not expressly forbidden anywhere in the New Testament. Sure, we could try to say "ah, but sexual immorality is forbidden, and bestiality is sexually immoral." Who says it is sexually immoral? Oh that's right, that's in the Old Testament too.

The moral continuity of the Old Testament rears its head throughout the New Testament. The Apostle Paul assumes that one purpose of the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer will be that “the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us” (Rom 8:4). He calls the law “holy, righteous and good” (Rom 7:12), and is able to happily equate “sin” with any violation of the law (Rom 6:15). While passages like these are seen as confirmation of the Theonomic thesis, they are also seen as unnecessary in order to establish Theonomy. As Bahnsen urges, “one cannot rightly infer an abrogation of God’s eternal, holy law from silence.” Unless and until we are given clear grounds for believing that a moral command no longer applies, so the theonomic argument goes, we ought to assume that it remains. This is all the more true given what Jesus says directly about the law. In Matthew 5 Jesus is as explicit as language will permit that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfil it absolutely, and he adds, to prevent any misconception that this is just a veiled way of talking about another kind of abolition (even though that would make the contrast meaningless), that those who keep the law and teach others to do so will be great in the kingdom, but those who break it and teach others to do so will be the least!

I'll deal with the objections that people hear at TWeb raise, and I'll offer further explanation as the thread progresses, in response to questions that I'm sure will come. I'll also be saying some things about the political implications of Theonomy. But for now, I do want to comment on one gut reaction that some people might be tempted to give into: This sounds like a bunch of Pharisee talk!

But does it really? Rushdoony explains that the Pharisees with whom Jesus clashed were in reality “lawbreakers.” [4] He cites as evidence Matthew 7:6-8, noting that the Pharisees had “lay aside” the commandments of God in exchange for human traditions. He quotes with approval Alexander’s comment that the “religious teachers” of Jesus’ day were “corrupting the law by their unauthorized additions.” [5] Not only this, but we might note that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for overlooking the “weightier matters” of the law altogether (Matt 23:23). While Jesus urges the people to obey the teachers of the law and the Pharisees and “do everything they tell you” when they teach the law of Moses, Jesus warns, “But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach” (Matt 23:2-4). Contrary to misconception, Bahnsen points out, “the problem with the Pharisees is that they did not observe the Older Testamental law!” [6] Obedience should never be confused with legalism.


So there's a start. There will be plenty more to come I'm sure, but let's see if the subject gets any takers.
Notes:

1. Norman Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 33.
2. ibid., 22-24.
3. Ibid., 203.
4. Rousas J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973), 707.
5. Joseph Addison Alexander, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, [1864]), 185, cited in Rushdoony, Institutes, 707.
6. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, 91.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hello theonomy, you know I am glad you started this thread as you know I am highly sympathetic to your view and it will give me a chance to think and talk on it a bit more. However, I am finding I have a large philosophical disagreement with what appears to be a foundational premise (and this is where I think theonomy must be defeated IF it is to be defeated - IOW the emotional belly-aching argument of how SHOCKED people are to think that adultery could be a capital offense is bankrupt). I know quite a bit about relativism, and I think what you described as moral relativism isn't moral relativism at all. I draw as my support and justification the work of Christian philosopher Francis Beckwith and ethical commentator Greg Koukl in their book Relativism: Feet Planted Firmly in Mid-Air.

First let me affirm something about relativism that you said very well, and that I would affirm (except perhaps for one part which I think you mean in a different way than I do) - I bolded the sentence I really thought was well done:

Moral relativism is the ethical doctrine that morality is relative, either to the individual or to a specific culture. In the individualistic variety, what's morally right for me might not be morally right for you, and what's morally right for you and me might not be right for our neighbour. There just are no trans-personal moral standards, there are just a whole bunch of individuals who construct the moral standards that they live by, and everyone's standards are right for them, even if not right for you. This kind of relativism is called moral subjectivism.

That bolded statement is relativism. Moral relativism is about relative individuals. However, in your follow-up paragraph you seem to go beyond what is really true moral relativism:

The second kind of moral relativism is called conventionalism. In conventionalism, morality is not determined by the individual, but by collaboration. A group of people put their heads together and simply agree to buy themselves by a set of rules, and they are correct, not because of what anyone outside the group might think of those rules, but just because this is what they have agreed to. For example, if, as a society, we agree that any Asian people who come to our country will be shot on sight, then this is morally okay, for no other reason than the fact that we agreed to it. If some ancient near Eastern societies live by a convention whereby they sacrificed their children to Molech, then so be it, this is just how their culture decided to live. Likewise, if in ancient Israelite society that God made a deal with them whereby they would treat sodomy as wicked, they required thieves to pay restitution, and it was mandatory to put murderers to death, all on moral grounds, then has no necessary implications for us, since it was a long time ago, in a culture other than our own. Since God was not speaking to us when he said those things, what was morally true in that context might not be morally true in ours.

This paragraph starts very well - and I reject conventionalsim. However your conclusory sentence seems to imply that this conclusion is rejected simply by a rejection of conventionalsim. That is not so.

This is where a proper definition of moral relativism is crucial - and where most Christians are highly confused about what Biblical absolutism is. Biblical absolutism implies an absolute set of hierarchal standards which has an absolute weight but that the ethical situation must be weighed in order to apply those standards which would then apply equally to every individual in the same ethical situation.

I am raising a situation as an example for you to consider Theonomy (and I do not wish to debate it with others who disagree that this is a valid example as it gets too contentious and will distract this thread - I am bringing it to Theonomy as IIRC he agrees with me on this point). Lying is wrong. Is it always wrong? No. The Bible gives two situations in fact where it was the right thing to do, and to tell the truth would have been wrong. (though in fairness I may be starting to look at that issue with a bit more nuance but I don't think the conclusion would be different for these purposes). It depended on the situation. BUT all people in that particular situation would have the some moral imperative.

Starting from this ground, it is possible, while still rejecting relativism, and holding to Biblical absolutism, to reject the civil laws of the OT as being applicable to us today as we are in different situations from which to evaluate the moral hierarchy.

Let's take for example adultery. We have to examine why it was capital offense, and I do think there were specific cultural and time-bound reasons why it was so, and I am not so sure they are applicable today.

So - I don't think the argument via rejection of moral relativism is as strong as was presented in your OP.

[Glenn P]

This is where a proper definition of moral relativism is crucial - and where most Christians are highly confused about what Biblical absolutism is. Biblical absolutism implies an absolute set of hierarchal standards which has an absolute weight but that the ethical situation must be weighed in order to apply those standards which would then apply equally to every individual in the same ethical situation.

Yes I agree with this.

I am raising a situation as an example for you to consider Theonomy (and I do not wish to debate it with others who disagree that this is a valid example as it gets too contentious and will distract this thread - I am bringing it to Theonomy as IIRC he agrees with me on this point). Lying is wrong. Is it always wrong? No. The Bible gives two situations in fact where it was the right thing to do, and to tell the truth would have been wrong. (though in fairness I may be starting to look at that issue with a bit more nuance but I don't think the conclusion would be different for these purposes). It depended on the situation. BUT all people in that particular situation would have the some moral imperative.

Again I fully agree. I think we need to understand biblical moral rules "sensibly" for want of a better word. I think that if God says "don't steal" for example, we just ought to accept certain reasonable qualifications (e.g. if someone is going to shoot somebody else, then of course you can take his gun). It does mean that we have to process the commandments and not take them simply "raw," but filter them through our common sensulator (I copyright that word), but I'm not sure that we disagree.

Starting from this ground, it is possible, while still rejecting relativism, and holding to Biblical absolutism, to reject the civil laws of the OT as being applicable to us today as we are in different situations from which to evaluate the moral hierarchy.

I won't go into the issue of a "moral hierarchy," but let's takew what you've said here and see if it leads towards or away from my position. OK, I agree that what we should say, if we're spelling eveything out a little more fully, that what commandment really means is "when you are in circumstances that are relevant similar to this circumstance, do X." Firstly, this cannot lead to the presumption of discontinuity I was opposing in my OP. But secondly, we'd see pretty quickly on a case by case basis that this really leads to Theonomy. For example, "when in circumstances relevantly similar to this one here, the thief is to pay X proportion of restitution." What conditions must be met before we can say that the situation is reloevantly similar? Well, not many as far as I can tell, and certainly none that cannot be easily met in our own culture. In other words, the principle is such that it is not vacuously universally binding (that is, universally binding, but only when circumstances arise that will never actuall arise other than in this cultural context), but it actually does apply cross culturally between then and now.

Let's take for example adultery. We have to examine why it was capital offense, and I do think there were specific cultural and time-bound reasons why it was so, and I am not so sure they are applicable today.

So - I don't think the argument via rejection of moral relativism is as strong as was presented in your OP.

Well I think it carries significant weight against any view that presumes discontinuity, which is not what you're doing. And I think that even when your rejoinder is taken into account, proper rejection of cultural relativism still strongly leads on in the direction of Theonomy.

I'm curious now as to what you'd say about the case of adultery.

[Spiritus Naturae]

I just have to say that I learned quite a bit about Theonomy from your paper you emailed to me some time ago. I used to be one of those shrill opponents of the notion of Theonomy and like most my objections were purely emotional and not entirely Scriptural in nature.

I shall be browsing this post with great interest and will post any questions that may arise for me.

Keep up the good work, Theonomy.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Theonomy I know you are going to kick me but for the tenth time I lost your paper (but in my defense my last laptop committed suicide) and I would like it again.

I have school tonight and tomorrow, but I will let you know what I was thinking on the adultery issue and my comments as to your response.

So as to be clear, which I am fairly certain already, but sometimes whoosh, things go over my head - you do believe that aldutery in the economy of God is still a capital moral offense? (you know I don't have a knee-jerk emotional reaction against that position I just want to make sure I am not assuming anything)

[Glenn P]

Theonomy I know you are going to kick me but for the tenth time I lost your paper (but in my defense my last laptop committed suicide) and I would like it again.

No problem, that will be $29.95.


OK, I'll just email it.

So as to be clear, which I am fairly certain already, but sometimes whoosh, things go over my head - you do believe that aldutery in the economy of God is still a capital moral offense? (you know I don't have a knee-jerk emotional reaction against that position I just want to make sure I am not assuming anything)

At present I can find no biblical warrant for saying otherwise (my safe answer). Having said that, a lot of conditions must be met (not just conditions regarding the establishment of guilt), and it is certainly not mandatory, in fact I think it should not happen.

[Dee Dee Warren]

At present I can find no biblical warrant for saying otherwise (my safe answer). Having said that, a lot of conditions must be met (not just conditions regarding the establishment of guilt), and it is certainly not mandatory, in fact I think it should not happen.

I am glad I just did not assume. You totally lost me there - really. I have no idea what that means. Can you please explicate?

[Dee Dee Warren]

I just have to say that I learned quite a bit about Theonomy from your paper you emailed to me some time ago. I used to be one of those shrill opponents of the notion of Theonomy and like most my objections were purely emotional and not entirely Scriptural in nature.

I shall be browsing this post with great interest and will post any questions that may arise for me.

Keep up the good work, Theonomy.

I agree with your reaction as that would have been mine if I already wasn't well done the evil road of preterism when I encountered it. But I know my mindset before then, and I would have done likewise. I think it is the experience of coming to believe something so obviously ridiculous (my former mindset) as preterism has led me to be a more careful examiner of "that's just ludicrous" dismissals especially when obvious non-loons (well perhaps he is a bit looney) hold it.

[Spiritus Naturae]

I agree with your reaction as that would have been mine if I already wasn't well done the evil road of preterism when I encountered it. But I know my mindset before then, and I would have done likewise. I think it is the experience of coming to believe something so obviously ridiculous (my former mindset) as preterism has led me to be a more careful examiner of "that's just ludicrous" dismissals especially when obvious non-loons (well perhaps he is a bit looney) hold it.

By the way, I just recently printed out Bahnsen's "By This Standard" and will start chipping away at it tonight. A good resource in the way of learning Theonomy, I assume?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Yes I have heard it is one of THE books to read. DeMar's "Ruler of Nations" is very good, I have it and have read it.

[Little Shepherd]

I was thinking about "what is Theonomy" just this weekend when you and DDW were talking about it in PalTalk. After reading your post, I have a question and a comment.

Q: How do you tell the difference between a moral command and one that's simply cultural? I assume adultery and committing murder are moral commands. However, what about circumcision and dietary laws? As I understand it, commands to follow these were, in fact, part of the law itself. Yet in the New Testament, not only is it not required, but it is specifically said that we can eat the unclean foods, and that we don't require physical circumcision anymore. Even with theonomy's view of the law of God as absolute and eternal, it still seems there are many laws that we don't have to obey.

C: As I was thinking about this a few weeks ago, I had a particular thought about the law and why we follow the laws that we do and not the ones that we don't. As far as I can figure, the Old Testament law had the purpose of directing the Jews in the running of a nation. The New Testament, on the other hand, directs Christians to obey the laws of the land except where they conflict with devotion to God. It is not assumed that Christians will occupy and govern their own nation(s), but rather that they will be subject to other, often unchristian, governments. Rather than a system of laws and punishments, we have a system of guidelines that allow us to operate within, yet stand apart from, whatever governing system we find ourselves under.

As for punishments, we are likewise only allowed to prosecute people to the extent that the legal system we are under allows. If we were to be Christians in a country operating under the Mosaic Law, then we could prosecute adulterers with the death penalty. However, under current US laws, we can't even give them a smack on the wrist. That doesn't make adultery right; it simply means we're bound by our country's laws and can't "go vigilante" unless the laws are requiring us to do something that goes against God.

That's all I have at the moment. I'm interested to see how a theonomic view deals with these issues.

[Arnold]

Theonomy:


So does your theonomy mean fully keeping the Mosaic Law or selectively keeping the Mosaic Law? And what are the retributions for not?

[Ryokan]

What is Theonomy? Well, it's my nickname, and people often ask me what it means. It's a compound of theos and nomos, "God" and "law." Autonomy means "self-rule" or to live according to one's own law. Heteronomy means to live ccording to the law of another. Theonomy means to live according to the law of God.

Okay.

In the broadest possible sense, all Christians are committed to "Theonomy" to the extent that all Christians think that there are moral rules that God wants us to follow. If you don't believe that, then you have no interest in Christian ethics at all. But the term Theonomy has come to refer to something more narrowly defined. It refers to the position that God's law, revealed in the Bible, is the moral norm for humanity, to the extent that it reveals moral law at all. In short, "Fear God and obey His commandments, for this is the whole duty of humanity" (Ecclesiastes 12:13).

Okay.

What troubles Christians about Theonomy probably more than anything else are these two things: Firstly, it presumes the continuity of the Old Testament law (subject to fairly careful explanation, something lacking in many critiques of Theonomy), and secondly it does not drive a wedge between ethics and politics, meaning that the ethical duties stipulated by God have bearings on the governments of nations today. The kind of laws that we have today should reflect the standards expressed in biblical law. It is just at that point of understanding Theonomy that many reject it, because it offends some widely held views of ethics in Christian circles, views that I think are best described as "pietistic."

Which is where we have problems. I don't agree we should be held to old testament law, at least those laws that regard the governance of ancient Israel/Judah or those laws that regard to the maintenance of Hebrew cultural norms.

This is not meant to be a long or detailed post, but just a good clear introduction to my view, so I'll try to stick to just the main points.

Theonomy entails the rejection of moral relativism. Moral relativism is the ethical doctrine that morality is relative, either to the individual or to a specific culture. In the individualistic variety, what's morally right for me might not be morally right for you, and what's morally right for you and me might not be right for our neighbour. There just are no trans-personal moral standards, there are just a whole bunch of individuals who construct the moral standards that they live by, and everyone's standards are right for them, even if not right for you. This kind of relativism is called moral subjectivism.

The second kind of moral relativism is called conventionalism. In conventionalism, morality is not determined by the individual, but by collaboration. A group of people put their heads together and simply agree to buy themselves by a set of rules, and they are correct, not because of what anyone outside the group might think of those rules, but just because this is what they have agreed to. For example, if, as a society, we agree that any Asian people who come to our country will be shot on sight, then this is morally okay, for no other reason than the fact that we agreed to it. If some ancient near Eastern societies live by a convention whereby they sacrificed their children to Molech, then so be it, this is just how their culture decided to live. Likewise, if in ancient Israelite society that God made a deal with them whereby they would treat sodomy as wicked, they required thieves to pay restitution, and it was mandatory to put murderers to death, all on moral grounds, then has no necessary implications for us, since it was a long time ago, in a culture other than our own. Since God was not speaking to us when he said those things, what was morally true in that context might not be morally true in ours.

We all do reject these things, as you momentarily point out.

Theonomy rejects moral relativism. This in itself is not a radical, since most Christians, when asked, will say that they too reject moral relativism. What to make theonomy radical is not that it claims to reject moral relativism, but the fact that it actually does so, even at the risk of making it wildly unpopular.

How so? Is finding, say, adultery, objectively morally wrong but outside the proper sphere of governmental oversight "moral relativism? What about thinking that even if it is in that realm, death is not a reasonable punishment? Or a reasonable punishment in today's reality?

Here's an example. Popular ethicist/apologist Norman Geisler for (rightly) rejects “Antinomianism,” where there are no “objective moral laws.” [1] An objective moral law is, of course, one that is not sujective, that is, it is independent of what people believe about it, as it stands outside of trend, culture and so forth. It is objectively true that some things are moral true, and even if moral practices change, that moral fact will not. He also gives his criteria of the Christian system of ethics: It is based on God's will, it is absolute, it is based on God's revelation, it is prescriptive and it is deontological (that is, duty-based). [2] The theonomic reader agrees with all of these, and sees that Theonomy has just been described. However, when it comes to Theonomy, Geisler says (as one of his responses) that “not all of the Ten Commandments are repeated in the New Testament,” and also “nowhere does the New Testament state, as does the Old Testament, that capital punishment should be given for adultery.” [3] But what happened to “absolute” ethics that are “prescriptive” and based on revelation? It seems Geisler wants to use the terminology of fidelity to revealed ethics given by an immutable God, yet when his mind his on other matters, he reveals his own unwillingness to accept the challenge of consistency.

Well, if you are not an inerrantist, this is not problematic. Additionally, what is moral is ultimately determined by God. It is both consistent and legitimate for him to use one moral code, applicable at one time, for one people, and another at another time. bopth are absolute, just based on certain preconditions.

When we say that we believe that morality is grounded in truth, that is, in fact, that it is objective, and that it is prescriptive, revealing God's will, we've said a lot, and it can be difficult to stick to our guns. Geisler did not stick to his guns. This view of ethics means that we cannot presume that unless a moral requirement is repeated, it must have disappeared. Aside from being a fairly obvious argument from silence, it supposes that moral facts are not so objective after all, that what is morally required yesterday can be either not morally required - or perhaps evenmorally forbidden - today.

This anti-objectivist and culturally relative view of morality has some obviously unacceptable implications for Christians. For example, bestiality, humans having sex with animals, or kidnapping for that matter, are sins that are not expressly forbidden anywhere in the New Testament. Sure, we could try to say "ah, but sexual immorality is forbidden, and bestiality is sexually immoral." Who says it is sexually immoral? Oh that's right, that's in the Old Testament too.

The moral continuity of the Old Testament rears its head throughout the New Testament. The Apostle Paul assumes that one purpose of the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer will be that “the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us” (Rom 8:4). He calls the law “holy, righteous and good” (Rom 7:12), and is able to happily equate “sin” with any violation of the law (Rom 6:15). While passages like these are seen as confirmation of the Theonomic thesis, they are also seen as unnecessary in order to establish Theonomy. As Bahnsen urges, “one cannot rightly infer an abrogation of God’s eternal, holy law from silence.” Unless and until we are given clear grounds for believing that a moral command no longer applies, so the theonomic argument goes, we ought to assume that it remains. This is all the more true given what Jesus says directly about the law. In Matthew 5 Jesus is as explicit as language will permit that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfil it absolutely, and he adds, to prevent any misconception that this is just a veiled way of talking about another kind of abolition (even though that would make the contrast meaningless), that those who keep the law and teach others to do so will be great in the kingdom, but those who break it and teach others to do so will be the least!

I'll deal with the objections that people hear at TWeb raise, and I'll offer further explanation as the thread progresses, in response to questions that I'm sure will come. I'll also be saying some things about the political implications of Theonomy. But for now, I do want to comment on one gut reaction that some people might be tempted to give into: This sounds like a bunch of Pharisee talk!

But does it really? Rushdoony explains that the Pharisees with whom Jesus clashed were in reality “lawbreakers.” [4] He cites as evidence Matthew 7:6-8, noting that the Pharisees had “lay aside” the commandments of God in exchange for human traditions. He quotes with approval Alexander’s comment that the “religious teachers” of Jesus’ day were “corrupting the law by their unauthorized additions.” [5] Not only this, but we might note that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for overlooking the “weightier matters” of the law altogether (Matt 23:23). While Jesus urges the people to obey the teachers of the law and the Pharisees and “do everything they tell you” when they teach the law of Moses, Jesus warns, “But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach” (Matt 23:2-4). Contrary to misconception, Bahnsen points out, “the problem with the Pharisees is that they did not observe the Older Testamental law!” [6] Obedience should never be confused with legalism.


So there's a start. There will be plenty more to come I'm sure, but let's see if the subject gets any takers.
Notes:

1. Norman Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 33.
2. ibid., 22-24.
3. Ibid., 203.
4. Rousas J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973), 707.
5. Joseph Addison Alexander, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, [1864]), 185, cited in Rushdoony, Institutes, 707.
6. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, 91.

Okay.

My basic objections are :
1. Any functional theonomy is dependant on the group in power accurately interpretting GOds law. And given the way men disagree about that..... How are we to come to a decision that isn't, by theonomic definition of the term, conventionalism? Either the will of the masses, or the will of the men in power, not God's will, is likely to be done.
2. It presupposes it is the proper role of government to enforce moral law as an end unto itself.
3. It does not take into account the possibility, assuming ancient Israel's laws are divinely mandated, they were divinely mandated for Israel alone as a legal system.
4. it does not explain how it would be installed over a pluralistic society.

[Ryokan]

Let's take for example adultery. We have to examine why it was capital offense, and I do think there were specific cultural and time-bound reasons why it was so, and I am not so sure they are applicable today.

This is a good point. 3000 years ago, society was different, and much less secure in its foundations.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Ryokan I hope you don't mind a minor side-trail and some personal questions. You can tell me to buzz off if you like. My motivation is not to argue, but like with Theonomy, just to know accurately where you are coming from. What is your errantist view? There are many different types - for instance, our SoF here at the site does not require inerrancy. It strongly implies it, but there are forms of errancy that could exist under our SoF and in fact I think a couple of our mods are not inerrantists (I never made an issue out of it with them so I don't know for sure). Also, a bit more personal, is your wife an inerrantist? I am curious only because I know she was important in bringing you to faith so I am just curious as to the "doctrinal atmosphere" so to speak of your daily life. You can tell me it is none of my business or you prefer not to discuss.