Path: christian Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian From: Tom Albrecht Subject: Re: Theonomy Organization: Unisys Corporation, Malvern, PA Reply-To: tca1@ecdcsvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article Steve.Hayes@f20.n7106.z5.fidonet.org writes: > >Could you be a bit more explicit about what theonomists believe? ... See below. > Your >description could easily fit some Seventh-Day Adventists, ... Not really. SDA teaches that the seventh day sabbath is still to be observed. Theonomists do not. We believe the first day of teh week is teh Lord's day, aka the Christian Sabbath (cf. Westminster Confession of Faith XXI.7). Also, most theonomists (with the notable exception of Rushdoony) do not subscribe to the OT food laws (or clothing laws, etc.) since they recognize them as relating to the OT ceremonial law which was abrogated in Christ (cf Westminster Confession, XIX.3). > and the the belief >that the new Israel is the Christian Church is pretty standard theology, >except among a few dispensationalist Protestant groups that follow the >teachings of Darby, Schofield & co. Supersessionism is part of the historic Christian faith, but denied by Scofieldism. [I wrote the following paper as part of our church session's (body of elders) study into the matter of Christian Reconstruction. It's may be a bit heavy for those not familiar with Reformed/Presbyterian theology. If you have questions please contact me.] Christian Reconstruction This paper is intended to outline my understanding of Christian Reconstruction. It is not a definitive or exhaustive treatment of the subject. That would require many volumes. It is also not an unbiased assessment. I make no apologies for the fact that I am sympathetic with the general principles of Christian Reconstruction. However, I will endeavor to present factual information, and label opinion as such. Among many sincere Christians, Christian Reconstruction is viewed as a deviant and devious theology. Reconstructionist have been called "legalists," "anti-Semites," "new age humanists," and even "heretics" by anti-Reformed Christians.[1] Of course, we would expect Arminians, Anabaptists, and Dispensationalists to be doctrinally at odds with Reformed Christians over matters central to the Christian faith; the basic unity of Scripture and God's salvation plan. Unfortunately, the harsh criticism has not been limited to the non-Reformed camp. Many Reformed Christians have also been quite vocal in their criticism of Christian Reconstruction. Some of the criticism has been helpful and welcome. It has helped Reconstructionists think more seriously about the way they interpret the Bible, and apply God's law to our situation today.[2] But at the same time opposition has come from semi-informed individuals who are reacting against misinformation, or worse yet no information, about the basic teachings of Christian Reconstruction. My general impression is that there exists an almost irrational fear of Christian Reconstruction within the body of Christ. I'm afraid such appears to be the situation here at Immanuel. If Christian Reconstruction/Theonomy is so much at odds with the Word of God and the Westminster Standards, then it should be an easy task for critics to demonstrate that fact. Christian Reconstruction is Theonomic Reformed Christians believe God's law is an essential part of Christian life. The unison reading of the Ten Commandments is a regular part of many Presbyterian and Reformed worship services. Unlike Dispensationalists and other non-Reformed Christians, we believe the Ten Commandments contain a summary of universal moral law[3] applicable to all people in all ages.[4] Theonomy comes from two Greek words and means, simply, God's law. God's revealed law is the only perfect basis for just regulations in every human institution; family, church, and state. The so-called "natural law" is insufficient for dealing with the issues of society, because natural law is basically pagan in origin. Natural law is based on the premise that humans are perfectible and can produce a just law code without direct reference to the revelation of God.[5] Jesus Christ - King of kings The leaders of all civil institutions are obligated to obey God in their official dealings. Justice is not something inherent in man after the fall. Justice is something found in the revelation of God Almighty. Men may not ignore that law without serious consequences.[6] Unfortunately, many Christians believe that government institutions must be neutral towards religion. This is the myth of state separation from things godly - the myth of neutrality. Government cannot be neutral toward Almighty God. Government official are "ministers of God for good" (Romans 13:4). Civil government, just like individuals, is responsible to order its affairs according to God's holy revelation. To do otherwise leads invariably to social suicide. The result of American Christians passively accepting the myth of neutrality is a government hostile to God and the Christian religion. Christians have abdicated their responsibility to call government to accountability. Christian Reconstructionists believe that the Church must proclaim the need for government to be faithful to its mandate before God and Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords (cf. Psalm 47:8; Revelation 19:16. Theonomy's Critics Theonomy has been misrepresented by critics, both Reformed and non-Reformed. A common misrepresentation is that theonomists hold to a slavish, wooden view of the judicial law of God. Nothing could be further from the truth. Theonomists have written extensively on the law of God, outlining its richness, and showing the useful application of its features and principles. Such extensive writing would hardly be necessary if a simplistic "wooden" interpretation is all that theonomists require.[7] At least Vern Poythress recognizes that published theonomists do not hold to such a wooden view of the law. He writes: "Bahnsen instructs us to examine patiently the particular texts, and warns us of the complexities involved. Popularized theonomy needs to pay attention."[8] Earlier in his monograph, Poythress had these glowing words for one of the general principles of theonomy: "We may start with one of the theses of theonomy. God's word is the proper standard for evaluating all human action, including the actions of government officials and laws made by civil legislators. This particular thesis deserves the support of all Christians, for a very good reason. Confessing the lordship of God necessarily implies bowing to his will and realizing that he, rather than any human being, is the sovereign, all-wise judge of the world."[9] Theonomy is often misrepresented as teaching that the judicial laws of God should be the exclusive basis for modern civil law. This is simply not true. As Gary DeMar has written: "'Generally, the movement's proponents hold that the civil laws of the Old Testament, theocratic Israel are normative for all societies in all times.' We believe it is more correct to insist that the whole Bible is normative. This implies that considering how to apply the Old Testament laws, we must also consider the implications of the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, the pouring out of the Spirit, and the breaking down of the wall between Jew and Gentile. There are elements of continuity and discontinuity between covenants, and we cannot afford to ignore either. And, if we affirm that the Bible is God's inerrant Word, how can we in good conscience ignore its teachings in any area of life?"[10] The divisions in the law It must be noted that our Confession makes a distinction between moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws (WCF XIX 3,4). Unfortunately, we do not have "red letter" editions of the Bible to make this distinction obvious. It is only by careful examination of "scripture with scripture" that we can convincingly determine into which category a particular law might fall. Believe it or not, we might even disagree on the nature of particular laws. We might also discover that a particular law comes under more than one heading. Rape, for example, is a moral evil, but specific commandments forbidding rape are only found in what has been traditionally called the "judicial law" of Israel. Does this mean that rape is an acceptable form of behavior under the new covenant, or punishable only by an ecclesiastical court? The same is true for situations involving bestiality, "just weights and measures," etc. The theocracy of Israel - separation of church and state The argument has been made that the judicial law was limited to old covenant Israel because there was no separation of church and state under the old covenant.[11] This is plainly a false assertion. Even a casual reading of the law of the old covenant reveals that "alien and sojourners" in Israel (the non-circumcised) were required to keep the judicial law (Lev. 24:22). On the other hand, aliens were not required to keep certain ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic code (Ex. 12:43,44,48; 9:33; Deut. 14:21). Of special interest is the fact that only the circumcised were allowed to participate in the Passover, the old covenant communion meal. The two "marks of the church" of the old covenant separated the "church" from the "state." Also, there is a distinction made between the "lawyers" of the ceremonial law (the Levites) and the "lawyers" of the civil law (the elders and judges) (Lev. 14:35; 27:11; Deut. 1:16; 16:18; 19:12; 21:2; 25:1). One of the consequences of a inaccurate view of separation of church and state is the inappropriate mixture of "grace and law." The primary purpose of the church is to be a minister of God's grace in the world. By bringing the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ, we offer the hope that only repentence and faith can bring to a life of sin. The church has been entrusted with the keys of the kingdom and the sword of the Spirit, the word of God, in order to carry out that mission. The purpose of the state, on the other hand, is to be a minister of justice (Rom 13:1ff). It alone is given the sword of power to inflict vengeance on those who would violate the law of God as expressed in the laws of the state. In our society the state has, to a large extent, usurped the "gracious" role of the church by involving itself in areas that are the exclusive domain of the church or family; ministries to the poor and needy, education of children, etc. This is a form of paganism in which the state becomes god to many people under its ever expanding sphere of influence. The Westminster Standards The Westminster Standards are theonomic documents.[12] They teach the superiority of God's moral law as a standard for all men, binding both saved and lost (WCF, XIX.5). They teach that the ten commandments are but a summary of the moral law of God, just as the "two great commandments" are also a summary of the moral law of God. The Larger Catechism says: Q. 98. Where is the moral law summarily comprehended? A. The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments, which were delivered by the voice of God upon Mt. Sinai, and written by Him in two tables of stone; and are recorded in the twentieth chapter of Exodus. The four first commandments containing our duty to God, and the other six our duty to man [emphasis mine]. General equity Regarding the judicial law of God, the Confession say the following: XIX.4. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people, not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require. In order to understand the phrase "general equity thereof may require" we need to examine the rest of the Confession and Catechisms to see how the Westminster divines used the judicial law, especially as it relates to the civil magistrate. XXIV.4. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word. Nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by the law of any man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife. The scripture proofs for this paragraph include New Testament teaching (1 Cor. 5:1; Mark 6:18) as well as a quote from Leviticus 18:24-28: Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit its iniquity upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit [any] of these abominations; [neither] any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, who [were] before you, and the land is defiled;) That the land may not vomit you out also, when ye defile it, as it vomited out the nations that [were] before you. This passage from Leviticus 18 is interesting because it seems to teach that God was about to punish the Canaanite nations because they violated the moral proscriptions found in the judicial law given to Israel. The warning to Israel was that they must not follow in the footsteps of their Canaanite neighbors. How do we determine what are the referenced "degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word" without reference to the so-called "judicial laws" of God? Without reference to such, we would have no basis by which to judge various forms of incest. The theonomic character of the Westminister Standards comes out as we examine the Catechisms, especially Questions 98 through 148 of the Larger Catechism. E.g., under Q. 136 on the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment, the distinction is made between murder and "necessary defence" by appealing to the judicial law (Ex. 22:2,3). Not all sin is crime, i.e., punishable by civil authorities. But for the civil magistrate to punish as a crime that which is not sin is unjust. The only infallible standard for determining criminal behavior is the law of God. It is appropriate to differentiate between murder and manslaughter since the word of God does in the judicial law. Murder requires the death penalty (Gen. 9:6; Lev. 24:17), while manslaughter does not (Num. 35:11ff). It would be unjust for a society to pass laws that confuse this biblical distinction. Whatever the term "general equity" means in the original, there seems to be no reason why theonomists cannot fully subscribe to the intention of the statement in the Confession. Conclusion In chapter 14 of Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, Sinclair B. Ferguson examines the background of the members of the Westminster assembly. He asks, "Were they Theonomists?" Ferguson concludes that they were not, at least not in the specific sense that modern theonomists use the term. However, he makes the point that many of the assembly members were not adverse to using principles found in the judicial law of Israel to apply to circumstances of the day. What Ferguson apparently objects to is the strawman argument that theonomists wish to apply the judicial laws "simpliciter".[13] He concludes by affirming that the statements of the Westminster standards are broad enough to encompass modern theonomists. While Westminster may not have been an assembly of theonomists, modern theonomists certainly should feel comfortable embracing the product of their efforts. Ferguson concludes by saying: "Can the present-day debaters of the theonomy issue learn anything from their forefathers, the Westminster Divines? Perhaps they can, for here were men of great learning and passionate conviction, who were generally speaking subscribers to generic Calvinism, engaged in untold hours of discussion and debate. Uniformity was their goal. But it is evident from the from the way in which they achieved it that the spirit of their Calvinism was inclusive rather than exclusive. Unity in the church of God, they believed, required a sufficiently clear statement of truth to exclude manifestly false teaching, and a sufficiently broad expression of its nuances to avoid excluding those who were in heart and head truly orthodox, whatever differences might remain."[14] Allow me to offer two closing quotes that I believe could be made by any modern theonomist. Princeton theologian A. A. Hodge wrote: "If professing Christians are unfaithful to the authority of their Lord in their capacity as citizens of the State, they cannot expect to be blessed by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in their capacity as members of the Church. The kingdom of Christ is one, and cannot be divided in life or death. If the Church languishes, the State cannot be in health; and if the State rebels against its Lord and King, the Church cannot enjoy His favour. If the Holy Ghost is withdrawn from the Church, he is not present in the State; and if He, the 'Lord, the Giver of life,' be absent, then all order is impossible, and the elements of society lapse backward to primeval night and chaos."[15] The distinguished Southern Presbyterian theologian James Henley Thornwell requested that the Constitution of the Confederate States contain the following statement: "Nevertheless, we, the people of the Confederate States, distinctly acknowledge our responsibility to God, and the supremacy of his Son, Jesus Christ, as King of kings and Lord of lords; and hereby ordain that no law shall be passed by the Congress of these Confederate States inconsistent with the will of God as revealed in the Holy Scriptures."[16] I beleive this is what the movement called Theonomy is all about. Tom Albrecht Notes: 1 Gary North and Gary DeMar, _Christian Reconstruction: What it Is, What it Isn't_ (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991), p. 3. The most vocal critics from outside reformed circles have been Dispensationalist authors Hal Lindsey, Dave Hunt, Wayne House, and Tommy Ice. Lindsey has said, "This is the most anti-Semitic movement I've seen since Hitler." 2 In _Theonomy: A Reformed Critique_, (Grand Rapids: Academie Books/Zondervan, 1991), several of the authors presented useful assessments of certain aspects of Reconstruction. In my opinion, the best portion of the book was the postscript written by D. Clair Davis. Dr. Davis wrote, "If theonomy did not exist, someone would have to invent it. Christians need all the help they can get in understanding what the Bible has to say about God's pattern for society. There have been far too many generalities and platitudes; the more specific the information believers can get from the Bible, the better they can do what God expects of them. It is not easy to apply the details of the civil law of the Bible from the period of promise to our age of fulfillment, but Christians are called to act upon their conviction that 'all Scripture is profitable.'" 3 cf. Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 98. 4 A notable exception was Donald Grey Barnhouse who reportedly said, "It was a tragic hour when the reformation churches wrote the Ten Commandments into their creeds and catechisms and sought to bring Gentile believers into bondage to a Jewish law, which was never intended either for the Gentile nations or for the church." Quoted by Gary DeMar and Peter J. Leithart in _The Legacy of Hatred Continues: A Response to Hal Lindsey's The Road to Holocaust_ (Tyler, TX: ICE, 1989), p. 24. 5 Norman Geisler, a Dispensationalist, has written, "Government is not based on special revelation, such as the Bible." Quoted in North and DeMar, _Christian Reconstruction: What it Is, What it Isn't_, p. 108. Many non-Reformed Christians are uncomfortable with the suggestion that God's revealed law is a desirable basis for human law and "secular" institutions. 6 The serious consequences are found all around us today; abortion on demand, euthanasia, homosexuality, pornography, child abuse, racism, and a bloated, resource-consuming government at all levels. What we are experiencing today is what you get when a society rejects the revealed law of God as a standard for righteous living. 7 R.J. Rushdoony's _The Institutes of Biblical Law_ is 1600 pages in two volumes. Gary North's _Tools of Dominion_ on the Exodus case laws is over 1200 pages. 8 _Theonomy: A Reformed Critique_, p. 121. Unfortunately Poythress gives us no clue as to what constitutes "popularized theonomy." Could it be a strawman invention? 9 _Theonomy: A Reformed Critique_, p. 111. 10 Gary DeMar, in a letter to Christianity Today, April 21, 1989. 11 O. Palmer Robertson and Meredith Kline use this critique. For a critique of Kline's intrusionist approach to interpreting the old covenant, see Poythress's article in _Theonomy: A Reformed Critique_. 12 Greg Bahnsen says, "Even as hostile an opponent as Meredith Kline concedes that the theonomic view was that of the Westminster Confession of Faith." No Other Standard, p. 10. In Comments on an Old-New Error, Kline makes the following statement, "At the same time it must be said that Chalcedon [i.e., theonomy] is not without roots in respectable ecclesiastical tradition. In is in fact a revival of certain teachings contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith -- at least in the Confession's original formulations. ... Ecclesiastical courts operating under the Westminster Confession of Faith are going to have their problems, therefore, if they should be of a mind to bring the Chalcedon aberration under their judicial scrutiny." p. 173. 13 _Theonomy: A Reformed Critique_, p. 344,345. 14 _Theonomy: A Reformed Critique_, p. 349. 15 _Evangelical Theology_, quoted in The Counsel of Chalcedon, Feb/Mar 1993, p. 2. 16 _Collect Writings_, IV 556, quoted by Morton Smith in _Studies in Southern Presbyterian Theology_, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962, p. 178. Path: christian Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian From: Tom Albrecht Subject: More on Christian Reconstruction and Theonomy Organization: Unisys Corporation, Malvern, PA Reply-To: tca1@ecdcsvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Christian Reconstruction, Part 2 Continuity and discontinuity It is a basic Reformed hermeneutical principle which stresses continuity between the older and new manifestations of the covenant of grace. We call this covenant theology. For example, we see infant baptism is a "good and necessary consequence" of the basic continuity between the sacrament under the old covenant and the sacrament under the new covenant. While there is no explicit command in the New Testament to say children should be baptized, we do so because of the continuity principle. Those who stress discontinuity are more prone to see infant baptism as a human tradition. The Dispensationalist posits a hermeneutics of discontinuity - e.g., Israel vs. the Church, law vs. grace - as the starting point, and then launches into textural analysis based on that principle. Such an approach to interpretation is absolutely antithetical to Reformed/convenantal theology. Dispensationalists have a theology of discontinuity. They like to make much of the fact that the law of God is "written on our hearts" in support of the discontinuity plank in their hermeneutical platform. The suggestion is that "the law of God in our hearts" and "serving God from our hearts" are conditions unique to the post-Pentecost believer, and therefore they validate the hermeneutics of discontinuity. The Word of God actually paints a somewhat different picture. "And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:" (Deut 6:5,6) "Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes." (Deut. 11:18) "And he said unto them, Set your hearts unto all the words which I testify among you this day, which ye shall command your children to observe to do, all the words of this law." (Deut. 32:46) "And the king [Josiah] stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant." (2 Kings 23:3) "And like unto him [Josiah] was there no king before him, that turned to the LORD with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him." (2 Kings 23:25) "Thy word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against thee." (Psalm 119:11) "Receive, I pray thee, the law from His mouth, and lay up His words in thine heart." (Job 22:22) God has always written His law on the hearts of His children. True religion is internal religion externalized. What is written on our hearts eventually comes out. "Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God." "For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart, The good man out of his good treasure brings forth what is good; ..." "But the things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, ..." The fact that God wrote the His law on the hearts of His old covenant saints did not keep Him from providing a detailed, written code as a reminder. We have the same benefit. The written Word of God goes hand-in-hand with the Word written on our hearts. A logical conclusion of the "law written on our hearts" approach might be that we no longer need the Bible at all. Theonomists freely acknowledge certain discontinuities between old and new covenants. The ceremonial aspect of certain laws as pointing to Christ, and being "fulfilled" in Him, is one obvious discontinuity. But theonomists argue that the only way to determine what continues and what doesn't is to examine the Bible, not to invent a fundamental thesis out of whole clothe and apply it ad hoc while ignoring the apparent deficiencies of such a methodology. A church under age The claim by some (cf. O Palmer Robertson, Meredith Kline) is that Israel was a homogeneous entity without church/state distinctions. Even our Confession makes a distinction between Israel "as a Church under age" (XIX.3) and Israel "as a body politic" (XIX.4), and treats the laws which governed each differently. Israel was a nation composed of both "church members" (Jews), and "non-church members" (aliens and sojourners). What separated them were the sacraments; circumcision and Passover. Consequently, the Confession see the laws for the Old Covenant church of Israel as having expired unconditionally, while the laws of the old Covenant state of Israel expired conditionally, i.e., "further than the general equity thereof may require." There is no suggestion in either the Bible or the Confession that the state today doesn't have the right to make and enforce laws consistent with the "first table" of the Ten Commandments. Blasphemy is still moral evil, and should be considered worthy of criminal sanctions when it disrupts the peace and purity of the land. Many of the Refomers also taught that the magistrate had a duty to enforce the first table of the Law (Calvin's _Institutes_ Book IV Chapter 20; Scottish Presbyterian George Gillespie, one of the divines at the Westminster Assembly). What is the duty of the state with regard to the "first table"? In his commentary on Romans 13:4, John Murray explains that in the phrase "a minister of God to you for good" Paul has in mind that "good" is referring specifically to the obligation the civil magistrate to promote peace and piety among Christians (Commentary, v. 2, p. 152). He does this by quoting 1 Tim. 2:2, "that we may lead a peaceful and tranquil life in all godliness and gravity." Murray does not see "good" as referring to state-sponsored welfare programs like Medicare, AFDC, government schools, etc. "Good" is strictly understood in terms of providing an environment for Christians to practice their religion in all holiness. Thus, using Murray's definition of the "good", how can a civil magistrate be a promoter of good among Christians if he fails to punish evildoers who blaspheme God or violate the Sabbath? Further, without scriptural justification, it is arbitrary to suggest the laws in the first table are less socially disruptive than the laws in the second. Thus, the duty to God vs. duty to man criteria for determining the role of the state in enforcing the law of God is arbitrary. General equity revisited I dug up some quotes I thought would be helpful when discussing WCF XIX.4. "The Old Testament also prescribed certain civil laws for the nation of Israel. The details of these laws are not obligatory on other nations, though the principles of equity that underlie them are." (Gordon H. Clark, _What Do Presbyterian Believe? The Westminster Confession: Yesterday and Today_, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1965, pp. 183-184) Later, Clark says this: "The moral law provides principles for the conduct of our civil affairs. It does not spell out the details, but it sets limits and furnishes norms. For example, II Corinthians 12:14 teaches us that children should not lay up for their parents, but parents for their children. At first this seems to have little to do with national and state law. But does it not follow by good and necessary consequence that a nation should not accumulate an astronomical debt and pass it on to the next generation? ... the general principle is that each generation should take care of itself and if possible hand on to the next, no debts, but assets. Thus the policy of the United States Government stands condemned as immoral and anti-Christian." (Ibid., pp. 185-186) Notice how Clark, in the Reformed tradition, does not limit the moral law to the Ten Commandments. He mentions 2 Corinthians 12:14 as the moral principle underlying his condemnation of the US Government policy to increase debt without restraint. While he allows for exceptional cases, war, etc., he recognizes the binding nature of the underlying moral imperative. Also note his reasoning "by good and necessary consequence." This is entirely in keeping with the Confession's view: WCF I.6 The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. What is the theonomic position? As I mentioned in our time together, there is some difficulty in responding to specific statements by the opponents of theonomy due to the fact that very often their arguments are based on inaccurate or incomplete information. Usually the source of a quote is secondary and lacks critical context. I have encountered a similar approach - selective use of quoted material - by Arminian authors who attack the works of Reformed writers. Take the example of the charge that by the phrase "binding in exhaustive detail" means theonomists believe that the judicial law must be brought into any and every socio-political setting without modification. Absent some additional analysis based on the writings of theonomists, it is impossible to determine whether such a charge is true or false. It is obvious to me, based on our discussions, that this charge, as presented by the opponents of theonomy, is false. It is false because the opponents apparently take the phase in a way that was not intended by the author. So what do theonomists mean when they make such a statement? Obviously in order to answer that question it is necessary to actually read what theonomists have written. Greg Bahnsen, for example, has written several books on the subject, so his position should be no mystery to any of us. He urges his reader to go through his arguments very carefully with Bible in hand so that the listed Scripture passages can be read in context (_Theonomy in Christian Ethics_, p. xxxi). He asks his readers to act like "noble Bereans" as they "search the scripture to see if these things are so." It distresses me greatly that the critics of the theonomic position have not had the common courtesy to do what Bahnsen asks. It is also my opinion that critics who have neither the time nor the inclination to perform the required work have absolutely no business being involved in critical analysis. And they certainly shouldn't be offering their views for public consumption. The Christian commitment to truth, especially when the reputation of brothers in Christ is at stake, demands hard work! It is altogether too easy to hurt someone by the indiscriminate use of the tongue, no matter how well-intentioned we may be (cf. James 1:26; 3:5,6). Having said that, allow me to offer some insight and quotes in order for us to get a better picture of the theonomic view. Simply put, theonomists hold that the moral commandments of God, as found in His revealed Word, are binding on all men in all ages (cf. WCF XIX.5). The moral commandments are eternal precisely because they reflect God's character who is unchanging (Psalm 15:4; Heb. 13:8). These moral commandments are summarized in the Ten Commandments, but are found expressed in various forms throughout the rest of Scripture. Matthew Henry writes concerning Leviticus 18: "After divers ceremonial institutions, God here returns to the enforcement of moral precepts. The former are still of use to us as types, the latter are binding as laws." (Matthew Henry's Commentary in One Volume, p. 131) In the introduction to chapter 19, Henry says, "The laws of this chapter which were peculiar to the Jews are, 1. ... ," then proceeds to comment on verses 1 through 29. However, regarding verses 30 and following he says, "But, II. Most of these precepts are binding on us, for they are expositions of the ten commandments. 1. Here is the preface to the ten commandments, 'I am the Lord,' repeated fifteen times. 2. A sum of the ten commandments. ..." (Ibid., p. 132) The Ten Commandments, in isolation, do not teach that "lust in the heart" is a form of adultery. That is because they are but a summary of the moral law of God. Thus, the true moral character of the law is only rightly understood by considering what the rest of the Bible, in this case Matthew 5:27,28, has to say on the subject. Since the judicial law is part of the Bible, it also is "profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, ..." (2 Tim. 3:16), and must also be given due consideration. As Jesus told Satan, "As it is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4; Deut. 8:3). What do theonomists say about the law? "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)" (Greg Bahnsen, _No Other Standard_, p. 12). Please notice the qualification in Bahnsen's statement; "absolute in the sense". The theonomic view is that the moral principles embodied in the judicial law are still "binding" simply because they reflect God's perfect standard of righteousness. They are part of the moral law, which our Confession says all men are bound to obey. Those moral principle are "applicable to general types of moral situations." While I agree that the judicial law as it was applied in Israel has "expired", it is my opinion that the "general equity" clause allows this view of the use of the underlying moral principles in the judicial code. Otherwise the "general equity" clause is a useless appendage to the paragraph, and should be elided by amending the Confession. "The New Testament is the interpretative guide in determining how all of God's law should apply." (North and DeMar, _Christian Reconstruction: What it is, what it isn't_ p. 87). "Certainly there is much work to be done to determine exactly how to apply Biblical law to a modern world. There is some disagreement even among those of us who identify with the Reconstructionist position. The principle that binds us, however, is that we all believe the whole Bible, Old and New Testament, must be the source of ethics for human institutions which God has ordained for man's good." (Mark Duncan, _Five Points of Christian Reconstruction from the Lips of Our Lord_, p. 18) "We believe it is more correct to insist that the whole Bible is normative. This implies that considering how to apply the Old Testament laws, we must also consider the implications of the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, the pouring out of the Spirit, and the breaking down of the wall between Jew and Gentile. There are elements of continuity and discontinuity between covenants, and we cannot afford to ignore either. And, if we affirm that the Bible is God's inerrant Word, how can we in good conscience ignore its teachings in any area of life?" (Gary DeMar, in a letter to Christianity Today, April 21, 1989) "Theonomists maintain that the Mosaic code and regulations contain some items which are not based upon necessary moral principles, but rather God's sovereign good pleasure; as such they are not binding in all ages and upon all cultures - items which must be distinguished and identified on the basis of Scriptural teaching. The other Mosaic regulations and precepts communicate God's unchanging moral principles - and indeed are identical to those precepts which correspond to the divine moral principles learned through general revelation." (Greg Bahnsen and Kenneth Gentry, _House Divided: The Breakup of Dispensational Theology_, pp. 92-93) "Theonomists accept the general breakdown of the Mosaic law into the categories of moral, judicial, and ceremonial - despite having some reservations about misleading terminology (e.g., "ceremonial" might better be called redemptive or restorative) and having strong objection to the a priori way which some people impose the scheme upon the Old Testament text. Essentially, this category-scheme will be of no general help to the interpreter as he approaches any particular text; its value is simply that of a retrospective summary device, after doing the necessary exegesis and application of specific passages in the law." (Ibid. p. 97) To summarize; with regard to the law theonomists teach that that which was temporary has passed away, and that which is binding and eternal remains. How do we decide which laws were temporary and which ones are eternal? "The theonomic answer has always been: not some a priori principle imposed from outside the text of Scripture, but precisely painstaking and detailed Scriptural exegesis. We do have, after all, the great advantage of the New Testament and its commentary upon the Old. With the coming of the New Covenant revelation which helps us understand even better the meaning and purpose of Old Covenant commands, the cogency and necessity of something like the moral/judicial/ceremonial distinction becomes all the more apparent. It accounts for Paul's insistence on submission to case-law ("civil") provisions of the Old Testament (e.g., 1 Tim. 5:18), but refusal to see other ("ceremonial") laws as obligatory (e.g., Gal. 2:3; 5:2,6). Even if these distinctions were somehow obscured in the Old Testament, theonomists believe that New Testament revelation provides criterion and guide by which we can see with adequate clarity today the difference between laws that have been put out of gear (by Christ redemptive work) and laws whose validity is reinforced by Christ (whether expressed in terms of broad principle or cultural illustration)." (Ibid., pp. 100-101) In short, we decide by studying the Bible. This answer may be too simplistic for some, but to offer an answer based on a priori principles established in advance of actually studying the relevant passages places human reasoning and presuppositions above the Word of God. Such an approach embraces a form of idolatry. Tom Albrecht