Here is an article that I thought was interesting. I found it in the CRTA website. It poses the right spirit of theonomic/non-theonomic dialogue. Do give it some consideration. Some allegations are dealt with here, but not so comprehensively. Note of caution: this is not for the lighthearted antinomian.

 

Some Thoughts on Theonomy

by

G. I. Williamson

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" (2Tim. 3:16, NASB). By "all Scripture," Paul meant the Old Testament, including the whole Law of Moses. It follows, therefore, that Old Testament laws have permanent value.

It was for this reason that Calvin, in his commentary on the five books of Moses, showed how every "case law" taught an abiding principle. He did this by arranging all of these laws under one or another of the Ten Commandments. He showed how each of them helps us understand the intent and meaning -- and proper application -- of the ten central commandments.

I remain convinced that the Reformer was essentially right. I don't think he was always right, or that he necessarily organized every case law under its proper heading (some could arguably be placed under a different commandment). But he has convinced me that there is an abiding principle in every Old Testament case law. In my opinion, the theonomists deserve credit here. They are trying to do in our generation what John Calvin did in his.

It may be well, however. to make one thing quite clear at this point. With the coming of Christ, the Mosaic system was set aside once and for all. If theonomy sought to put us under that system again, I would certainly oppose it. But does it? I have seen no convincing evidence that it does. Yes, I have heard opponents of theonomy allege this, but that is not what theonomists say for themselves. So we are really faced with one basic question: shall we still "use the testimonies taken out of the law ... to confirm us in the doctrine of the gospel, and to regulate our life in all honorableness to the glory of God, according to His will" (Belgian Confession, 25, emphasis added)? I believe the answer can only be yes, and that this applies to civil rulers.

Here is the rub. Theonomy poses for many today the specter of civil oppression. "If we go along with this," they seem to be saying, "then we'll end up persecuting -- yes, even killing -- people." And it is true that the death penalty was required for some things, under these laws, that are not so punished today. But the reader should take time to reflect on two things.

The first is that the Law of Moses came from Jehovah. We must therefore beware of taking a negative view of these holy precepts. I may not understand why God required the punishment he did, but I have no right to set myself up as a judge of these laws. No, a thousand times no. There is nothing in these laws unworthy of the true God. If I have difficulty with them, the problem is in me -- not in these laws.

The second is that under our present law, there is killing, too. And right here I see a problem not yet resolved in the position of those opposing theonomy. It is the basic ambiguity in their argument for a pluralistic civil order.

One writer defends a nontheonomic view of the state with these words: "The state is necessarily 'pluralistic' in the sense that it allows its citizens freedom of conscience to worship as they believe they must." This sounds good. But now lay beside this his second principle: "The state must act when the basic and abiding moral principles (as contained in the second table of the Law) are being overridden or ignored." Here there is, for example, a reference to the state's task to execute justice against those who steal, murder, lie, etc. But I do not see how these two principles can coexist in any stable relationship. Indeed, our problem today is precisely that the first of these two principles is eating the second away. Let me illustrate.

The law, in most Western countries, was at one time strongly antihomosexual. Our laws were once intentionally close to biblical standards. In a word, we had some theonomy in civil matters. But now, all over the Western world, this is fading. Homosexuals are "out in the open." They demand the right to express their lifestyle. And when the state is pluralistic in allowing its citizens "freedom of conscience to worship as they believe they must," this cannot be avoided.

Some Christians have tended to say, "Well, so what? As long as they don't hurt others, what's the problem?" The problem is this: tolerance (by the state) of evil does harm other people. I give a few examples.

(1) If homosexuals have "equal rights" -- and may not be "discriminated" against, then the law must protect their right to teach children in the schools. But does anyone think they will not influence children by their lifestyle as well as by their teaching? Clearly, neutrality is a myth.

(2) In the general population, AIDS has been spread through blood transfusions. When "gays" donated their blood, AIDS was passed along with it. So you do not have a safe society if it is ultimately pluralistic.

(3) The old legal order is now fading, while a new order is more and more dominant. This is clearly seen in the fact that the state now sanctions the shedding of the blood of unborn children. The older -- somewhat theonomic -- legal order protected them. Now the emerging humanistic legal order protects those who kill them.

I am not impressed, therefore, by the "fear" argument. I refer to the fear that if the state adopted a biblical legal order, there might be a great slaughter. Admittedly, there would be killing. But there is killing now -- and plenty of it. The fact that the carnage is hidden from view does not mean that there is no such thing. There is. So the question is not Shall there be killing? but rather, Who shall be killed? Shall it be the innocent or the guilty?

Today, it is too often the innocent. Frankly, I much prefer the older system where it was more often the guilty.

When I grew up, John Dillinger was roaming around killing people. I felt better when news came that he had been killed. I thought, "Well, it's too bad his life had to end that way, but better that than to have more innocent people die." (In those days they still used the electric chair. True, an execution is a terrible thing. But there is something worse: to let murderers go out and murder again. This is what we often see today!) Readers of this magazine will agree with much of this. Take homosexuality, for example. We all oppose it. But that is not all. We also cite the Old Testament to prove that we are right. In 1980 we (the Reformed Ecumenical Synod) declared all homosexual practice to be sin, and quoted Moses to prove it. What strikes me, then, is this: we are all theonomists when it suits us. The real issue, then, is not theonomy or no theonomy. The issue is how consistent we are in applying these laws.

Do I sound like I am on the theonomists' bandwagon? I am not. One thing that has forced me to be cautious is the lack of consistency on the part of theonomists. Take, for instance, their view of the Sabbath. If I understand certain theonomists, they say there is not the same kind of continuity for this law as there is for the rest. But other theonomists take a sharply different view. Or to give another example, one theonomist strongly defends Christian schools, and yet has said labor unions are wrong. I do not find these things consistent or convincing.

What we need, then, is to get away from mere reaction to the word theonomy. Instead, we need to get down to specifics. If you say you're a theonomist, fine but tell me (as Calvin did) what this particular case law means for today. What is the principle in it, and how does it apply? If you cannot do that, then it is neither here nor there to me that you are a theonomist.

Likewise, if you come to me and say you're not a theonomist, I will say, "Fine! But now you show me the principle here, and its application." If the best you can say is "Well, that's Old Testament, and we're New Testament Christians," then I will not be able to buy your antitheonomic position. What we need, then, is an end to knee-jerk reactions and name-calling. We need, instead, to start treating one another with respect, and to discuss our differences patiently, carefully, and -- above all -- calmly, with constant reference to the text of the Bible.

New Horizons, April 1994

 

Morality and the Press

Today was a thoughy (if I may use that word. I know it's unoriginal, but hey!). I had to go to court to get a ticket cleared--oh boy. On my way back, I sat down to read the newspaper at my old store (Starbucks); I was in Moreno Valley. I sat down and read the Press-Enterprise (a leftist newspaper). In it I found out about embezzlement procured by blue-collar workers of the Riverside County Fire Dept. What is even more amazing is the alleged 'ethics' of the newspaper's article. It reminded me of the Bahnsen-Stein debate: "Does God Exist?" This, of course, begs the crucial question of morality. The topic of morality is very significant when one agrees with intelligible experience and morality; after all, we all have a morale by which we judge all actions. When the atheist says that there is no moral absolute, he in effect is stating a morally guided absolute about absolutes (say what!). So then I thought about the newspaper and its alleged morality, judging the so-called nefarious blue-collar crimes; the foundations of its morality I found it to be dubious in nature: Why should anyone, even the state, impose and pass laws that might infringe the ethics of any group of individuals who embezzles money for his or her own good pleasure? Or what about a Schadenfraud (i.e. a person who takes pleasure in the torment of others)? Why should any state sanction laws on issues of morality that might infring the "criminals'" happiness? My answer: The state is the servant of God and must, therefore, act as his minister, enacting laws that might infringe the rights of others', viz., passing moral bills, in effect sanctioning moral laws.

Ethics and Maxims

As I continued my readings on Holiness, by J. C. Ryle, I understood a philisophical problem that I had been musing for over a year now. There was one particular line that caught my attention: Holiness is incumbent upon the happiness of a person. That hit like a ton of bricks. Those vices which cumber themselves upon the faithful inveighs the honesty and virtue of a Christian. Sin qua sin is the great cumber of all detriment and folly, granted. What could be more expected from the virus that causes us to deafen to the call of a great divine—the great divine of all true rationality and cogency, i.e., God over all. Amen. "May our years be holy years with our souls, and then they will be happy ones!" (Ryle 61) This is all due to the importance of the Grace and statutes of God. "The Law is good, converting the soul." Its use (the Law) shows the ethic of God, and there we meet our human conscience with the divine sense (L. sensus divinitatus). God tells us what to think, how to think, what to think, when to think it, etc. When we fail to comport to God's Law, we despair. There, then, can one hope in the love of true cogency. God is the true cogency. All philanthropy and humaneness is derived from the source of holiness and truth. Who can reply against the Lord and succeed? There is a fine line here philosophically between true philosophy and vain axioms of the "intellectual." It is the ethic of the thinker that he submits firstly to the authority and morale of God, for therein lies what true ethics are. Then the endeavor to understand the world in which we live will be sensible and rational. A simple deduction is necessary: If God created the world, then all therein is his creation; if all that is God's creation is rational, then God, too, is rational. This is God's world; to conjecture (and I would add, accede true rationality) a plausible and sensible interpretation of the world and experience, then we must postulate God's existence. Therein lays the next possibility: that he is sovereign over all. And here is what makes sense to the rational person—that holiness is not an end but a means to an end, the happiness of mankind, and God's sovereign control over his creation a substantive corollary to the tenor of all scripture.

Robbins and His Critique of Van Til

I recently was given a pamphlet by my brother (he got it at Robert Morey's church, Faith Community Church) called Can the Orthodox Presbyterian Church Be Saved? The epithet alone is a misnomer, simply because it presents an implying "no." So then I began to read the article, published by Trinity--a so-called presbyterian publisher; and since I too am presbyterian (PCA), I was interested in what Dr Robbins had to say against the OPC. I found it rather difficult to read, aside from the sleuth of facts and documentation he presents. Herewith I endeavored to read an article by Dr. Bahnsen, an OPC minister. In it I found the candid truth about Dr. Robbins and his article(s); that he barks emotively against Van Til, through and through. Here is the article by Dr. Bahnsen:

---

Dear Editor:
The decision to print John Robbins' caustic letter in reply to an unfavorable review of his booklet on Van Til was, I believe, regrettable for a couple of reasons.
First, Mr. Robbins, being an avowed disciple of Gordon H. Clark, represents a viewpoint which hampers the purpose of Journey magazine: to encourage consistent, Confessional presbyterianism.
Many good things could be said about Dr. Clark, but his philosophical work was not always a strength. And occasionally his philosophical shortcomings were detrimental for his theological constructions. Take one illustration. Clark insisted that we cannot know anything on the basis of sensation and that our knowledge is restricted to the content of the Bible.[1] Philosophically, this is outrageous. On this view, Clark could not even "know" what the Bible taught since he relied upon sensation - reading, hearing - to learn it.
In defense of the above view Clark was ushered into conflict with the Westminster Confession of Faith. (1) He suggested that everything we read on the inked lines of the Bible was already in our knowledge internally[2] - which contradicts WCF 1:1. What men know innately by general revelation is "not sufficient" because it does not include all the message of Scripture. (2) Ten years ago, when I proposed that Clark's restriction of knowledge to the content of the Bible entailed that nobody could "know" that he was saved (since our names are not mentioned in the Bible), he reaffirmed that conclusion - which openly conflicts with WCF 18:1 (1 John 5:13, etc.). (3) Other problems with Clark's rationalistic view could be mentioned. Who can forget his exegetically atrocious rendition of John 1:1 ("In the beginning was Logic")?[3]
Given philosophical and theological problems of this magnitude, Clark's position - through the mouthpiece of Mr. Robbins (cf. Matt. 10:24) - does not call for attention in a magazine like Journey.[4] Moreover, the letter from Mr. Robbins only perpetuated the weak reasoning and misrepresentations of Van Til against which the reviewer had justly protested. But my grievance goes beyond the philosophical competence of Robbins or Clark.
The second thing regrettable about publishing the Robbins' letter is the strident spirit of style of his writing. This too imitates Clark who, in retaliation for Van Til's apprehensions about what was askew in Clark's philosophy and theology, lowered himself to accusing Van Til of being an irrationalist under the influence of neo-orthodoxy![5] In his published letter Mr. Robbins applies the same epithets of irrationalism and neo-orthodoxy to his reviewer, Mr. Jones. Indeed, in materials from his Trinity Foundation, Mr. Robbins has previously used the very same tags for George Marston and John Frame. Now then, Messers Marston, Frame, and Jones are all members of my presbytery, and I can state unequivocably that they are not the slightest bit neo-orthodox in theology or tendency; they stand squarely, vocally against it. It becomes obvious that the pejorative slur of "neo-orthodox" is repeatedly used by Mr. Robbins, not in its correct and descriptive sense, but for anyone who happens to disagree with him or Clark. He is simply engaging, that is, in emotive name-calling.
That is why I object to Journey giving space in its pages to someone like Mr. Robbins to express himself. "Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth, but such as is good for edifying as the need may be, that it may give grace to them who hear" (Eph. 4:29). It should not be thought that Mr. Robbins' letter in Journey was a passing and uncharacteristic lapse in courtesy or writing style. Mr. Robbins has a reputation in our circles for this kind of cutting talk about those with whom he disagrees. Consider the snide way in which he spoke of Jim Hurley, Susan Foh, and George Knight in Scripture Twisting in the Seminaries. I am not at all against hardhitting theological analysis and debate. I am very much repulsed by the thoughtless party spirit and empty name-calling that so often divides the Reformed world. "If any man thinks himself to be religious and does not bridle his tongue, he deceives himself and this man's religion is vain" (James 1:26).


Sincerely yours,

Dr. Greg Bahnsen



[1] The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark (1968), pp. 90-92; Three Types of Religious Philosophy (1973), p. 62. Anything outside the Bible was, at best, a mere matter of "opinion" for Clark, never "knowledge", by which he artificially meant knowing with "certainty".
[2] The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark, pp. 415-416.
[3] Ibid, p. 67.
[4] Similarly, it is dismaying that less than two months after Dr. Van Til went to be with his Savior and Lord, Westminster Theological Seminary in California publicly acclaimed and dignified a "Gordon Haddon Clark Prize in Apologetics" by awarding it, for the prize's sponsoring agency the "Trinity Foundation" (which is headed by John Robbins), to one of Westminster's students at the Sixth Commencement Exercise. This even was publicized as though it were an honor in Westminster's official paper, Update.
[5] "The Bible as Truth," Bibliotheca Sacra (April, 1957); "Apologetics," Contemporary Evangelical Thought, ed. Carl F. H. Henry (1957).

Note on Immigration (illegal) and its Reform

This note I wrote about a year ago. This was a debate that happened between myself and my family; the majority of them responded emotionally and negatively. I swear, if I was a Jew back in the times of Christ, I probably would have been stoned for heresy. On any note, the point was made that I disagreed with them and their apparent 'ideology.' But still, I contended for my thesis and defended it rigorously. So I thereafter put together a notation, a memorandum, to show my disagreement with them. I called them on four points (they were originally five points), and here they are:

A. Their elicit disagreement according to my thesis.
B. The ways of retort, mainly emotive in nature (ref. Edwards on ways of reasoning, ch. 1).
C. People--educated people--that disagree with immigration reform, in my apparent thesis, argue differently; they should consider reading some of them.
D. Finally, they should read my thesis on immigration. They will find that it is more candid than they would assume negatively.