Augustine and Privation revisited

Ciboure Clocher, France (photo from trekearth.com) Jeff, thank you and very nice job. Jeff Jenkins Privation is an important topic in my PhD thesis on the problem of evil/theodicy, and was discussed on this blog previously when I had fewer readers. I wish to revisit the concept and add some new material. Privation is not quote... "privatization Definition 1 The repurchasing of all of a company's outstanding stock by employees or a private investor. As a result of such an initiative, the company stops being publicly traded. Sometimes, the company might have to take on significant debt to finance the change in ownership structure. Companies might want to go private in order to restructure their businesses (when they feel that the process might affect their stock prices poorly in the short run). They might also want to go private to avoid the expense and regulations associated with remaining listed on a stock exchange. Also called going private. Opposite of going public. Definition 2 The process of moving from a government-controlled system to a privately run, for-profit system." From Privatization Privation Augustine is one of my exemplars dealing with the problem of evil and within his text Enchiridion discusses privation and the corruption of humanity. Augustine (421)(1998: Chapter 13: 8). The subject is also discussed in On Free Choice of the Will. What follows is a fairly short non-exhaustive article on a complex subject. Augustine’s view of the corruption and privation of created matter and nature was that they were good things as created originally by God, but had become less than they were originally intended through rebellion against God. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 116-117). Augustine reasons that every nature, and by that he means substance that was finite (limited as angels and humans beings are) could be corrupted. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 116). The term substance, particularly in regard to God, is not necessarily physical substance but, instead, is the very core of a being. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 117). Each nature and substance that could become less good would still be good, and every nature would become less good when it was corrupted. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 116-117). With this view both physical matter and spiritual inner being could become corrupt. Rowan Greer indicates Augustine viewed privation as meaning that evil has no ontological status (meaning evil does not exist on its own). Greer (1996: 482). But from his writings Augustine does not necessarily state that as his view. Augustine dealt primarily with the idea of evil as negation, and I doubt he would fail to see that after corruption had taken place in creation that living, existing, beings committed evil acts, and in a sense evil beings existed. Augustine reasons that every human being that exists is good, but is evil where it is defective. Augustine (421)(1998: Chapter 13: 7). Although privation seems true in a negative sense, a problem with the concept in creatures is that corruption and the resulting evil in creatures is not merely an absence of something good, but consists of its own positive, destructive quality, as private creatures not only lack the will to do what is good, but will to do evil. John Hick reasons that Augustine’s idea of privation fails to deal with the fact that corrupted persons do not always tend to disintegrate and cease to exist in will and personality. Hick (1970: 62). This would seem correct as a corrupted and evil entity can grow in intelligence and power, so a mere corruption of a being from original perfection does not appear to weaken it to that status of non-existence. Something is considered evil because it can be seen to have a diminished degree of goodness. This appears reasonable; however, the diminished goodness in a creature is not replaced by non-existence, but by an actual corrupted nature within the person. It should be noted that Augustine is quite difficult to read and understand and it is not surprising that he is interpreted in varying ways. His writing style makes interpretations difficult as well, in my opinion, from the English translations. From a Biblical perspective the remaining goodness left in human beings after corruption is not sufficient for salvation. Romans 3:23 states that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and Romans 6:23 explains that the wages of sin are death, but the free gift of everlasting life is for those in Christ. Therefore even if privation is correct negatively, and everything that exists, no matter how evil it is, must contain some goodness, and evil does not exist on its own, human beings are still far from being perfectly morally good. God’s standards for salvation and entrance into the Kingdom of God that were originally broken in Genesis 3, included moral perfection and goodness in obedience to God, and fallen beings do not have perfect goodness. Human beings are therefore dependent on the atoning work and resurrection of Christ to deal with the results of sin and death, allowing those in Christ to obtain true moral perfection and goodness and entrance into the everlasting Kingdom of God. AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. GREER, ROWAN A. (1996) ‘Augustine’s Transformation of The Free Will Defence’, Faith and Philosophy, Volume 13, Number 4, October, pp. 471-486. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College. HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library. My Mom emailed me some SUPPOSED celebrity mansions and so I thought I would edit and share a few of them. Oprah Arnold, the Governor Eddie Murphy Sylvester Stallone Jerry Sienfeld  

O.J. Simpson

Gratuitous evil revisited

Gratuitous evil revisited

Revised and reformatted for an entry on academia.edu, June 20, 2022

Butchart Gardens (photo from trekearth.com)

This is material based on MPhil/PhD research. When I began my research it was noted by a few writers that the gratuitous/evidential problem of evil was being discussed by some scholars more than the logical problem. I have primary dealt with the logical problem in my MPhil and PhD research only theses and related questionnaires, but I did not want to negate the gratuitous problem and so I discussed it without it being suggested by an advisor.

I reason a sovereignty theodicy/approach can reasonably state that as an infinite, omnipotent God can use all evil for the greater good, no amount of evil is too much or gratuitous. God remains perfectly good and holy in the process. God's plans achieved means the evil he willfully allows is not gratuitous.

Romans 8:28 (New American Standard Bible)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation

28And we know that [a]God causes (A)all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are (B)called according to His purpose.

However, from our human perspective much evil often remains unexplainable and very painful.

Gratuitous evil is also known as the evidential argument for evil and has been presented by atheistic philosopher William Rowe on more than one occasion. He presents an argument for gratuitous evil in ‘The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism’ in The Problem of Evil.

Rowe’s evidential argument for evil, states the following propositions: Rowe (1990: 1).

(1) God, an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being exists.
(2) Gratuitous evil exists.
(3) A perfectly good being would always eliminate gratuitous evil as far as it can.
(4) There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do. Rowe (1990: 3).

Rowe concludes that there is no good state of affairs where an omnipotent, omniscient being would be justified in allowing evils where no possible good can arise from them taking place; he also calls these inscrutable evils, which are evils that cannot be understood. Rowe (1990: 3). Rowe’s proposition (1) and those like, seem reasonable from a traditional Christian perspective. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 89-99). Proposition (2) is debatable because it assumes that concepts of those within sovereignty and soul-making theodicy are incorrect and that an infinite, omnipotent God cannot use all wrong actions by creatures for the greater good. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40). Hick (1970: 292). Proposition (2) really does not prove anything, but simply states a disagreement between Rowe and many within Christian theism on whether or not God’s purposes are being fulfilled, even when horrendous evils occur. Rowe states that there is too much evil that does not make sense in existence. Rowe (1990: 3). Numerous theists would answer that although finite human beings cannot know the purposes of evil, God has a purpose. In my view, the human being is therefore unable to truly judge if too much evil exists. 

Proposition (3) is questionable because it builds upon the debatable proposition (2). It assumes that God cannot use all evil towards the greater good, and since gratuitous evil would exist, it implies that God likely is not a perfectly good being. Proposition (4) can be challenged by the theist because although God technically could rid the world of evil, both Feinberg and Hick for example, have provided good reasons why the creator would allow preventable evil. Feinberg states that eliminating evil would prohibit other divine plans for the greater good, Feinberg (1994: 130). Hick writes that God must allow a hostile imperfect environment in order for soul-making to occur. Hick (1970: 292).

Rowe has written a logical argument, but it is not necessarily true because theists can debate proposition (2) and claim the infinite, perfectly good God can always use the evil actions of his finite creations for the greater good. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40). It also can be stated concerning proposition (3) that as Calvin noted, God’s motives would remain pure even while horrendous evils take place, and God need not be less than perfectly good. Calvin (1543)(1996: 40). This would seem reasonable and possible for an infinite deity to accomplish as he is dealing with finite creatures that could never match him in morality, power, and knowledge.

Frances and Daniel Howard-Snyder reason that a way to deny premise (3) is to state that there is no such thing as a minimum amount of suffering that God must allow in order for the greater good to be accomplished. Howard-Snyder (1999: 129). This idea would not accept the critic’s notion that there is a minimum amount of evil and suffering that God must allow in a situation, and if he goes beyond that amount, gratuitous evil has occurred and God therefore does not exist. Howard-Snyder (1999: 129). Jeff Jordon disagrees and argues that the no minimum of suffering claim is false or implausible, because for any distribution of evil for divine purposes there is always a less painful distribution that would accomplish the same purposes. Jordon (2003: 238). 

I think it more likely that for each varying amount of suffering that God willingly allows there are resulting amounts of greater good or evil that occur. There is also the possibility that if God allows a certain amount of suffering in a given situation that the greater good will not occur and therefore God would not allow this amount of suffering to take place. Since the amount of suffering is largely related to the amount of greater good, it is not likely that a smaller amount of suffering could accomplish the same results as a greater amount, either good or bad. I therefore, doubt Jordon’s claim that a less painful distribution of evil would accomplish the exact same purposes. Jordon (2003: 238).

A critic may state that Jesus could have simply atoned for sins by dying with a much less brutal death. Christ could have been beaten less, not been crucified, died in a less painful way, and still died for sins, but I reason that the exact purposes of God would not have been accomplished through less suffering. I conclude that in the case of the death of Christ, a less painful distribution of evil would not have accomplished the exact same purposes. 

Unfortunately from our human perspective, what we may often view as gratuitous unnecessary evil, is in a sense, God accomplishing his purposes in a situation. I can certainly relate on a personal level, with the atheist and non-Christian that deems this as wrong and unfair, but as human beings we are in no position to judge God’s motives and plans in working in his creation in regard to the problem of evil. I have determined that my sufferings which are often very annoying, do not provide me with a strong enough intellectual argument to overcome the Biblical, theological and philosophical evidence for God's existence. 

My suffering, and the suffering of others, is certainly very difficult and often unappreciated, but from Job 40:1-2, from the New American Standard Bible, it states.

Then the Lord said to Job,
‘Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty? Let him who reproves God answer it.’

---

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CARSON, D.A. (1990) How Long, O Lord?, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

CLINES, DAVID J. A. (1986) Job, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

CLINES, DAVID J. A. (1986) Proverbs, The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University.

HICK, JOHN (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) ‘Afterword’ in GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press. 

HICK, JOHN (1994) Death and Eternal Life, Louisville, Kentucky, John Knox Press. 

HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press. 

HOWARD-SNYDER, FRANCES AND DANIEL (1999) ‘Is Theism Compatible with Gratuitous Evil?’, American Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 26, Number 2, April, pp. 115-130, Chicago, University of Illinois.

JORDAN, JEFF (2003) ‘Evil and Van Inwagen’, Faith and Philosophy, Volume 20, Number 2, pp. 236-238. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.

KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

MESLE, C. ROBERT (1986) ‘The Problem of Genuine Evil: A Critique of John Hick’s Theodicy’, in The Journal of Religion, Volume 66, Number 4, pp. 412-430. October, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. 

MESLE, C. ROBERT (1991) John Hick’s Theodicy, New York, St. Martin’s Press. 

MESLE, C. ROBERT (2004) ‘Suffering, Meaning, and the Welfare of Children: What Do Theodicies Do?’, in American Journal of Theology & Philosophy, Volume 25, Number 3, September. Lamoni, Iowa, Graceland University. 

ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1990) ‘The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism’, in Adams and Adams (eds.) The Problem of Evil, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1994) ‘The Problem of No Best World’, Faith and Philosophy, Volume 11, Number 2, April, pp. 269-278. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College. 

ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1996) ‘Privation’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1999) ‘The Problem of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom’, in Faith and Philosophy, Volume 16, Number 1, January, pp. 98-101. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College

Images and the problem of evil:

Just to be clear, I realize all human beings are tainted by sin (Romans 3: 23), but I would support the Allies in World War One and Two. I also believe in a military for the defence of the state (Romans 13).


German propaganda poster from 1944 entitled Liberators.

Soviet World War Two propaganda poster.

Canadian World War Two propaganda poster.

World War Two propaganda poster from General Motors.

American World War Two propaganda poster.

German World War One propaganda poster.


American poster from World War Two, prior to the formation of the United Nations in 1945. China became communist in 1949 and here is using the present flag of Taiwan. India and Canada have colonial flags. India became independent in 1947. I personally prefer the old Canadian flag.

Parousia and eschatology

Vancouver, BC (photo from trekearth.com) 

According to W.R.F. Browning, the term parousia in the Greek New Testament means presence. It is used in the context of the Second Coming of Christ within the eschatological framework which includes judgment and resurrection. Browning (1996: 282). Browning reasons that Paul expected the day of the Lord, not as the end of the world and of time, but rather for the judgment of humanity and the final defeat of evil. The resurrection of Jesus would lead to the resurrection of all followers and a renewed creation. Browning (1996: 283). Millard Erickson writes that parousia literally means ‘being by’ and presence, coming or arrival. He notes it is used in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 to designate the coming of Christ as he raises those in him from the dead and catches believers in the air with him. This coming will lead to the destruction of the antichrist in 2 Thessalonians 2:8. It will not be a secret event, but will be public. Erickson (1996: 993). 

Strong defines the root word παρουσία from 1 Thessalonians 4: 15 as being near, advent, coming, and presence. Strong (1986: 74).

NT Greek

Word Detail Word/Inflected Form Lemma Part of Speech Lexical Entry παρουσίαν (6) παρουσία (28) Noun coming, arrival, presence Parsing Accusative Singular Feminine Related Words ἔλευσις ἔναντι ἀπέναντι ὕπαρξις νυνί ἐνοικέω γέρας εὐκαιρία ἔγκτησις ἔνδοθεν πατάσσω 

Context in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 οἱ περιλειπόμενοι εἰς τὴν ... τοῦ κυρίου οὐ μὴ “From Merriam-Webster: Accusative (In many languages including NT Koine Greek) 1 : of, relating to, or being the grammatical case that marks the direct object of a verb or the object of any of several prepositions” 1 Thessalonians 4: 15 …and remain (verb) until the coming (accusative noun) of the Lord. Bauer writes that in the context of 1 Thessalonians 4: 15 the word παρουσίαν is used of Christ and the Messianic Advent in glory to judge this world at the end of the age. Bauer (1979: 630). 

Eschatology is derived from the Greek word eschaton meaning last, it refers to the ultimate culmination of history where Jesus Christ returns to earth and fully establishes his rule and Kingdom. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 46). Eschatology is the theology that seeks to fully understand the direction and purpose of history and progressing events. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 46). 

Henry C. Thiessen writes that eschatology includes the concepts of the Second Coming of Christ, the resurrection, judgments, the millennium, and the final state. Thiessen (1956: 440). These are far too complex concepts to thoroughly discuss within a blog article, but these ideals would all be aspects of how the Biblical God delivers this current age that exists with the problem of evil, into an age where evil is a thing of the past. This present fallen creation, inhabited and influenced by sinful creatures would be transformed into a universe and earth empirically ruled by Christ as God. It should be noted here that The Kingdom of Heaven/God will therefore not only include access to God in the heavenly non-physical spiritual realm, but also a physical creation restored to an original perfection ruled by God. The elect in Christ will be physically resurrected and not live everlastingly as spiritual beings alone, because God wants the those in Christ to live forever in the restored Kingdom described in Revelation, Chapters 21-22. 

Robert H. Mounce points out that contrary to Greek dualism, God always intended for human beings to exist on a redeemed earth, not in a heavenly realm removed from physical existence. Mounce (1990: 368). This makes sense as a physical resurrected body naturally requires a physical realm to exist in, but Paul calls the resurrected body, spiritual, in 1 Corinthians 15: 44. Gordon Fee explains that the resurrection body is not immaterial but supernatural. It is a body adapted for eschatological existence under the domination of the spirit. Fee (1987: 786). Mounce notes that the concepts of new heaven and new earth in Revelation are described with varying degrees of literalness, but the new heaven and new earth provides the setting for the new and everlasting state. Mounce (1999: 369). The new heaven and new earth is not simply metaphor for a spiritual existence with God in his heavenly presence, but an actual physical place where human beings shall live and prosper with Christ. If Christians were intended to live merely a spiritual existence with God in the heavenly realm this would make the resurrection of the natural body, which becomes a spiritual body, as Paul describes it, unnecessary. If God did not intend to restore the physical universe and human body, then saved human beings, after death, could simply remain in Paradise (Luke 23: 43, 2 Corinthians 12: 4) in spirit form only. 

BAUER, W. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. 

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD J. (1996) ‘Second Coming of Christ’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

FEE, GORDON (1987) The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

GRENZ, STANLEY J. DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press. 

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company. 

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

 

Sunday funny: From CNN CNN JERUSALEM (CNN) -- 

An unusual sight greeted Jerusalem police as they entered one of Christianity's holiest sites Sunday morning: dozens of monks punching and kicking each other in a massive brawl. 

Hey, was this all over a blog article?

Non-exhaustive thoughts on theonomy

Non-exhaustive thoughts on theonomy

Preface: Well done

Published originally November 1, 2008. My pastor quietly and without theological explanation (well-done, sir) snuck the word 'theonomy' into sermon #2 that I attended. Following is my brief work on theonomy, revised for June 25, 2023 and an entry on academica.edu.

Theonomy

N.H.G. Robinson and D.W.D. Shaw note that theonomy is an interpretation of a person’s life when ultimate ethical authority is found in the divine will. Autonomy would be self-imposed authority. Robinson and Shaw. (1999: 567). They reference Paul Tillich and note that he states that theonomy is a law or principle which brings together the law of people with the ground and source of all being. Robinson and Shaw. (1999: 567). For some autonomy and theonomy may be understood as the immanent and transcendent aspects of the ethics of theism. Robinson and Shaw. (1999: 567). These seem like reasonable definitions, although Tillich’s does not read as particularly Christian. God would be more than the ground and source of all being. God is the infinite (without logical contradiction), eternal, personal God that has revealed himself and laws that reflect his nature and will for humanity. Salvific revelation is provided through the Hebrew Bible and especially the New Testament.

From: Monergism/Theonomy 

This article is from 2008. The link is no longer the same. However, the material is originally cited from Monergism/Theonomy.

Updated for 2023 Monergism/Theonomy

Dr. Van Til taught us that "There is no alternative but that of theonomy and autonomy" (Christian-Theistic Ethics, p. 134). Every ethical decision assumes some final authority or standard, and that will either be self-law ("autonomy") or God's law ("theonomy"). While unbelievers consider themselves the ultimate authority in determining moral right or wrong, believers acknowledge that God alone has that position and prerogative. The position which has come to be labeled "theonomy" today thus holds that the word of the Lord is the sole, supreme, and unchallengeable standard for the actions and attitudes of all men in all areas of life. Our obligation to keep God's commands cannot be judged by any extrascriptural standard, such as whether its specific requirements (when properly interpreted) are congenial to past traditions or modern feelings and practices. 

Greg Bahnsen from What Is "Theonomy"? 

In my view, Van Til’s statement is true if one defines theonomy in very general terms only. Christians can certainly disagree on specific concepts concerning God’s law, and some will attempt to follow God and his law and not consider themselves theonomists, and/or necessarily be considered theonomists by all others involved. 

Theonomy can be defined simply as adherence to God's law, which would make all Christians, especially Reformed Christians, into theonomists. Here I define the term more narrowly as a school of thought within Reformed theology which prefers literal, specific, and detailed applications of Mosaic civil laws to modern civil government. The word "prefers" gives us some leeway. At points, the theonomists, like the rest of us, apply the law only in general and non-literal ways. But they tend more than the rest of us to prefer the specific and the literal. 

John Frame from Penultimate Thoughts on Theonomy 

I think that Frame’s definition is quite helpful. 

From: Theonomy The word "theonomy" derives from the Greek words “theos” God, and “nomos” law. 

From: IIIM/Reformed Answers 

Answer by Ra McLaughlin 

Question Aren't all Reformed Christians theonomists to one extent or another? To what extent are the moral and civil aspects of the Mosaic law still applicable today? Is it legitimate to claim, as modern advocates of theonomy do, that many of the divines at the Westminster Assembly were in fact theonomists? 

Answer No, not all Reformed Christians are theonomists, not even to a small extent. Some are, but some definitely are not. Of course, one difficulty in answering this question is that no single definition or understanding of theonomy exists. 

Here we see an apparent difference in opinion from Van Til especially and perhaps Frame.

I am Reformed and although I seek via the triune God, to do God's perfect will, I do not embrace the term 'theonomist' for myself.

McLaughlin is possibly looking at the definition of theonomy in specific terms. 

He continues: 

Rather, theonomy is variously defined by various people. Some theonomists contend that there are only two options: theonomy and autonomy -- either one accepts God's law, or one rejects it and establishes himself in God's place. It is this argument that most often leads people to say that all Reformed Christians are theonomists to some degree because all Reformed Christians respect the authority of God's law. By this move, theonomists often try to win the argument simply by a linguistic ploy: they define themselves as the only alternative to a rejection of God's authority. In reality, however, theonomy is not the only option. Theonomy is not just the acceptance of the authority of God's law. If that were the definition of "theonomy," then no one ever would have coined the term, and there would be no disagreement over the issue. 

McLaughlin is looking at the concept of theonomy is narrow terms. 

But in fact, theonomy represents a distinct perspective within the Reformed community that is different from the majority view. If this were not the case, we would not see the battles waged over it that we see today. Personally, I do not think that all the charges against theonomists are legitimate, just as I do not think that the theonomists' charges against others are legitimate… 

The theonomists are not completely unified in their own understanding of theonomy, but in my observation there is a unifying theme in most of their thinking. It seems to me that theonomy is an emphasis or tendency to apply the Law in ways that are more similar to the original applications of the Law than the applications made by non-theonomists. That is, theonomy regularly expresses the tendency to apply the Law in ways that are more rigidly defined by the actual examples and statements in Scripture. At first, this might seem like a positive definition of theonomy, as if they were truer to Scripture than the non-theonomists are. I would suggest, however, that the opposite is true… In the case of rejection, one denies the authority or applicability of the Law. For example, Dispensationalists commonly deny the applicability and authority of any Old Testament command that is not reiterated in the New Testament. Theonomists sometimes accuse non-theonomic Reformed theologians of rejecting the ceremonial and civil law, though as I have already stated this is a false characterization. Non-theonomists affirm the continuing binding authority of the moral aspects of all Old Testament laws… 

Hebrews makes it clear that there is a new covenant in Chapter 9: 11-28, and in Chapter 12: 24. I reason there is room for consideration and debate in how Old Testament and old covenant principles transfer over to the new covenant within the New Testament. We know specifically from Hebrews 7-12 that the old covenant sacrificial system was made obsolete by the atoning sacrifice and related resurrection of Christ. 

We know via Galatians 2:16-21 that we are not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Christ. We also can see from Romans 4 that Abraham, who was prior to Moses, was justified by faith and therefore I reason that no sinner has ever been justified by the works of the law, but the new covenant does replace the old. Jesus makes it clear in Matthew 5: 17-20 that he did not come to abolish the law and the prophets, but came to fulfill them. I do not see the need for Christians to follow Old Testament ceremonial law, as the atoning work and resurrection of Christ has put followers in a place where these ceremonies are obsolete, although we do have some new ceremonies such as baptism and the Lord’s Supper. 

The traditional Reformed perspective on the Law has been modified application, and both theonomists and non-theonomists think they fall into this camp. The difference between them, in my opinion, is that the theonomists tend to make fewer modifications, they tend toward facile immitation even though they do not hold that position in total. If we can imagine a continuum of views ranging from modifying everything (which almost looks like rejection) to modifying nothing (which looks pretty much like facile immitation), theonomists are closer to the end of the spectrum that modifies nothing than are non-theonomists. Regardless of who is in the middle, though, it is clear that there is a distinction between the two groups (they fight with one another enough to prove that). In this view, clearly not all Reformed Christians are theonomists. One does not earn the label "theonomist" simply by believing that the law is still applicable in some ways. 

Obeying God’s laws for the Christian should be a desire of one regenerated (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1) in Christ. Romans 10: 4 states that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. The law of God for Christians can be summed up from Matthew 22 and Mark 12 as we are to love God first and foremost and secondly we are to love our neighbour as ourselves. 

My negative thoughts on theonomy arise in that we cannot as Christians expect to force our morality and ethics on non-believers who are the majority in Western society. When God’s Kingdom is culminated the citizens will be regenerated believers that will willingly through transformation follow God’s law by nature. If there is a plain literal millennium of one thousand years, or any amount of time, the rebellion that takes place after the period is over in Revelation 20: 7-9 shows me that although God’s millennium Kingdom will have God’s law, it will not have citizens forced to believe in God. I reason this as the persons Satan would bring together to oppose God would not be regenerate. As well, even if hypothetically Biblical Christians were the majority in the Western World, I would advise people to be very careful concerning embracing theonomy that is not with divine love, enforced through the culminated Kingdom of God, with God the Son, as King. 

Would many of us really want Christians, that still possess sinful natures having the power of life and death over us? Consider this in light of theological disagreement. Would one want the state informing you what your theology should be? I would find this intellectually frightening as this type of theonomy would work hand in hand with theocracy. Potentially corrupted leadership at the top of the ‘Christian government’ could bring about persecution for those that disagree with the state, and at times these thinkers may be intellectually and Biblically closer to the truth.

I do not embrace the Western World, as it is in its present overly secularized state. I would prefer to see a Biblical Christian Church with much more influence within Western society in order to promote Christian morality and ethics, but not rule, in regard to law and order. 

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press. 

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BROWING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BRUCE, F.F. (1987) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust. 

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

COAD, F. ROY (1986) ‘Galatians’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan. 

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.

HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

MURRAY, JOHN (1937-1966)(1977) Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust. 

NUTE, ALAN G. (1986) in 'Titus', The International Bible Commentary, F.F. Bruce, General Editor, Grand Rapids, Zondervan/Marshall Pickering.

ROBINSON, N.H.G. AND SHAW D.W.D. (1999) ‘Theonomy’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

 

My Mom sent me this picture. Who is the wizard?

 

Images: Google