Category: God’s Abiding Law

“But then there were other judicial laws, which were founded on the light of nature, on reason, and on justice and equity, and these remain in full force ; and they must be wise as well as righteous laws, which were made by God himself, thei…r King and legislator, as they are said to be, Deut. iv. 6, 8. And they are, certainly, the best constituted and regulated governments that come nearest to the commonwealth of Israel, and the civil laws of it, which are of the kind last described; and where they are acted up unto, there what is said by Wisdom is most truly verified, By me kings reign, and princes decree judgment; and if these laws were more strictly attended to, which respect the punishment of offences, especially capital ones, things would be put upon a better footing than they are in some governments, and judges, in passing sentences, would be able to do that part of their office with more certainly and safety, and with a better conscience.

And whereas the commonwealth of Israel was governed by these laws for many hundreds of years, and needed no other in their civil polity, when, in such a course of time, every case that ordinarily happens, must arise, and be brought into a court of judicature; I cannot but be of opinion, that a digest of civil laws might be made out of the Bible, the law of the Lord that is perfect, either as lying in express words in it, or to be deduced by the analogy of things and cases, and by just consequence, as would be sufficient for the government of any nation; and then there would be no need of so many law books, nor of so many lawyers; and perhaps there would be fewer law-suits.”

John Gill
Body of Divinity

HT — Darrell Dow

“There is a view among a few Christians today in the United States today called theonomy. It is also called Christian Reconstructionism; sometimes dominion theology. Critics have labeled it dominionism which has echoes of ‘Jihadism.’ I will use the term theonomy which is the general term used in theological critiques of this movement. Theonomists argue that the OT laws God gave to Israel in the Mosaic covenant should be the pattern for civil laws used in the nations today.”

Wayne Grudem
Politics According To The Bible

1.) Theonomy and Reconstructionism are not synonyms. Theonomy is to Reconstuctionism what jet engines are to passenger jet airliners. Theonomy is an aspect of Reconstructionism just as jet engines are an aspect to passenger jet airliners but just as a jet airliner is more than just the jet engines so Reconstructionism is more than just Theonomy. Because this is true it is entirely possible for someone to be a Theonomist without being a Reconstructionist. (Whether they can be so consistently is a entirely different question.) Reconstructionism includes Theonomic principles but it also includes postmillennial eschatology, particular views on culture beyond just theonomy’s guidance on law, set hierarchical convictions on social order considerations, set views on theological issues like common grace and often some kind of patrio-centric views on family.

Grudem clearly is out of his depth here on this quote as seen by his inability to make the kind of distinctions made above. Theonomy is very narrowly concerned about civil law order for society while Reconstructionism has far broader macro cultural concerns. All Reconstructionists are theonomists (I think) but not all theonomists are Reconstructionists.

2.) Critics say all kinds of stupid things. For Grudem to include the jab comparing Reconstructionism to Jihadism in his book is outrageous. How many Reconstructionists do you know of since 1970 who have been suicide bombers? How many Reconstructionists do you know since 1970 who have hijacked Airplanes and have demanded to be flown to the Reconstructionists equivalent of Syria? How many Reconstructionists do you know since 1970 who have killed people for burning a copy of Rushdoony’s Institutes? To include this fatuous comparison to Jihadism (even if it is only “echoes”) is beyond the pale and requires the strongest possible rebuke.

3.) As we have seen theonomy is not the general term. Theonomy is very narrowly concerned with applying the general equity of the case laws of the Old Testament to a Nations civil law order. It is a theology that has been advocated, in one form or another, ever since the Reformation.

4.) The thing that is so maddening about Grudem’s position is that he critiques Theonomy negatively and then later on his book turns around and quotes OT law that prohibits incest. Now, if Grudem views the central premise of Theonomy — the abiding validity of all God’s law for all time unless specifically rescinded at a later point in revelation’s account of the History of Redemption — then how can he consistently appeal to that central premise later in his book in order to find support for the outlawing of incest? If the OT case law is no longer valid then what matters it what the OT says when it comes to incest?

For a discussion on this subject see

Not Imposing Christianity Through National Law

I will be the first to admit that John Calvin’s position on the abiding validity of the judicial laws of God is nuanced and even sometimes complicated. I offer these quotes in order to reveal that Calvin said things (many things actually) that indicate that he can not be seriously claimed as R2Kt by those adherents. Were one to read Calvin’s Sermons on Deuteronomy they would read many of the same kind of material.

“They will reply, possibly, that the civil government of the people of Israel was a figure of the Spiritual Kingdom of Jesus Christ and lasted only until his coming. I will admit to them that, in part, it was a figure, but I deny that it was nothing more than this, and not w/o reason. For in itself it was a political government, which is a requirement among all people. That such is the case, it is written of the Levitical priesthood that it had come to an end and be abolished at the coming of our Lord Jesus (Heb. 7:12ff.) Where is it written that the same is true of the external order? It is true that the scepter and government were to come from the tribe of Judah and the house of David, but that the government was to cease is manifestly contrary to Scripture.”

John Calvin
Treatise against the Anabaptists and against the Libertines

“But it is questioned whether the law pertains to the kingdom of Christ, which is spiritual and distinct from all earthly dominion; and there are some men, not otherwise ill-disposed, to whom it appears that our condition under the Gospel is different from that of the ancient people under the law; not only because the Kingdom of Christ is not of this world, but because Christ was unwilling that the beginning of His Kingdom should be aided by the sword. But, when human judges consecrate their work to the promotion of Christ’s Kingdom, I deny that on that account it nature is changed. For, although, it was Christ’s will that His Gospel should be proclaimed by His disciples in opposition to the power of the whole world, and He exposed them armed w/ the Word alone like sheep among wolves, He did not impose on Himself an eternal law that He should never bring Kings under his subjection, nor tame their violence, nor change them from being cruel persecutors into the patrons and guardians of His Church.”

John Calvin
Commentaries on the Last four Books of Moses.

These quotations demonstrate that thenomists are correct in looking to Calvin for historical Reformed precedent for their commitment to God’s judicials.

It is true that the first use of the law is still applicable to the Christian. The Christians hears the law and realizes his need for Christ and realizing that Christ is his only hope for what the law requires he rises in gratitude that Christ has given him a salvation that not be can improved upon to live an increasingly, though a never perfectly obedient life. The believer, living in the Spirit, walks in the Spirit, as they take heed to what God requires of His people as it comes to us via the third use of the law. We must never give up either the first use or the third use of the law for the Christian. To give up the first use would make us legalists trusting in our own performance instead of Christ’s performance for us. To give up the third use would make us antinomian, denying that we’ve been called to be a Holy people.

Bud Powell objects,

Did you read what I wrote, Bret? The law has the same relation to sanctification as it has to justification, by it is the knowledge of sin. But the thermometer does not cure the fever. Only Christ can cure. Moses points to Christ; Christ does not point to Moses, for when we have come to Him, we have come to the fullness of God.

A good work is one done in faith, according to the law of God, and for the glory of God as the HC says. But what has this to do with the heart? Until you can show me that good works sanctify and melt the hard heart, I will not subscribe to the idea that grace justifies and the law sanctifies.

But as I said before, good luck with this idea. It has been tried before with the same results. The flesh always produces the same fruit. I put on Christ and put off Adam; I don’t put off Adam so I can put on Moses.”

Bret responds,

Bud,

No one is saying that the law is a cure for sin in the life of the redeemed sinner. Obviously that will never do. What is being said is that the grace filled Christians, overflowing w/ gratitude for the redeeming work of Christ move out in Holy Spirit given grace to increasingly become all that they have freely been declared to be. As they increasingly become all that they have freely been declared to be the Spirit, through the preaching of the third use of the law brings to their consciousness how it is that can live in such a way as to please Him, who never ceases to be pleased w/ them for the sake of Christ. Grace and law are not in absolute antithesis for the redeemed believer. It is the work of grace to bring to the believer the law so that he may increasingly conform to Christ and it is the work of grace to cause the believer to understand that his increasingly and never adequate obedience is the consequence of grace and not the cause of grace.

Grace and law are not in absolute antithesis for the believer.

By the way Bud, what do you think of this quote from Westminster Divine Samuel Bolton?

The law sends us to the Gospel that we may be justified; and the Gospel sends us to the law again to inquire what is our duty as those who are justified.

Bud Powell continues the conversation,

But how does Hodge differ from what I said? By the law is the knowledge of sin. But Rushdoony put an antithesis between grace and law, saying that justification is by grace and purpose, sanctification is by law. That is flat wrong, for the law is necessary for justification to bring the knowledge and conviction of sin, and faith and grace is necessary for sanctification. We can no more be sanctified by law-keeping than we can be justified. It confuses cause and effect. Even the holiest of men have only a small beginning in obedience [HC]

Predestination is to be conformed to the image of Christ; is this not sanctification, and is not all of predestination by grace through faith and the renewal of the Holy Ghost? It is the dichotomy in Rush’s words that permeated theonomy that I object to and did years ago.

It is being joined to Christ though HIs Spirit, signified in the broken bread and cup of the Lord Supper, that nourishes my soul to life eternal; that’s why Paul could glory in the Cross of Christ by which he was crucified unto the world and the world unto him [sanctification]. The diagnostic tool is not the cure. The law is diagnostic, bit is the blood of Christ which cleanses us from all sin as we confess. [1John 1–sanctification]

Galatians is emphatically not about an error justification, but an error in sanctification. Are you made perfect by the law? having begun in Christ.

Bret responds,

Bud I think you are not accurate here.

You will have to show me where Rushdoony says that sanctification is by law apart from grace. Peter gives one sentence above but to suggest by this one sentence RJR believed in sanctification by a law that has nothing to do w/ grace is to read to much into one sentence.

Here is one example from Rushdoony that counters your assertion that Rushdoony believed that sanctification was by law apart from grace.

Man’s salvation and sanctification [the process of becoming holy] are acts of God’s grace, not human effort” (Leviticus, p. 54).

Who has denied that faith and grace are necessary for sanctification? Will you deny that sincere though inadequate obedience to God’s law is part of sanctification? We are to put off the old man and put on the new man. Being dead to sin we are not longer to live in sin. The HC does say we have only a small beginning in obedience (but we do begin) but then it goes on to say ‘nevertheless, with earnest purpose Christians do begin to live not only according to some but to all the commandments of God.” Did you forget the second sentence Bud? Sanctification includes the grace to increasingly obey God’s law, and we can’t increasingly obedient if the law is not our standard informing us as to what obedience looks like.

Yes all of predestination is by grace through faith as by the Spirits gracious renewing work within us we increasingly conform to God’s law realizing all the while that even our best obedience must have the righteousness of Christ imputed to it in order to be acceptable before the Father. Your objection is misplaced Bud and your explanations seemingly lead to antinomianism.

Once again in this note you put a antithesis between the work of Christ for me that is outside of me and the work of the Spirit of Christ within me renewing me. The Spirit takes me to Christ to remind me of the unlimited free Grace won for me in His finished work on the Cross and Christ takes me back to the gracious law so as to know how to live for His glory. Christ nourishes my soul to life eternal and being nourished I work out my salvation with fear and trembling by learning what pleases God by meditating on His law both day and night.

Galatians is emphatically an error in justification. If they had believed that they were made perfect by Christ (justification) they would not have tried to be made perfect by the law.

I plead w/ you to re-think your theology. Shall we go on sinning that grace might increase?

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.