I was wondering if anyone has read Westminster Seminary's book "Theonomy: A Reformed Critique,’
Although I have not read it, I just received via e-mail a response to that book that even though I don’t know a whole lot about Theonomy, this response has put ‘Westminster Seminary's "Theonomy: A Reformed Critique,’ on my wish list.
As I said I don’t know a lot about this topic, however from what I have read about it I am not in favor of it, mainly because it seems to me that Theonomy could only work in a theocracy.
I have a few questions.
1.) Have you read ‘Westminster Seminary's "Theonomy: A Reformed Critique,’ and do you believe it does a good job of critiquing Theonomy?
2.) Read below and tell me what comes to mind. As someone who has not read either book, if I was to judge the matter based on this response, I would probably be inclined to agree with it. However, even though I only know a little about Theonomy, I am inclined to believe that it is written by people that want a theocracy, when I don’t see anywhere in the Scriptures that speak of this. Am I thinking along the right lines?
I also thought this might provide for in an interesting discussion.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Westminster’s Confession:The abandonment of Van Til’s Legacy by Gary North
In October, 1990, the long-promised book by the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary finally appeared: Theonomy: A Reformed Critique. In response comes Westminster's Confession. It is both a negative and a positive statement. Theonomists believe that "you can't beat something with nothing." It is not enough to demonstrate that someone is wrong: you must also show what is correct.

Cornelius Van Til made this principle the bedrock application of his apologetic method. It was not enough to demonstrate that his opponents' systems of thought were internally inconsistent; he also showed why Christianity is the only logical alternative. But he left an incomplete legacy. He refused to offer an explicitly biblical alternative to the natural law theory that he had refuted. His system created a judicial vacuum.

Into that vacuum have come two rival factions: the political pluralists and the theonomists. The battle is now engaged.

Westminster Seminary's problem for a generation — indeed, Calvinistic American Presbyterianism's problem for two centuries — has been to justify a commitment to modern religious and political pluralism in terms of the Westminster confession's judicial standards. The faculty has been double-minded on this point: Proclaiming their commitment to Van Til's apologetic method, they have simultaneously denied the idea that the Bible is the bearer of biblical blueprints or judicial frameworks for society. In short, they have abandoned any ideal of a Christian society, i.e., Christendom itself.

This is Westminster's social and cultural confession — a theologically negative confession, proclaiming in the name of the original Westminster Assembly what society ought not to be, but never daring to suggest what it should be. In contrast, Westminster's Confession offers a positive confession. It offers a biblical alternative. It restores the vision of Christendom.

"Boy what a breath of fresh air! This book is a response to Westminster Seminary's "Theonomy: A Reformed Critique," which for the most part is so weak and off the point it's almost hard to believe they actually published it. North's book is entertaining and full of insights--you will really enjoy it." -- Jay Scott Herman, Escondido, CA

Tom,

If you don't know much about the subject, and you haven't read the book in question ... why are you posting this? We can give our general impressions of the jacket cover blurbs, but I'm not sure what help that's going to be. I suggest you study the subject and/or read the book, then post a topic when you have formulated specific questions. Thanks!

Kyle

I posted it because I don't have time at the moment to read another book. However, I do know many on the Highway that do read books such as this one.
I thought perhaps I could get some feed back, related to the thoughts and questions I expressed in my post.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I don't think that is unreasonable.

General impressions were really all I asked for.

Tom

Tom,

I think it would be more edifying for you & for others on the Board if you'd first read or research what you want to discuss so we can have a well-defined topic for discussion. I'm sure you know from previous discussions here that we are not generally favorable toward theonomy. What do you expect we will helpfully add as "general impressions" of this book jacket? You claim you don't have time to read another book right now, but you have added Theonomy: A Reformed Critique to your wishlist. Soooo ... what book(s) are you reading right now that might be worthy of discussion in the Theology forum? Then, whenever you have the time to read Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, and have developed some specific questions for discussion, you could return to this thread or start a new one.

Otherwise, I suggest if you are asking questions about books (is it good? bad? worth reading? etc.), you should go to the Book Nook.

Thanks!

Kyle...

You said it, but I certainly thunk it.

-R

Touche'

Tom

Tom,

Try these:

- Some Common Theonomic Arguments
- Theonomy's Dispensational Hermeneutic

Pilgrim

Those are extremely helpful articles, thank you. I guess what I liked about them most is that they were fairly easy to understand; which is a good thing for someone like myself.

Tom

I've reviewed "Some Common Theonomic Arguments" by Lee Irons.

'm going to suggest off the top that Tom not spend his time with the automous approach of Mr. Irons in the articles if he wants to learn more about the theonomic case, if for no other reason than the articles are not founded on proper presuppositions to begin with. Better to start with Dr. Bahnsen altogether, such as in "For Whom Was God's Law Intended?" here:

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe079.htm

.... there are other free resources by Bahnsen at http://www.cmfnow.com/freearticles.aspx under "Ethics" for anyone inclined to hear Dr. Bahnsen's approach from Dr. Bahnsen himself.

Mr. Irons leaves a clue as to how a reductio ad absurdum argument could be successful against him. Mr. Bahnsen snuck in a trojan horse in that quote, and unfortunately Mr. Irons took the tragic bait I believe. Review the Banhsen quote carefully, especially the first two words, and then consider the foundations Mr. Irons lays in his first sentence. He underestimates the strength in Dr. Bahnsen here, and goes on to commit the very offence the quote challenges him not to make, which seems to have been the purpose of it.

So I will expound on this later, and attempt to refute not just Mr. Irons article, but his entire approach to the subject and thereby pave for Mr. Irons a way to theonomy.

But not yet.....

Barry

This is addressed to anyone on the Highway.

Hi

I want to ask a few questions regarding Israel and theocracy.

Would I be correct to say that when Israel got its first king, they ceased being a theocracy?

When Israel was under human government (monarchy), were they theonomic in its approach to civil justice and lawmaking (murderers get death penalty, etc.) even if the nation was no longer a theocracy?

If the answer to these two questions is yes, then it would seem to me that it is not necessary for someone who believes in “Theonomy” to also believe that it only works in a “theocracy”.

The reason I bring up this last point is that I have often read people opposed to “Theonomy” use the argument that Theonomy only works in a theocracy. Hence this would be a straw man argument.

Tom