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