Theonomy: A Summary of Vital Teachings

by Greg Bahnsen, from "Preface to the Second Edition," Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Covenant Media Foundation, 2002, Third Edition, pp. xxv-xxviii, words in brackets added by GentleDove, parentheses in original)

1. Since the Fall it has always been unlawful to use the law of God in hopes of establishing one's own personal merit and justification, [either] in contrast or complement to salvation by way of promise and faith; commitment to obedience is but the lifestyle of faith, a token of gratitude for God's redeeming grace.

2. 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; this word naturally includes God's moral directives (law).

3. Our obligation to keep the law of God 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.

4. We should presume that Old Testament standing laws* continue to be morally binding in the New Testament, unless they are rescinded or modified by further revelation.

5. In regard to the Old Testament law, the New Covenant surpasses the Old Covenant in glory, power, and finality (thus reinforcing former duties). The New Covenant also supercedes the Old Covenant shadows, thereby changing the application of sacrificial, purity, and "separation" principles, redefining the people of God, and altering the significance of the promised land.

6. God's revealed standing laws are a reflection of His immutable moral character and, as such, are absolute in the sense of being non-arbitrary, objective, universal, and established in advance of particular circumstances (thus applicable to general types of moral situations).

7. Christian involvement in politics calls for recognition of God's transcendent, absolute, revealed law as a standard by which to judge all social codes.

8. Civil magistrates in all ages and places are obligated to conduct their offices as ministers of God, avenging divine wrath against criminals and giving an account on the Final Day of their service before the King of kings, their Creator and Judge.

9. The general continuity which we presume with respect to the moral standards of the Old Testament applies just as legitimately to matters of socio-political ethics as it does to personal, family, or ecclesiastical ethics.

10. The civil precepts of the Old Testament (standing "judicial" laws) are a model of perfect social justice for all cultures, even in the punishment of criminals.

This summary highlights the fact that theonomic ethics, proceeding in terms of salvation by grace alone, (1) is committed to developing an overall Christian world-and-life view (2) according to the regulating principle of sola Scriptura (3) and to the hermeneutic of covenant theology (4) instead of dispensationalism (where Old Covenant commandments are deemed abrogated unless repeated in the New Testament). Changes in covenantal administration that are warranted by Scripture (cf. 4) are recognized with the coming of the new and better covenant in Christ (5). Relativism (situationism) is repudiated, and the divinely revealed ethic is not reduced to a parochial or tribal perspective in the evolutionary history of ethics; (6) God's word advances universal justice, not a double-standard of morality.

Rejecting legal positivism, theonomic ethics favors the idea of a "law above the (civil) law" as a protection against the tyranny of rulers and anarchy of reformers (7). Because Christ is Lord over all (cf. 2), it follows that even civil magistrates are His servants and owe obedience to His revealed standards for them (8). There is no justification (cf. 4) for exempting civil authorities from responsibility to the universal standards of justice (cf. 6) found in God's Old Testament revelation (9). Therefore, in the absence of biblically grounded argumentation that releases the civil magistrate from Old Testament social norms (cf. 4, 5), it follows from our previous premises that in the exercise of their offices rulers are morally responsible to obey the revealed standards of social justice in the Old Testament law (10). The New Testament explicitly confirms this inference by making magistrates avengers of wrath on evil-doers (Rom. 13:4), making it a lawful use of God's law to restrain the publicly unruly (1 Tim. 1:8-10), and saying that in this law, "every transgression and disobedience received its just recompense of reward" (Heb. 2:2)...

_____________________
* "Standing law" is used here for policy directives applicable over time to classes of individuals (e.g., do not kill; children, obey your parents; merchants, have equal measures; magistrates, execute rapists), in contrast to particular directions for an individual (e.g., the order for Samuel to annoint David at a particular time and place) or positive commands for distinct incidents (e.g., God's order for Israel to exterminate certain Canaanite tribes at a certain point in history).

The Great Debate over Baptism and the Covenant

For anyone--credo-baptist, paedo-baptist, or "on the fence"--interested in more about the topic of baptism and the covenant, I highly recommend the audio presentation by William O. Einwechter called "The Great Debate over Baptism and the Covenant," sold by Vision Forum. Mr. Einwechter is a covenantal baptist, theonomist, pastor, husband, and father of ten. His presentation is Biblical, well-researched, charitable, and thorough, including responses to paedo-baptist objections.

Are the Children of Covenant Believers Members of the Covenant by Baptism?

Over at Iron Ink, I commented on an article where the blog author gave his answer to the question, "Is It Possible to Be Both Theonomic and Baptist?" This led to a "discussion" over baptism and the covenant.

The paedo-baptist commenters said such things as as: we don't evangelize our children because we assume they are saved, God commands believers to bring our infants to the baptismal font, bringing the gospel to your children and waiting for a profession of faith before baptizing them is "wrong" and encourages "making a decision for Christ" (Arminian) soteriology, and babies born of believers are saved and in "the covenant."

I won't be putting Iron Ink in the side bar because of the error of hyper-Calvinism promoted on their blog.

However, I will be responding to the comments in this article over a series of posts.

Hoagies & Stogies (Reformed, Men-Only Theological Debate and Fellowship)

October 2nd, for Reformed men (men only, no women or children) in the San Diego, CA area.

From Blogorrhea:

"What is Hoagies & Stogies?
Hoagies & Stogies is a men’s fellowship for reformed, theological debate; it was created by one of my elders before he was an elder. When he was ordained, he got too busy, and he gave the reins of the ministry to me. The men gather for a simple meal of hoagies, with home-brewed beer, or soft drinks. After a while, we all refill our glasses, and those who are so inclined light up their best stogies and kick back and enjoy a theological debate. But if you are not a smoker (like me), or not a drinker (or not both!), you are still welcome. (You can consider it your mission to ensure that Christian liberty is exercised with due charity!)"

Brief Theonomy Explanation

I enjoyed this brief explanation of theonomy occasioned by a disagreement on some discussion thread on American Vision, I think.

"...The humanist, however, will assert all types of accusations and hysteria against the theonomist expressing its outrage that theonomy teaches that treason against the family, and not the State, is punishable by death. The Christian humanist is likewise appalled because we assert that adultery, for example, is a crime as well as sin, no different than murder is a crime as well as a sin. He then imagines some ecclesiastical hierarchy and "Theocratic State" is really at bottom of the theonomists thinking. This is in only in his imagination.

Another example might be the dietary laws, while most theonomists recognize these have been changed, humanists will assert all types of outlandish arguments that we might outlaw pork and lobster, for example. Of course, they will assert such arguments in disparaging jest. Their alternative is the FDA regulating every single bite of food you can purchase anywhere, you open your refridgerator and you'll find governmentally regulated cheese, milk, meat, eggs and in the end a governmentally regulated 1.6 gallon federal flush. But, oh, the horrors of possibly finding pork or lobster verbotten! :lol: It's all really quite silly and simply the necessary tactics utilized when they know they have no valid argument against our thesis..."

Read the entire response here.

Unfortunately, the "Les" person here being responded to appears to be a Baptist.

May I say something to my Baptist brethren?

I would recommend that before any Reformed Baptist anywhere publicly, on a discussion thread or a sermon or a blog article or anything, argues against theonomy, that he make effort to UNDERSTAND what he is talking about.

Please, for the sake of your Reformed Baptist brethren and for the sake of the Lord of intellectual honesty and truthful witness-bearing (Jesus Christ), learn what theonomy is.

Your pastors are not good sources because they don't know what it is either. They haven't bothered to read the books by theonomists which explain the theonomic position.

Find out what theonomy is from theonomists--read their books and articles, listen to their speeches. That way, you can be sure that you are getting an accurate representation of theonomy. Hearsay is more likely to be a misrepresentation than a representation, especially with silly books such as Theonomy: A Reformed Critique (TARC).

(If you've read TARC, you might consider reading No Other Standard by Greg L. Bahnsen, in which he defends theonomy against the critics. One interesting thing he does as a preface before each chapter is quote the critic, and then then quote one or another of his other books, showing this has already been answered. He charitably assumes that the critics have bothered to do their homework and actually have read that which they are critiquing.)

We don't want Baptists to further exacerbate their existing reputation of going into theonomy debates ignorant.

Even if you disagree with theonomy (and preferably before you disagree with theonomy), at least know what it is.

Strawman arguments (including ad hominem, fear-mongering, and vague suspicion) are worthy only of dismissal, and the one who argues thusly gains a reputation for fallacial argumentation and, possibly, stupidity or laziness. The only argument a theonomist will be interested in is a Biblical argument.

At least read Theonomy in Christian Ethics by Greg L. Bahnsen first. Thoroughly and with an open Bible.

And if it really is just too much to bother with, then please don't assume that you "pretty much get" the "gist" of "where those people are coming from." This is fearful imagination talking, with nothing but hearsay and vague suspicions to go on. Don't speak false witness or gossip. Just stick with reading the Bible as if it were the Word of God and True. You can't go wrong that way.

Just because our paedo-baptist brothers are wrong in their belief that covenantal and reformed Biblical theology requires the baptism of infants (unbelievers), doesn't mean we have to parade our own ignorance.

Debating Christianity

I thought it might be fun and interesting for my readers to read some of the threads I've posted in on the web site Debating Christianity. I've attempted in these threads to defend the faith and debate some people with anti-Christian philosophies and worldviews.

How do you respond when someone has an angry challenge or hostile response to your faith in Christ? Do you have a philosophy of apologetics or have an interest in apologetics? Or maybe it's "forced upon you" by unbelieving family? How do you handle it, if you're a believer and your family are all unbelievers?