Setting The Record Straight

Recently I came across a well known Ph.D. bearing false witness against classical Reformed Theology. I thought I would take on his response here.

Below is the question that kicked off his response.

Question,

Just curious: how come no one would personally and publicly debate Greg Bahnsen on theonomy, if theonomy was so obviously wrong that any covenant child could refute?

Answer,

This is an interesting question for a couple of reasons. I see theonomy as a sort of analogue to the FV. Both movements reflect a similar pathology in the Reformed corpus. Both reflect what call the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty.

First, far later in the answer this man admits that FV and theonomy are not synonyms. What he doesn’t mention is that it was a Theonomic denomination that first blew the whistle in official church courts on Federal vision. One must wonder that if a similar “pathology” exists why the Theonomists would bring the Federal Vision up on charges. What this man is trying to accomplish by innuendo is guilt by association.

Second, this man decries religious certainty, which would seem to mean that he doesn’t have religious certainty. I mean how can one fault the quest for religious certainty and embrace religious certainty for oneself? So the objection here is that people should not have the religious certainty that theonomists have. Presumably our objector is certain of that.

The FV is making the doctrine of justification a little more “reasonable,” by reducing the scandal of the cross and the offense of the gospel. As it turns out, we do have a small part in justification! That’s just a little more reasonable than the confessional Protestant alternative. Theonomy represents another side of the same quest. It offers a kind of ethical precision and a kind of ethical authority that reduces ambiguities to certainties and, on its premises, makes Christian ethics a little more “reasonable.” Put the quarter in the slot, pull the handle and out comes the correct ethical answer to one’s particular question. The same spirit that produced the Talmud produced Rush’s Institutes. The same devotion to the rabbis gives us the fascination with Rabbi Rousas, Rabbi Gary, and Rabbi Greg.

Now, I must admit that I don’t see the linkage between religious certainty of Federal Vision that ends up denying the clear teaching of scripture on the sufficiency of Christ and the religious certainty of Theonomy that affirms the clear teaching of scripture on the certainty of Christian ethics. I think our Ph.D. is confused on this point.

Second, this man is disingenuous in the section I have put in bold. I have just finished Bahnsen’s chapter in “God and Politics” and in that chapter Bahnsen admits that determining God’s mind in the application of His Law-Word is hard work that will find disagreement among those who are doing the work. So the idea that it is all as easy as a vending machine is just plain false witness.

Third, note that this man has religious certainty that Theonomists dare not have religious certainty on ethical issues. He is ethically certain that biblical ethics shouldn’t communicate ethical certainty. Irony anyone?

Also, keep in mind that without ethical certainty in Biblical ethics we are inevitably going to be left with a church that is filled with each man doing what is right in his own eyes since uncertainty leaves each man to determine ethics for himself.

Fourth, this man doesn’t like the idea of Biblical Christians coming to determined conclusions regarding Biblical ethics (derisively referring to such men as “rabbis”) and yet, if Biblical Christians don’t arrive at determined conclusions regarding Biblical ethics then somebody else will have to determine the ethics by which the church and christians in the culture live by. I suspect for this man he would prefer Natural Law rabbis such as Rabbi John Dewey, Rabbi Jaques Derrida, and Rabbi Peter Singer as opposed to Rabbi Gary North, Rabbi Greg Bahnsen, and Rabbi R. J. Rushdoony. The point here is that someone is going to have to do the work on determining ethics. Would we prefer that work to be done by God’s men or the men of Natural Law?

Finally, it is despicable in the highest degree for this man to say that the same anti-Christ spirit that produced the talmud is the spirit that energized Rushdoony when he wrote the Institutes. That is a meanness that is beyond mere uncharitableness. That comment is hatred exemplified.

Second, let me question a premise of your question. I’ve been thinking about and dealing with theonomy since you were (probably) a child. I don’t know anyone, even one ardently opposed to theonomy, who thinks that it’s childplay. I am convinced that it’s profoundly wrong, but I’ve never thought it was “easy.” Like the FV, theonomy has to be unravelled and that’s hard work. Further, just as there are varieties of the FV, there are varieties of theonomy. Just as the FV is a moving target, so theonomy was a moving target. Today hardly anyone wants to admit being a theonomist. I half expect someone to deny that Greg was really a theonomist!

Allow me to proffer that the reason that theonomy can’t be unravelled is because it is Biblical Christianity.

Second, it is the case that there are varieties of theonomy, just as there are varieties of R2Kt virus proponents. I mean not even this man is as extreme as Lee and Misty Irons. Diversity in a movement is no proof of it being specious.

Personally though, I don’t think it is difficult at all to unravel R2Kt virus theology — or Natural Law for that matter.

Third, both movements have in common a deep concern for the collapse of the culture and our place in it. Some versions of theonomy/reconstructionism have culture being gradually regenerated through Christian influence and some expect a cataclysm out of which arises a Reconstructionist phoenix. FV wants to regenerate the culture through sacerdotalism (baptismal union). Both are visions of Christendom restored.

All this section is, is a complaint about post-millennialism.

Yes, it’s true that postmillennialists like B.B. Warfield, Jonathon Edwards, and Athanasius thought culture would be gradually influenced through Christian influence. Should they be run out of the Church as well?

Many Reformed men throughout Church history anticipated Christendom (Christ’s Kingdom) being restored. Do a-millennialists, like this man, believe that the notion of Christendom is a notion that should be repented of (yes, he once said that)? Does he mean to suggest that all post-millennialists throughout history need to repent?

These factors help explain why so many theonomists have been attracted to the FV and vice-versa. I realize that not all theonomists are FVists nor are all FVists theonomists and I realize that some theonomic groups have been justly critical of the FV, nevertheless, I regard those arguments as a family fight.

I realize that not all R2Kt advocates are followers of Lee and Misty Irons. I realize some R2Kt advocates have been critical of Lee and Misty Irons, nevertheless, I regard those arguments as a family fight.

The reluctance to debate Greg was grounded in some of the same concerns that folk have about the FV. At first it was regarded as a weird novelty, to which the critics didn’t want to give credibility, and then it was viewed as a threat. The perception of the FV has gone through the same process. At first, no one wanted to take it seriously. It was only after the Kinnaird case that people really began to pay attention (and Kinnaird denies holding the FV, but his relations to the FV weren’t clear a couple of years ago). Now churches are acting to protect themselves against the FV.

The reason people didn’t want to debate Dr. Greg Bahnsen is that he would have kicked their R2Kt virus butts up and down the Debate hall. Don’t let this guy kid you.

Second, a debate of sorts did take place in the literature. Compare the “Theonomy — A Reformed Critique” with “Theonomy an Informed Response” and it becomes dreadfully obvious who won the debate. Read Dr. Ken Gentry’s “Covenantal Theonomy” which was a response to Dr. T. David Gordon’s R2Kt virus writings and it becomes dreadfully obvious who won the debate. Read Dr. Greg Bahnsen as he dissected and dessicated Dr. Meredith Kline’s work on theonomy and it becomes dreadfully obvious who won the debate. Indeed, wherever and whenever the debate has been entered into the Klinean school has been sorely bruised.

Theonomy may be patently wrong, but that doesn’t mean that it’s an easy case to make. Like the FV, theonomy is a huge ball of twine that has to be unwound in multiple directions.

And Theonomists are still waiting for someone to make a dent.

Like theonomy/reconstructionism, FV has strong, colorful leaders.

Is this a fault, an argument for boring leadership, or an admission that the virus types are bland, vanilla, and flat?

Like Doug Wilson, Greg was fast on his feet and a good debater. Greg was a trained philosopher and could be intimidating. That also probably contributed to reluctance to debate him.

LOL… What contributed to reluctance to debate Bahnsen was fear.

Non-theonomic students at WSC, when I was a student, who wanted to enter this presbytery of the OPC lived in mortal terror of being grilled by Greg. He was said to question non-theonomic students ruthlessly on the floor of presbytery unless they had taken private tuition from him! I’m not saying that this is fact, it’s just my recollection of what happened c. 1984-7. I guess theonomists will deny it ever happened. “St Greg could never have done such a thing.”

The R2Kt virus house can only be built by tearing down Bahnsen. This is pettiness to the max.

I also remember Rabbi Gary saying once that if anyone criticized theonomy that he would “bury” them (ala Khrushchev). I got some pretty heated correspondence for daring to offer some mild criticisms of theonomy/reconstructionism in a short dictionary article! Imagine what would happen to one who dared to question one of the Rabbis directly?

If you can’t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.

As Bahnsen believed that Theonomy and Biblical Christianity were synonymous I can no more fault him for defending the faith then I can fault the Apostle Paul for defending the faith against Judaic versions of Christianity.