The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum The Quote By J. Ligon Duncan & The Way Of Theonomy

Greetings theonomists and nontheons,

An online article by Dr. Duncan, "Moses' Law for Modern Government" had a link to this forum so I had to sign up. A friend asked me to read this article and I responded to him on my blog at www.tulipman.wordpress.com. I'm thinking there are some good thinkers around here who wouldn't mind speaking their mind on my blurbage?

I apologize if that article has been beaten to death around here, but rather than get into the myriad of points raised by either Bahnsen or Duncan in their thesis, counter-thesis, etc., I opted for a high level critique of Duncans low-level assumptions. When I read that one sentence, I simply put the paper down and wrote. I was done. It seemed clear. I hope my blog does.

The nontheons, I surmise, have only philosophical pragmatism as the other option for their philosophical foundation and even that is presupposed by that autonomous mind Dr. Van Til railed against. Striking, since we do not presume such folks as Dr. Duncan to take such a tack.

Hope I've whetted your whistle. ;-)

Tulipman
www.barrytme.wordpress.com

Tulipman

Though you haven't received any bites as of yet; you might find the following thread of interest.
https://www.the-highway.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/posts/34802.html
I especially liked to excellent contribution of JEdwards.

Tom

Thanks Tom. Yes, good reading.

JEdwards is definitely a student of Frame (his language bears the flavour of Frame's gentle propriety), while I am more purely a Van Tillian of the Bahsenite persuasion I would say ;-). I learned quite early from the Van Tillians I hung with the be very careful with Frame's approach.

I've only corresponded with John Frame once, over a critique Bahnsen made of Frame's approach to presuppositionalism, but Dr. Frame didn't want to discuss it. He is a very gentle bear compared to Bahnsen IMO, I just think one needs to be guarded with Frame's approach to presuppositionalism, I enjoy a lot of his stuff from RTS downloads at iTunes U, for example.

Funny, but a few of the students I have trained in presuppositionalism have gone on to pummel and thrash atheists, but enjoy the thrill of leaving them stuttering so much they simply walk away at that point. I could have borne a little of Frames genteel-ness and in my teaching stress a bit more, as Van Til did, that evangelism is integral to what we do when we pummel the opposers. Gotta remember that last step, kids ;-) It's funny because it's a trait of Van Til's, and Bahnsen learned it, to have a certain "in your face" approach. An elder in a church I attended was a student of Van Til's, who recollected that one day as he and Van Til were finishing up a discussion, the Dutch Dr. Van Til finished it with, "...and you'll shave that beard off, too, won't you!". You probably would not have heard that from Bahnsen, but I think it's certain you would never hear that from Frame.

Anyway, I just find the perceptibility of inherited traits of the teachers in their students interesting.

I, for example, was trying very hard to be throttled and collected in my approach to Dr. Duncan....bottle the acid and all that. But some of us get perturbed as we see Christians, who ought to know better, carry the baby all the way and then throw it out with the bathwater.

Schaeffer is, as JEdwards notes, definitely "presuppositionalism lite", which is an interesting phrasing because it is quite how a Frame-trained presupper would say it I think....to me Schaeffer just plain misses the most powerful point of the presuppositional approach to epistemology altogether, treating it like another option among the various approaches to knowledge that one could take (from his still-excellent book "How Should We Then Live?"). But it is not that. I grant it's very, very tricky for a Christian to pick up, because we constantly assume it and so it's just so familiar.

Aside from that, stellar fellow also.

Thanks again,

Tulipman

Frankly I can't believe someone is bringing up that old chestnut I had thought it had been done to death and gone away. But if you want to be theonomic by all means go ahead I for one can't take it serious anymore.

Well Peter, all I can say is that when I became too serious for too long about anything I eventually dropped it. If we can't have fun and enjoy theology, eschatology, theonomy, or collecting baseball cards and these suddenly become just "serious" to us then we've lost something, for sure.

I find the greatest enjoyment of the Christian worldview in it's vast coherence. My joy is in searching out apparent conflict and contradiction and chasing it like it's a zany grouse running from my shotgun (sorry, hunting season is open, just another coherent add-on).

So in that little matter of earths governance 'neath the claim of the Sovereign One enthroned, I suppose I still get a little giddy, jutting His words into this time and this space, too. Therein lay the fun; it fits. Like a puzzle. One more piece.

I try to show readers that to think Christianly on matters concerning government there is indeed a Christian way of thinking, and that thinking goes by a certain name. And if that name is all tangled up in somebody's seriousness because they were vexed by it for too long, then maybe it's time for a new name because how it matters and how it's true hasn't changed one bit, despite experiences.

For the record, I know several people for whom the chestnut is brand new.

So I encourage you to keep looking into the matter, but don't forget to have fun ;-) Maybe in not taking it seriously anymore, it'll matter to you again?

Barry

No I think Sam Waldron's assessment made up my mind years ago. If your interested you can read it here: Theonomy a Reformed Baptist Assessment

Yes, I'm aware of his article and I intend to answer Dr. Waldron on my blog on a portion of his paper, since I can dispense with his arguments regarding postmillenialism (I'm not a postmillenialist).

Well I am (the few, the proud, the postie) but I still think his argument is sound. Oh and just to make it clear I am a non-theonomic postmillenialist which I believe is the proper postie position.

You might find my latest blog entry the "Theonomic Way vs. Postmillenialism" of some interest then (www.faithtoreason.wordpress.com). I don't think you'll agree with it much, except that for different completely reasons we come to entirely the same conclusion ;-), but it's still interesting that a non-postmillenarian theonomist and non-theonomic postmillenialist both agree that the two are incompatible.

I might hazard a guess to say that you are seeing theonomy as a doctrine and not as a way of thinking, but take a look at my little article...interested to hear your thoughts.

Barry

Barry

To quote your article's first paragraph:
"Postmillenialism is incompatible with theonomy. Theonomy is not a doctrine or a belief; it is, in short, thinking that is governed by the word of the Christian God or, in long version, that Gods word is the sole, supreme, unchallengeable standard for the actions and attitudes of all mankind, whereas postmillenialism is an eschatological (end times) doctrine. This is not what makes them incompatible; this is just something that makes them different types of things."

How is Theonomy not a doctrine or a belief? It seems to me that your description of what Theonomy is a doctrine itself. The question to me is whether it is biblical or not.
All true Christians are Theonomists in what I would call the narrow sense of the word. Meaning that if Christ is Lord of their lives, they are putting off their old selves and putting on Christ as they learn from Scripture to put it in into practice.
I am reminded of Psalm 1:1-3.
1 Blessed is the man
Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly,
Nor stands in the path of sinners,
Nor sits in the seat of the scornful;
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
And in His law he meditates day and night.
3 He shall be like a tree
Planted by the rivers of water,
That brings forth its fruit in its season,
Whose leaf also shall not wither;
And whatever he does shall prosper.

Tom

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.

Tulipman
Although I certainly plan on studying this matter further, at this point I think I have stretched as much out of myself as I can.
I find the matter extremely hard to wrap my mind around; therefore it would probably be best for me just to be a learner and perhaps ask the odd question if I need to.

It would appear that there doesn't seem to be all that much interest in discussing this matter further. This is ok because there is a point when further discussion is no longer fruitful. But, that doesn't mean that I don't think a lot of what you said makes sense.

This issue sure isn’t black and white.

Tom

Barry, I hope you don't mind me calling you that, I have a question for you: What is the dominant eschatology of the founders of Theonomy?

Maybe I should be a little clearer, the dominant eschatology of the Christian Reconstructionests?

The eschatology of most American Christian Reconstructionists is postmillenialism.
-Bary

So while Theonomy doesn`t have to be postmillenial in its eschatology as a general rule the founders of the system did hold to that view and attributed their view of the civil law as finding its fulfilment in the postmillenial eschatology.