Paul Castelleno (PC)
(Who in another post from this thread reminded everyone he was a graduate of Westminster East.)
“The reason that there is such antipathy towards theonomy, at least from the conversations I’ve had with Historically Reformed people is:
a) Theonomy is the flip side of Dispensationalism – Dispys’ make too much of a distinction between the Church and Israel and theonomists draw virtually no distinction at all.”
Bret (who is not a graduate of Westminster) responds,
This is the kind of statement that one would expect to find coming from an enemy of Theonomists. It is on the same level of the accusations against the early Church that because they took communion they were cannibals.
It is ridiculous to suggest that Theonomy makes virtually no distinction between the Church and Israel. Have you been to a Church service conducted by a Theonomist where he made a sacrifice? Have you been to a Church service conducted by a Theonomist where he insisted that he was a Priest?
What is at the core of this fallacious charge? Could it be that at the core of this fallacious charge is PC’s latent antinominaism? The only reason that Theonomy is scurrilously accused of making virtually no distinction between Israel and the Church is because, unlike antinomianism, Theonomy takes God’s third use of the Law seriously.
PC
“b) Though Bahnsen, Rushdoony, North, et al, have tried, there is no rationally, Biblically, theologically, consistent exegesis that has demonstrated the viability of theonomy today.”
Bret responds,
That a graduate of Westminster could write something like this is absolutely mind numbing. Has he never heard of Bahnsen’s Theonomy and Christian Ethics? Now of course our earnest Westminster grad will insist that this has been refuted … but by whom? Who was convinced by the refutation? The antinomians? Certainly not the Theonomists. J. Ligon Duncan has tried his hand at refutation but his refutation has been itself refuted. There is tons of rationally, Biblically, theologically, consistent exegesis that has demonstrated the viability of theonomy today.
PC
“c) When theonomists require Old Covenant Jewish casuistry and penal sanctions to be a part of the New Covenant, they generally give us the impression that they re-interpret what and how God manifests His grace in the New Covenant. Theonomy gives the impression that there is no recognition of the fact that the Old Covenant was a Bloody Covenant and the New Covenant is a Bloodless Covenant (post crucification of course).”
Bret Responds,
This is the kind of statement that we could expect from a Marcionite. Implicit in this statement is a challenge to God’s immutability. Underlying this statement is the idea that in the OT God was a meanie but in the NT God changed and is now a kinder and Gentler God. So whereas in Paul’s (b) we had implicit antinomianism in Paul’s (c) we have latent Marcionism.
And while not trying to be too snarky you’d think that somebody that touts his Westminister pedigree would know how to spell “C-R-U-C-I-F-I-X-I-O-N.”
Are we to seriously believe that all because Theonomist suggest that God’s penology should still apply that some how proves that Theonomy believes that the New and Better covenant is still a covenant that requires ongoing blood rights in order to have communion w/ God? By this reasoning anybody who believes in any capital punishment at all could be accused of not recognizing the fact that the Old Covenant is a blood covenant and the new covenant is bloodless. Really, this statement betrays more than a large dollop of ignorance.
PC
“d) What eventually arises when one has protracted conversations with theonomists (in my experience) is a type of evangelism via execution! The long suffering and patience of God – allowing unbelievers to heap judgment upon their own heads – seems to give way to immediate, divine retribution and judgment. Which makes one wonder, what then did Jesus accomplish after all if there is no propitiating God at these points?”
Bret Responds,
This is nothing but slander. This is nothing but a violation of the ninth commandment. Does our Westminster graduate really believe that Theonomists believe in evangelism by execution? Once again, if this reasoning is pressed then we must never execute for fear of violating the long suffering and patience of God. Notice the implicit Marcionism again. In the OT God was not patient and long suffering but in the NT now God is patient and long suffering.
No Theonomist wants divine retribution and judgment to be any more or less immediate than it has ever been.
In the final italicized question in (d) above we find ourselves asking when did the Reformed Church go liberal? Does the writer really believe that Jesus propitiated the sins of criminals that commit capital crimes so that capital crimes don’t have to be visited with the sword because Jesus already took the penalty for the consequences of sinners who commit capital crimes?
Finally, how long would our Westminster graduate suggest that sinners should be allowed to heap judgment on their own heads until their capital crimes are visited with punishment. How many repeat offenses of capital crimes must we turn the other cheek over before we actually visit the crimes with their revealed penalties? Some details here would be nice to have.
PC
“e) Lastly (and I can go on), it appears to wreak havoc with any Reformed notion of Common Grace.”
Bret responds,
Gary North has written extensively on this subject affirming Common grace in the sense that God gives gifts to the reprobate though denying that God overall the gifts turn out to show God’s favor. Besides, there are whole tribes of Reformed Christians who deny Common Grace. Has the embrace of Common grace now become a shibboleth that one must speak in order to be considered Reformed?
If I were to reason as our Westminster Grad has reasoned I might say something like … “Embracing Common Grace wreaks havoc w/ any Reformed notion of being Reformed.
“c) When theonomists require Old Covenant Jewish casuistry and penal sanctions to be a part of the New Covenant, they generally give us the impression that they re-interpret what and how God manifests His grace in the New Covenant. Theonomy gives the impression that there is no recognition of the fact that the Old Covenant was a Bloody Covenant and… See More the New Covenant is a Bloodless Covenant (post crucification of course).”
Non-theonomists fail to understand the nature of Law. If we aren’t using casuisty to apply the O.T. Law, then we will be using casuistry to try and interpret the laws of men, which have their foundation in what, exactly? Even Calvin, who was not fully freed from medieval and classical Roman legal notions of natural law still recognize that these laws had to be sanctioned by God’s Law, expressed in the 10 Commandments. Once we see that the penology of the civil laws of OT are derived directly from the 10 Commandments, SOME version of theonomy is confirmed as the Biblical view, Q.E.D.
The Church is simply too comfortable in the pagan culture and the laws it has manifested to stand up for the abrasive holiness of God’s Law that stands in judgment over that culture and its perversions of law.
“Historically Reformed”… LOL!
To Paul Castellano in case you happen by again:
I’d be interested in knowing what you actually did say to Peter Otajian concerning your view on theonomy. Since we’re talking about our own experiences, it is my experience that posts such as yours, with references to “it seems” and “apparently” or “I’ve heard from others” are only used to veil one’s own criticisms. Now it’s possible that such is not the case with you. And if it’s not the case I’d have no problem offering an apology.
To those who asked – specifically in this case, Mark – the following is what I said to Peter Otajian, expressly, concerning theonomy (you can verify with him if you don’t believe me):
“I think, at some level, all of us in the Reformed camp have a certain sympathy with theonomy. After all, we all recognize that there is only God’s law! Everything else is sheer Divine Anarchy and treason.
We disagree on how we are to understand the application of God’s law. This is an area we should vigorously debate in love, since we begin at the same point – the sovereign God of the universe.”
So, no, my statements weren’t my own veiled criticism’s. As you can see, MY only comments on theonomy are: I’m in sympathy and we disagree on how to apply God’s law. I’ve read “Theonomy in Christian Ethics”; “By No Other Standard”; “Institutes of Biblical Law”; “Law and Society”; as well as the numerous tangential works by these authors that ‘touch’ on theonomy, to name a few: “Intellectual Schizophrenia”; “Dominion and Common Grace”; “Theonomy: An Informed Response”; and, “Foundations for Christian Scholarship”; so I don’t express my sympathy or disagreement “ignorantly.” I simply want the best and most thorough going exegetical, theological, systematic debate as possible – without degenerating into the type of slander that Mr. McAtee engaged in with me. Accusing me of, some how, presenting an antinomian and Marcionite position. All the while never knowing what my position actually is. Attempting to derive some technical, theological position from a causal answer to a personal question. I would hope that from here on out there would be more integrity demonstrated in future interactions with others.
I pray that this will demonstrate the need for a more perspicuous, reasoned, charitable, and of course ACCURATE dialog in these matters. If this is the type of interaction one can expect on the internet when attempts to simply answer a question, there is no use for this format – for me at least. There is far too much interest in the “gotcha” mentality; as well as to IMMEDIATELY find fault or error in what one says, rather than giving the benefit of the doubt to the opponent and finding out, by precise, incisive questioning what your opponent actually does believe. THEN, one it has been determined you know our opponents position, critics are appropriate.
Oh, one more thing on being accurate and having the ability to carefully and analytically understand what one reads – I never stated ANYWHERE that I graduated from WTS East; in point of fact, I graduated from WTS in CA – not that that matters much. Again, the reference to WTS was only for the sake of proximal location – i.e., that’s where I heard these things.
Anyway, I’ve spent far too much time on this. From my perspective, this issue is over. I have papers to grade.
Fr. Paul A. F. Castellano
Fr. Paul A. F. Castellano
If you don’t want to be slandered then were I you I wouldn’t pass on slander as somehow qualifying for informed criticism. You somehow think that if you use all the academic “weasel words” like “seems,” “virtually,” “gives the impression,” “some have suggested,” etc. that that somehow relieves you of your own slander. It doesn’t. Your original post on this subject was pure slander and it will give you no relief from now somehow acting as if you’re the victim in all this. Those criticisms that you passed on of Theonomy are criticisms that smack of antinomianism, Marcionism, and gnosticism.
I thank you for attempting to clear this up. And I thank you for your attempt to retreat from your original position communicated as “just what I’ve heard from other smart people.” I promise in the future that should you not pass on violations of the 9th commandment I will not deal so roughly with you.
Enjoy your papers.
To those who asked – specifically in this case, Mark – the following is what I said to Peter Otajian, expressly, concerning theonomy (you can verify with him if you don’t believe me):
“I think, at some level, all of us in the Reformed camp have a certain sympathy with theonomy. After all, we all recognize that there is only God’s law! Everything else is sheer Divine Anarchy and treason.
We disagree on how we are to understand the application of God’s law. This is an area we should vigorously debate in love, since we begin at the same point – the sovereign God of the universe.”
Thanks for taking the time to post. The quote above would have been sufficient and I’d have been happier had you ended with that. I’ll ignore the rest of what you’ve written and offer an apology on the basis of the above.
Mark
There is a difference between being well read and having read well.