“It is important to note here that this post-millennialism (that Thomas Chalmers embraced) must not be confused with the school of thought known as theonomy or Christian Reconstructionism, which was popularized in America in the 20th century. Thomas Chalmers and Disruption-era Free Church were not interested in a Christianity that was forced on society through the radical imposition of Old Testament civil law. Rather Chalmers believed that the gospel had the power to transform nations and cultures as people came to saving faith in Christ and lived out their faith in the world.”
Chief Scottish Man — p. 141
Finlayson noted that Chalmers was a postmillennialist and then immediately noted that Chalmers was not a postmillennialist like those nasty theonomists. Finlayson then goes on to do a complete hatchet job on theonomy giving a definition that in no way corresponds to reality.
1.) No theonomist has ever been “interested in a Christianity that was forced on society through the radical imposition of Old Testament civil law.” To the contrary theonomists believing the scriptures account of eschatology as summarized in postmillennialism hold that men upon conversion will desire to be ruled by God’s Law and so the antinomianism of Finlayson and the Seminary snobs will come to a blessed end.
2.) However, having said that we recognize that those who remain unconverted in a Christian social order will complain, gripe, and bitch about how they are being ruled by “Christianity that was forced on society through the radical imposition of Old Testament civil law,” just like Finlayson is snorting about in the paragraph above. Of course, they will have that complaint. That is always the complaint of those who are being ruled by God’s just law. What is amazing is to hear a Seminary Prof. agree with the wicked’s complaint.
3.) Let’s just pretend for a moment that what Finlayson complains about was really the case. Let’s pretend that theonomist really were interested in a Christianity that was forced on society through the radical imposition of Old Testament civil law. Even if that were true would that be so bad in light of how the dregs of humanism are being forced on society through the radical imposition of autonomous man’s crafting of positivistic law? Is the forced torture and death of 1 million babies a year in America superior to a pretend forced theonomic order where Doctors and Mothers guilty of presenting their children for abortion would receive the death penalty? Is this current forced humanist order something that Finlayson the antinomian approves of over a forced Christian order that would push the LGBTQ agenda back into the closet, would end Drag Queen Story Hour at our public libraries, and would make adultery a crime again? Only some kind of pervert would reason like Finlayson reasons here.
4.) Let’s keep in mind that King Alfred the Great once upon a time was interested in a Christianity that was forced on society through the radical imposition of Old Testament civil law,” and then demonstrated that by placing in whole chapters from the Pentateuch to be used as the means to govern his Kingdom’s law order. (The famous “Book of Doom.”)
5.) Finlayson seems to think that law is a neutral category. Law always descends from the God or god concept of a people. Show me a people’s laws and I will tell you who the God is of those people. As such Biblical Christians should advocate for only God’s laws to be the law of the nation. What better laws are to be found than God’s laws? If we will not be ruled by God’s laws we will be ruled by the laws of Muslims, Hindus, Satanists, Jews, Atheists, etc.
6.) Finally, Finlayson tells us that;
“Rather Chalmers believed that the gospel had the power to transform nations and cultures as people came to saving faith in Christ and lived out their faith in the world.”
Which is exactly what the Theonomist believes and as such I must conclude that Chalmers was a Theonomist. The only difference between Theonomist and false teachers like Finlayson is that theonomists believe that “living out our faith in the world,” means championing for God’s law being the measure by which all measures are measured.
The fact that this paragraph could find its way into this book demonstrates who fearful the Reformed blue-bloods are of being washed out to sea by the tidal wave of those Reformed rank and file who believe that God’s law is to be preferred over the Shinola we currently have for law in this land. I hope I live to see the Reformed elite washed out to sea.