Steve Zrimec offered,
“The basic problem in any form of theonomy is that in its ironic striving to show forth faithfulness it actually demonstrates less faith, not more. It has great doubt as to the natural law inscribed by God onto the hearts of all men and that is really good enough to get the world from one day to the next in relatively one piece. This is the religious version of not employing one’s mind, conscience, eyes or feet each day simply because these things fail us all the time. If God endowed us with eyes, however sinful, should we really refuse to look simply because we have astigmatism? I know, I know, special revelation is supposed to be like a pair of glasses. But even spectacles can’t correct for every defect. The problem theonomy is trying to circumvent is sin. But no matter how much special revelation one wants to bring to bear on natural revelation sin will always keep things frustrated.”
The great problem with R2Kt theology is that in its striving to be faithless it succeeds tremendously. It has great confidence in Natural law contradicting its professions of presuppositionalism. Presuppositionalism teaches that man must presuppose God in order to reason aright, and yet R2Kt aficionados want to insist that autonomous man, presupposing and starting from himself can read the natural law quite apart from starting with God. So for the R2Kt guys, man must start with God in the spiritual realm to come to truth but in the natural realm man can start with himself and come to truth. The reality of God thus becomes completely irrelevant for knowledge as it pertains to the common realm. Zrimec is practicing common realm agnosticism.
Second Zrimec should realize that it is God who has called us to Holiness not theonomist. Zrimec, quite possibly because of his pessimistic eschatology (amillenialism) has a significantly under-realized eschatology. For Zrimec sin will always keep things frustrated. Zrimec has sin abounding much more than grace. Zrimec seems to suggest that since sin can’t be circumvented sin shouldn’t be contended against. Since we can’t win why battle?
Finally, Zrimec plainly underestimates the power of God in sanctification.
“Vern has a point. Instead of seeing this as a problem of being “too American,” theonomy actually suffers from way too low a doctrine of human sin. Sure, the last four letters in American are “I Can!” but that only proves that Americanism suffers from the same thing theonomy does.”
Actually, the whole premise of Church and State in America is based upon R2Kt reasoning and so it is R2Kt that reflects the American spirit. In the end the problem with Zrimec is that he suffers from way to low of an estimation of the power of God in sanctification.
Zrim: “theonomy actually suffers from way too low a doctrine of human sin.”
I thought R2Kt suffered from a low view of sin because it assumes that nonbelievers can/will act neutrally when it comes to politics.
Theonomy, by contrast, ALWAYS keeps in mind that nonbelievers are idol worshipers. Which means that they are not neutral.
It’s either worship of the true God or worship of idols. Covenant-keeping or covenant-breaking. Those are the most dominant themes of the Bible, and whoever thinks that they don’t apply to the social/political sphere is kidding themselves.
Scratches head… Can’t figure out what part of “the heart is deceitful above all things” we don’t get.
There are only two options for civil law… God’s Law (Theonomy) or law conceived of by men who are desperately wicked.
How do we hope to contend against a culture in love with death, if we don’t uphold God’s standards for dealing with murderers? By what standard is abortion wrong if not for ‘thus saith the Lord’?
Bret,
Just to clarify, you say:
Am I correct to assume that you are speaking more about the ‘modern’ American premise of C&S? I only question, because even though *some* of the endarkenment was starting to influence America when the constitution was written, but with a majority of the colonies/states with an “established” church, certainly the virus wasn’t a full fledged infection yet. Agreed?
Also, I would refer readers to Bahnsen’s TiCE, to read his chapters on C&S in Israel.
Cheers,
Kazoo
Jeff,
Agreed. Not full fledged but incipient. I think that if the grandparents of the founders had been the founders they would have included a clause including the supremacy of King Christ in the Constitution.