08 July 2010

Interacting with Theonomists....Don't let them dictate the terms.

Here's a little exchange I had at the GreenBaggins site with a Theonomist. You may find this of interest: It began with my response to a blog post concerning the First Amendment and a few other issues.... 


As far as the Christian parties in Europe many of them come out of a Constantinian tradition but in a different context than Conservative Christianity in the United States. Protestants were often the working class, poorer people while Aristocracy was often Anglican, Roman Catholic or at least committed to the ideals of the Old Order. So in Europe conservative Protestantism actually took what we would call a turn to the political left. Their visions of Christian Societies and application of Old Testament Law as well as the Sermon on the Mount meant things like labour laws, welfare, universal health care, restricting capitalism. I know Conservative Bible believing Evangelicals in the UK who were happy to vote for Tony Blair and loathed Reagan and Bush. I would assert both sides are wrong. The whole Christian America discussion is based off of a false assumption. What is a so-called Christian Nation? Where do we get the idea from the Bible that there can be such a thing? OT Israel was a Theocracy, not a theocracy. We can't have that again...well we do, it's the church. We don't have the power to declare things Holy...only God can do that. If the nation is Christian...it's holy. If you mean something else by Christian......well, what exactly do you mean? A cultural underlay? Okay, but does that somehow Sacralize the nation? Where do you get this from the New Testament? The Old Testament has to be interpreted in light of the New. Is there a single Scripture in the New Testament that indicates we are to try and build Christian Nations, reform culture....anything like that? I would say no. In fact I would say there are numerous verses which indicate this was not some Paul or anyone in the New Testament was even remotely concerned with.

All nations are part of the common grace order...they are not holy and cannot be made holy. They're part of the restraint apparatus God has instituted. Is Natural Revelation based Natural Law sufficient?....absolutely not...but with Providence...absolutely yes. God can raise or lower the hand of restraint as He wills. What we pray for is a matrix in which the gospel can work. We don't need an Integrationist view of Culture. The Bible was given to the people of God...to apply it to Common Grace nations and Common Grace culture is to profane it. We bring them the Kingdom...the City of Man cannot be transformed into the City of God. The whole Theonomy/Autonomy question is a false dilemma. It stems from Van Til's quest for the comprehensive system...an abuse of Sola Scriptura. T David Gordon has written on this. There is no perfect political system...Moses is not the pattern it was typology. There's no perfect economic system......we live in a fallen world. We need to live as Christians. It doesn't matter if we live in Plutocratic America, Totalitarian China, Tsarist Russia, or the Sacralist Holy Roman Empire. It doesn't affect the gospel. As far as the first ammendment......we should cherish it. Not because it's Christian, but because it shows there is still some restraint....The Bestial power all governments seek has not been fully unleashed here. If that means sinners can continue acting like sinners...that's fine. As long as I can keep witnessing to them. Great discussion. I'm enjoying it. Protoprotestant 

 

Then a Theonomist responded to me: John, I would imagine you would insert a third option to God’s law (theonomy) and man’s law (autonomy). Let me guess… “natural law”? :) If that is your other option, then you’ve missed a major point I’m afraid, as did the one who defended the natural law option at the conferance held at Greenville Seminary in March, 2000. Natural law is God’s law. Accordingly, any appeal to it would be theonomic in nature. There is no natural law that is not God’s. With that in mind, if God’s general revelation has not changed over time and never has contradicted his special revelation, which I’m sure is the case, then any contemporary appeal to the OT case laws cannot be at odds with natural law. Therefore, at the very least, you should not find it strange for men to desire to see, with God’s blessing, laws legislated that mirror the general equity of the civil case laws. In other words, if all we have is natural law to go by, then there can be no objection to theonomic laws and for men to desire God to bring them to pass through lawful means. At this juncture anti-theonomic Christians often start pointing to what they believe to be absurd OT case laws, which is when I usually ask how did the cross make God’s OT wisdom somehow now absurd. It’s been my experience that those who mock the current application of certain OT laws do so without being able to distinguish how they might have found those same laws most wise under Moses. Accordingly, I have always been left to conclude that their problem was with the intrinsic value of the law and not with the time of implementation. What also seems to be overlooked is that general revelation was never intended to inform mankind of the transgressions that are to fall under the jurisdiction of magistrates. The role of general revelation has always been complimentary to that of Scripture’s revelation (even before the fall), in that general revelation is “general” – for it convicts mankind of sin that violates the moral law; whereas special revelation, as contained in Scripture, informs us of the sins that are punishable and to what degree. “All nations are part of the common grace order…they are not holy and cannot be made holy. They’re part of the restraint apparatus God has instituted. Is Natural Revelation based Natural Law sufficient?….absolutely not…but with Providence…absolutely yes. God can raise or lower the hand of restraint as He wills. What we pray for is a matrix in which the gospel can work.” That too was an un-argued assertion made at the 2000 conference. The simple response should have been: That God governs by providence has nothing to do with what men ought to desire to see come to pass in God’s providence. To pit providence against theonomy is like pitting providence against the Great Commission. Both the fulfillment of the wisdom of God’s equity under Moses’ laws and the fulfillment of the Great Commission are things Christians should desire that God bring to pass in his good providence. Blessings, Ron 

And I responded to him....... Ron, Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'm going to interact with some of the things you wrote....

John, I would imagine you would insert a third option to God’s law (theonomy) and man’s law (autonomy). Let me guess… “natural law”? :) If that is your other option, then you’ve missed a major point I’m afraid, as did the one who defended the natural law option at the conferance held at Greenville Seminary in March, 2000. Natural law is God’s law. Accordingly, any appeal to it would be theonomic in nature. There is no natural law that is not God’s

That would be a bit of an oversimplification. No one for a moment asserts that Natural Law isn't from God. Rather it is Theonomy which totally misses the Covenant Nature of the Mosaic Law. It was given to the nation of Israel, not to the nations around them. It was on one level a typological anticipation of the coming Messiah. More could be said...but I'll stop there for now.

With that in mind, if God’s general revelation has not changed over time and never has contradicted his special revelation, which I’m sure is the case, then any contemporary appeal to the OT case laws cannot be at odds with natural law. Therefore, at the very least, you should not find it strange for men to desire to see, with God’s blessing, laws legislated that mirror the general equity of the civil case laws. In other words, if all we have is natural law to go by, then there can be no objection to theonomic laws and for men to desire God to bring them to pass through lawful means.

Again this is to misunderstand the nature of the Law. If Edom were to suddenly declare..."We too are in Covenant with Jehovah we will take the laws of Moses and apply them in our land..." What would that look like? Well, they would either have to build a temple and erect a priesthood etc... which would be blatant sin. In fact the Lord rejects the worship of the pagan. Or they could merge with Israel....but then they would cease to be Edom...they would be Israel. The Law Covenant is a unity. You can't slice and dice and take out civil codes and yet leave behind what is commonly called ceremonial. I reject the 3-fold Westminster construct, it's an interpolation, a theological contrivance. But I'll assume it for the sake of argument. The law in anticipation of Christ shows in the ceremonial laws a typology of redemption...Christ as Saviour. The penal codes show Christ as Judge. To take one and leave the other utterly destroys the picture. To argue the 3-fold division is really a 2-fold of Moral/Civil and ceremonial doesn't solve the problem. Even the Decalogue in so far as the first table was not binding on the other nations....not in the sense of Covenant Law. All men everywhere ought to worship the Lord God alone and in the right way....but when you read the prophets condemning the nations...what is the standard? It's not the Mosaic law. They're not being condemned for failing to keep Sabbath, offer sacrifice, obey the dietary laws. What are they condemned for?.....murder, theft, fornication etc....things every society more or less has acknowledged as wrong since the dawn of time....more or less according to Providence. When the Jews were in exile in Babylon were they to try and change Babylon into a Mosaic Theocracy? No, they were to live in the city and pray for its peace. Where in the New Testament do we have any indication at all that the goal was to convert Rome into a Mosaic Theocracy? The only Theocracy today is the church.. It's not a question of Old Testament case laws being at odds with natural law......OT case laws are covenantal....and have nothing to do with non-covenantal nations. You're assuming we need a philosophical-theological Super-structure to govern the world. We don't. It's a question driven by Kuyperian and/or Postmillenial assumptions. If those are wrong, much of Theonomy's emphasis becomes moot. I think North said something to that end. 

At this juncture anti-theonomic Christians often start pointing to what they believe to be absurd OT case laws, which is when I usually ask how did the cross make God’s OT wisdom somehow now absurd. It’s been my experience that those who mock the current application of certain OT laws do so without being able to distinguish how they might have found those same laws most wise under Moses. Accordingly, I have always been left to conclude that their problem was with the intrinsic value of the law and not with the time of implementation. 

Yes, I know this argument well. Actually I would say that taking Covenant laws and applying them to non-covenantal, non-holy nations is actually profaning the Law. It destroys the picture of Christ presented to us in Moses...and actually this ends up making a mockery of it. Somehow we think if we can get unbelievers to act like Christians, it will be glorifying to God? Jeroboam tried something along those lines. Since he didn't have the covenantal seat, he tried to create his own. Admittedly his motives were certainly corrupt, but the very attempt was an offense to God. I'm more baffled by the constant concern with transforming nations. Is this our home? We're pilgrims here. Only the eschaton will bring about the Triumphalism you're looking for. It is actually Theonomy which has a problem with the intrinsic value of the law...you're profaning it. In addition, one of the core points of the book of Hebrews is that we are no longer under Levi and Aaron...under Moses. That Law was weak, it was mere shadow and type.....not just the ceremonial....the entire law covenant which encapsulates the entire Westminster 3-fold construct. We under the order of Melchizedek and by trying to bring back Moses it is akin to the Dispensationalists wanting to rebuild the Temple. It is tantamount to suggesting the Messiah hasn't come. It is failing to recognize ALL the promises are affirmed and confirmed in Him. It's wanting to go back to the weak and beggarly elements. When the NT takes Moses alone and contrasts him with Christ....the language is quite strong. It was an administration of death. Now, we understand there is also a unity with the Old Covenant period...but where's the tie...Moses? No. Abraham. The book of Galatians in many ways directly contradicts the Theonomic thesis. So to come at the magistrate in the NT with Mosaic case laws in hand indicates a grave misunderstanding of the nature of the Law....and certainly the nature of the Kingdom....the Theocracy of the NT. 

What also seems to be overlooked is that general revelation was never intended to inform mankind of the transgressions that are to fall under the jurisdiction of magistrates. The role of general revelation has always been complimentary to that of Scripture’s revelation (even before the fall), in that general revelation is “general” – for it convicts mankind of sin that violates the moral law; whereas special revelation, as contained in Scripture, informs us of the sins that are punishable and to what degree. 

Hmmm... I thought you have to be born again to see the kingdom of God. I thought the natural man was in a state of enmity against God. General revelation has always been to hold man accountable and to provide a matrix of restraint and delay for the gospel to work. But you want the non-covenantal Magistrate to somehow take a portion of the Mosaic law and apply it to unregenerate people..? Since law is covenantal....obeying it and keeping is an act of worship. How can the unregenerate worship God? They hate him. In fact the sacrifices and prayers (worship) of the wicked is an abomination to Him. It would almost take a Pelagian view of man to think we can force men to worship God rightly in their hearts. At best this creates a veneer in society where everyone is Christian and yet almost no one is....consequently we then have to get them unsaved to get them saved. Constantinianism is a destroyer of the Biblical doctrine of the church and kingdom. Also this sets up a direct contradiction to the Great Commission. How can we make disciples when we're killing them for disobeying God's law?

 “All nations are part of the common grace order…they are not holy and cannot be made holy. They’re part of the restraint apparatus God has instituted. Is Natural Revelation based Natural Law sufficient?….absolutely not…but with Providence…absolutely yes. God can raise or lower the hand of restraint as He wills. What we pray for is a matrix in which the gospel can work.” That too was an un-argued assertion made at the 2000 conference. The simple response should have been: That God governs by providence has nothing to do with what men ought to desire to see come to pass in God’s providence. We're told what to desire. We are to pray that we may lead quiet lives so we can work with our hands and be Christians. We are to pray for the peace of the City whether it be Babylon or Rome. To pit providence against theonomy is like pitting providence against the Great Commission. Both the fulfillment of the wisdom of God’s equity under Moses’ laws and the fulfillment of the Great Commission are things Christians should desire that God bring to pass in his good providence. 

No, what you desire is to transform the City of Man into the City of God. What happens is the City of God is deceived by the power the Bestial city offers...and the imagery very clearly portrayed to us in the Apocalypse is what comes about. This has been the story of Church history both pre- and post- Reformation. Sadly in the United States we've erected a Christo-Americanism and as this false facade began to crumble a couple of generations ago...Christians panicked and they've bought into a lot of arguments which are very appealing to the flesh....appealing to a lot of what I would call...down home inclinations...deep feelings about America and its place in the world. But the theology of Theonomic Reconstruction is built on a few basic assumptions. Like Dispensationalism it is a house of cards... and in the end steers the church in a fatal direction...into the wrong kingdom. Sorry, John  

And he responded...... John, I have little time these days for interacting with those who don’t distinguish assertions from arguments. So long. RD 

And I responded...... Sorry I upset you. I understand about being busy…getting involved in an active thread can get pretty intense. Actually we’re both using arguments and assertions. I make assertions like I think Theonomy appeals to people’s flesh and cultural anxiety. I knew you wouldn’t agree, but maybe someone else will see the connection I’m making. But I also am giving arguments like the Covenantal Nature of Law, Theonomy’s misunderstanding of what Theocracy is…the relationship between Old and New. I’m asking questions…like what’s driving you to ask some of your questions? All of us are mixing arguments and assertions. You did it in your piece as well. You seemed to indicate people who have a problem with Theonomy are mocking God’s law…. I assume you mean we’re letting our American values make judgments concerning the Bible? Something to that end? But then I made it clear in my answer, that’s not the case all. You made an assertion which no doubt is sometimes valid. There are people like that. But you can’t accuse me of reasoning in that manner. It’s a discussion board. We’re skimming issues and interacting. We could write books hundreds of pages long off some of the sentence fragments were positing here. That’s not the purpose of the exercise. We’re challenging, encouraging, and provoking…in a good way. Iron sharpens iron. I just wanted to throw some ideas that I thought might challenge people to think a little. There’s obviously people on this site who want to think about and apply the Word of God to His glory. And you answered me …thank you. And then I answered you, and apparently you’re done now. That’s fine. Maybe we can interact again some time.  

----

I've been interacting with these people for years and this is always what I get. It's either.... You're not logical. You're a dualist, or we're just trying to get people to obey God's law. What's wrong with that? These people need to be challenged and answered. The Reformed Community has let these people take over.