Tom,

Good question; "How is Theonomy not a doctrine or a belief?"

My diatribe here will be about this; that Theonomy has been given that new label regarding a particular position about civil government, a very popular topic in the latter half of the twentieth century and even today. That is a new label for "theonomy", which if understood in its broadest and truest sense is not limited to that topic alone, but is rather a way a human being thinks in general, ie it is one of two approaches in epistemology and is antithetical to the other, called autonomy.

I'll try to answer how it is both a doctrine, and not a doctrine in the same sense. You're right, it does need some clarification, and I think I see why.

I find theonomy being thought of in two ways, and only one of these ways is in the common discourse right now-and that I believe is adversely affecting how Christians think-something I would like to see adjusted;

1) Theonomy is the political position regarding civil governance, that the Mosaic law and Old Testament precedence is still valid for all societies today, or

2) theonomy is the epistemological sense of being a presuppositional "way of thinking" where all thought is governed by Gods law, antithetical to 'autonomy' or freethinking.

In the former sense, (capital "T" theonomy if you wish) Theonomy is most often these days taken to be a formalized political position because among reformed Christians this is the hot topic....there is simply no debate about Gods law governing our personal morality, family governance or church governance so nobody who believes murder is a sin is being labeled a "theonomist". The only big public debate is about whether or not Gods law, taken for granted in those other spheres, should also govern the civil realm. With all the discussion and literature being about that particular aspect of being theonomical, 'theonomy' tends to get associated with only that. That leads Christians to say things like "I am not a theonomist" when they then turn and teach their children it is good to obey the Word of the Lord. They are, in my opinion, confused about theonomy and some of us are hoping to remedy that.

So if a Christian is being consistent with the 2nd definition of "t"heonomy and not resorting to autonomy in his thinking, he will, of necessity, be a Theonomist in the first sense if he's being consistent. But if a Christian is going to break with that manner of thinking, he must resort to autonomy, the only other option. This is never the right thing to do and this is what J. Ligon Duncan does in his article. This leaves him talking about the Bible as an "ideas suggester".

It's true, though, even the idea "theonomy is a way of thinking and not just a political belief" could rightly be called a 'doctrine' or a belief and therein lay my clarification for your question. It is in this sense a "doctrine" but that is more akin to being a definition of the word. It is not so much a doctrine in the same sense that the first definition of "T"heonomy is spoken of like a limited, political doctrine of how society should be governed.

Maybe I could clarify this further by looking at the idea or 'doctrine' that is the opposite of theonomy......

Consider the word "autonomy", which is never seen as a formal "doctrine" to Christians. It's from the Greek autonomia "freedom to live by one's own laws". It is defined at dictionary.com where "the individual human will is or ought to be governed only by its own principles and laws". If you then apply that to the topic of, say, how society is governed, you might come up with a formal, doctrinal position and vote for the "Freethinkers" political party. Though it may not be a stated doctrine about how a church should be governed, it is certainly the pattern of thought of a rebellious church. That is, you'll not see "autonomous way thinking" on any church's statement of faith if they've rejected God's word as governing their church. They're simply doing it that WAY and it shows in their works...more on what the book of Revelations below.

When that notion of autonomy is then applied as an approach to epistemology, ie "how we know what we know", all kinds of doctrines and beliefs spring forth (like atheism, for example).

The Christian idea that stands against the notion of 'autonomy' is 'theonomy'. It's an antonym to autonomy. Like autonomy, it too can be applied to "how society should be governed" or any number of topics. It can apply to raising children, running a home, how we behave at a hockey game. It can also be applied to the field of epistemology in philosophy and it is in this sense I am struggling to get Christians think more closely, and carefully. It is in this sense that it is most broad, most deep in our thinking process, and most significant and powerful.

You said "All true Christians are Theonomists...Meaning that if Christ is Lord for their lives...." You are speaking about the limited sense of personal morality, personal governance. But there is also Church governance, and family governance. Reformed Christians see these, too, theonomically. No debate.

Yet it's important for Christians to know that "Mosaic law for society" can only be acceptable to anybody once the Christian accepts theonomy as a way of thinking in all of life, once theonomy is rooted deeply enough in their thinking process. It is not Biblical and not logical to simply and suddenly get off the epistemologically Christian bus when we talk about societal governance and say things like the things Mr. Duncan was saying in his article, any more than we can simply stop thinking theonomically when we discuss personal morality; God judges both. To do so, a Christian must abandon thinking in a theonomic way (what you called the "narrow sense of the word") and switch allegiance to an autonomous way. The autonomous way of governing society outside the Law of God must not be considered just another, broader sense of the word "theonomy"...it is no theonomy at all and it is not Christian, not Biblical, to leave Gods law out that little aspect of life called "governing planet earth". That is why I say Mr. Duncan has nowhere else to turn as a Christian....the moment he strikes out in autonomy to consider the proper way to run civil society in general he is going to have to come back to the Word of God and abide by its principles, or else abandon it. He thinks he does neither when he speaks of using the Bible as a source of ideas...ideas about what? Ideas about how to govern that do not include the Law of God as the legal code, that is all he's left with. Such societies do so at their peril.

This notion of theonomy being a way of thinking vs autonomy is not a new notion at all, but in fact got a major shot in the arm as an issue during the Renaissance and Enlightenment as men struggled with new notions of human autonomy without recourse to Christian faith in their knowing process....the implications are devastating and secular philosophy has not recovered, I don't think. It simply abandoned larger worldview considerations for the most part.

In considering these things, Van Til said, "There is no alternative but that of theonomy and autonomy". He was speaking about epistemology. He meant these two words in the latter sense of what I've written above, what you called the "narrow sense". It is, I think, the broadest sense of all.

Given the above, then, I say that neither theonomy nor autonomy are formal, narrow "doctrines" or particular beliefs in the sense of the contemporary debate over civil governance, but rather they are doctrines or beliefs about thinking about anything at all.

When Christ speaks to the Church in Laodicea, he invites them, not to autonomy, but so close to him in their thinking that he likens it to sitting and eating with him, the one who "also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne." (Rev 3:21) When the churches did not follow Gods law, he rebuked them, "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches." (Rev 3:22).

Consider the next Psalm, Psalm 2, which switches scenes from the personal experience of Gods law in chapter 1, to the requirement of all nations on earth....

1Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

2The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,

3Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

4He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.

5Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
...
10Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.

11Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

12Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

I hope this has helped clarify, and add to the thinking about the way of theonomy.