Grudem’s Gross Caricature of Theonomy

“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

The Voice Of God Among Men

“The minister must remind himself in a lively manner that God has sent him, that he ascends the pulpit as an ambassador of God, speaks in the name of God, and is as the mouth of the Lord unto the congregation.”

~ Wilhelmus á Brakel (1635-1711), The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 2, p. 138

“For in hearing us, you gave such heed, as if not hearing men, but as if God Himself were exhorting you.”

~ Chrysostom on I Thessalonians 2:13

“Yes it is I who admonish, I who order, I who command, it is the bishop who teaches. But…… it is Christ who commands through me.” “The preacher explains the text; if he says what is true, it is Christ speaking.”

~ St. Augustine — Bishop Of Hippo
Fourth Century Theologian

“Flesh and blood are an impediment. They merely behold the person of the pastor and brother … They refuse to regard the oral Word and the ministry as a treasure costlier and better than heaven and earth. People generally think: ‘If I had an opportunity to hear God speak in person, I would run my feet bloody’ … But you now have the Word of God in church … and this is God’s Word as surely as if God Himself were speaking to you.”

~ Martin Luther
16th Century Reformation Theologian

“When the Prophet says, by the breath of his lips, this must not be limited to the person of Christ; for it refers to the Word which is preached by his ministers. Christ acts by them in such a manner that He wishes their mouth to be reckoned as his mouth, and their lips as his lips; that is, when they speak from his mouth, and faithfully declare his Word (Luke 10:16)” (Comm. on Isa. 11:4).

~ John Calvin
16th Century Reformation Theologian

“Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe that the very Word of God is preached, and received of the faithful; and that neither any other Word of God is to be feigned, nor to be expected from heaven: and that now the Word itself which is preached is to be regarded, not the minister that preaches; who, although he be evil and a sinner, nevertheless the Word of God abides true and good.”

~ Second Helvetic Confession (1566)

Question — “What is required of those that hear the word preached?”

Answer — “It is required of those that hear the word preached, that they attend upon it with diligence, preparation, and prayer; examine what they hear by the scriptures; receive the truth with faith, love, meekness, and readiness of mind, as the word of God …”

~ Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. & A. 160

“First, when you come to hear the Word, if you would sanctify God’s name, you must possess your souls with what it is you are going to hear, that what you are going to hear is the Word of God. It is not the speaking of a man you are going to attend, but you are now going to attend upon God and to hear the Word of the Eternal God … Therefore you find that the Apostle, writing to the Thessalonians, gives them the reason why the Word did them as much good as it did. It was because they heard it as the Word of God, I Thess. 2:13 … Mark, so it came effectually to work because they received it as the Word of God. Many times you will say, ‘Come, let us go hear a man preach.’ Oh no, let us go hear Christ preach, for as it concerns the ministers of God that they preach not themselves, but that Christ should preach in them, so it concerns you that hear not to come to hear this man or that man, but to come to hear Jesus Christ” (Gospel Worship, p. 200).

~ Jeremiah Burroughs
17th Century Puritan Theologian / Member of the Westminster Assembly

“It is not only man preaching, as he says to the Thessalonians in I Thessalonians 2:13: You listened, he says to them, and you realized it was not merely the word of man but it was indeed what it actually is, the Word of God. This is his preaching, and this should be true of our preaching” .

~ D. M. Lloyd-Jones — 20th Century Reformed Preacher & Theologian
Knowing the Times, p. 276

“… Christ is represented as being heard in the gospel when proclaimed by the sent messengers. The implication is that Christ speaks in the gospel proclamation.”

John Murray — 20th Century Reformed Theologian
Commentary – Romans 10:14

“Through the preaching it pleases God through Christ, the exalted Lord, the chief prophet of God, who alone gathers his church, to speak to his people unto salvation. This is evident from Romans 10:14, which, according to the original, asks, ‘How shall they believe in him whom they have not heard?’ Through the preaching, therefore, you do not hear about Christ, but you hear him. The difference is easily understood. When you hear about or of someone, he is not present. You do not hear his own voice, but the voice of someone else who tells you something about him. But when you hear someone, you hear his own voice. He is present with you. He is addressing you personally. This is the sense of Romans 10:14, which teaches that you cannot believe in Christ unless you have heard him speak to you, unless you have heard his word addressed to you. This is exactly the meaning of the words, ‘How shall they believe in him whom they have not heard?'”

~ Herman Hoeksema — 20th Century Reformed Theologian
Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2, p. 289

“A true sermon is an act of God, and not a mere performance by man. In real preaching the speaker is the servant of the Word & God speaks & works by the Word through his servant’s lips … The sermon is God’s ordained means of speaking and working.”

~ J. I. Packer
20th Century Anglican Theologian

Preaching has fallen on hard times. Part of that reason for this is that we are decreasingly a word oriented culture and as such it is difficult for us to follow even the best 30-45 minute oral presentations. Another problem we have that mitigates against the rise of strong preachers and preaching is our cultures lack of willingness to hear an authoritative word. We largely live in a “each man does is what is right in his own eyes” culture and as such preaching will not be taken seriously because it cuts against our resistance to any authority besides our own. Another reason for this is that preachers, having been educated in government schools and that combine with their having been saturated in our culture Preachers have lost the ability to think (and so speak) outside of and in opposition to our dominant cultural paradigm.

Education Analogy

If you want to flavor Kobe Beef Tenderloin you marinate it letting it soak up the flavor of the marinade in which you place it. Everybody knows this. What people seem to have trouble understanding is that when a child is put in government schools for 13 years you are marinating that child in a humanistic marinade and like your Kobe Beef Tenderloin marinated in an orange and onion marinade that child is going to graduate exuding the humanistic marination with which he or she was saturated.

Taking On Alan Keyes Nonsense

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=204865%20%20Keyes%20on%20banning%20Muslims%20from%20America

TAKING AMERICA BACK 2010

Moratorium on Muslim immigrants?
Radical solution to homeland insecurity stirs controversy at conference

A proposal on how to stop the spread of Islam in the U.S., suggested from the floor at WND’s “Taking America Back” conference in Miami, Fla., stirred a rousing response from the audience but received an even more impassioned reply from the platform.

“I propose a moratorium on Islamic immigration and mosque construction in the U.S.,” an unidentified attendee suggested during a panel discussion on Islam, “until the Quran is scrubbed of its passages that are incompatible with our Constitution.” (1)

The audience responded in spontaneous applause.

But the panel on stage gave a surprising response that quickly made the audience rethink its enthusiasm.

“The moratorium would be forever,” (2) stated William Murray, chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition, warning the audience that asking Muslims to scrub their scriptures was unreasonable.

Keynote speaker Alan Keyes took admonition of the audience one step further.

“One word of caution,” Keyes said. “We get into a defensive position as Americans because we have forgotten our own roots.” (3)

Reminding those assembled for his speech the night before – in which he contended America owes its liberties, prosperity, rights and democratic republic government under the Constitution to dependence upon and submission to God as declared in the Declaration of Independence (4) – Keyes asserted that any immigrants of any faith who come to America’s shores should find a land brimming with irresistible, life-changing freedom, enabled by the principles of Christianity.(5)

“If we’re in a situation where we’re afraid to have Muslims come to our nation,” Keyes stated, “it is because we have forgotten that when they get here they’re supposed to find a society based upon God.” (6)

He continued, “The U.S. is not a fortress intended to put up battlements around a Christian enclave. Christianity’s message is to spread the gospel, not contain it. … We shouldn’t be afraid, we should be eager. It would save us the trouble of having to go over there to evangelize them. That’s the spirit that founded this country in the first place.” (7)

With the audience visibly stirred by his challenge, Keyes gave a final, impassioned point:

“I think we’ve become timid, cowards. We’ll hide faith under a bushel?” he asked. “I don’t think that’s the road I want to go down.” (8)

Applause erupted from his listeners again, this time even louder than before.

1.) In 1890 Mormons scrubbed their religion of polygamy so that they could gain statehood. If Mormons were required to drop the offending parts of their religion in order to be Americans why shouldn’t Muslims be required to do the same? If it was not unreasonable to require Mormons to conform to the Constitution why would it be unreasonable for Muslims to conform to the Constitution?

2.) If the moratorium ended up being forever, whose fault would that be?

3.) We have forgotten our own roots? We have forgotten that we came here from Muslim countries with forbears practicing the Muslim faith?

4.) The god that the Muslims submit to is a different god then the God who is mentioned in the US Declaration of Independence. The liberties, prosperity, rights and Federal republic government under the Constitution are what they are because of the God that Americans were submitting to when the Constitution was accepted. Muslims don’t submit to that God. Since Muslims don’t submit to that God, can they sustain and support the liberties that that God provided?

5.) Can America’s shores long support large and sustained influx of peoples who hate the principles of Christianity which brim the land with irresistible, life-changing freedom? People who have faiths that hate Christianity are likely to overthrow the principles of Christianity for the principles of their own pagan faiths.

6.) Who is Keyes kidding? It has been decades since our society has been based upon the God of the Bible. A society based upon God … Abortion? A society based upon God … Homosexual Marriage? A society based upon God … women in the military? A society based upon God … banning the God of the Bible from the public square?

7.) (a) If we put battlements around this country the result would not be a Christian enclave but a religious Humanist enclave.

(b) I am convinced that the purpose of open door immigration is to dilute the Christian influence in this country so that Christians are forbidden from spreading their gospel message.

(c) Eagerness is an odd emotion to have when envisioning one’s country being swamped with people of other faiths who are eager to stamp out Christianity.

(d) The Spirit that founded this country was the spirit of Christians fleeing from being surrounded by people who hated them in order to establish Christian commonwealths. The spirit of the early Puritans pushed out Quakers who desired to upset their established commonwealths.

(e) It would be one thing if we were absorbing insignificant numbers of people of other faiths that hate Christianity. It is the case instead that we are being asked to absorb large numbers of people while encouraging them to build their religious houses and insisting that the Christian faith can not be given any sanction higher than the Christian hating immigrant’s faith.

(f) I would say that Dr. Keyes words are indicative that Dr. Keyes has a need to be evangelized.

8.) (a) Actually, I think it is Dr. Keyes who is the timid coward. Dr. Keyes is so timid that he is not willing to say that hyper-pluralism has been an absolute disaster for this country. Dr. Keyes is such a coward he will not tear down the idol of multi-culturalism. The people who disagree with Keyes have such great faith that they are willing to say that we need to evangelize our fellow countrymen first before we take on even more Christ haters who will work to overthrow the Christian faith.

(b) Keyes accuses people who disagree with him of “hiding their faith under a bushel.” It is hiding faith under a bushel by insisting that those who hate Christianity shouldn’t be allowed to swamp this country? That is a funny definition of hiding faith under a bushel.

Obama’s Speech To The Congressional Hispanic Caucus

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/09/21/obama_mexicans_were_here_long_before_america_was_even_an_idea.html

There is so much wrong with this 85 second clip it is difficult to detail it all.

1.) Notice the pronoun “We,” and the way Obama uses this pronoun. The “We” has Obama identifying with the pre-American Indians, Mexicans, and Colonial Europeans over against Americans. Obama has embraced a narrative where he identifies more closely with the pre-American inhabitants of this country than he does those people who actually were Americans. The inhabitants that Obama is identifying with in his “We” statements are the inhabitants that the Americans had to contend against in order to become a nation and in order to keep their nation.

2.) When Obama finally turns his pronouns to America (“What made ‘us’ all Americans …) the usage is to identify the pre-American inhabitants as the true America. (Remember … Obama is speaking before a Hispanic organization.) The true America is the outgrowth of the original America that existed before the idea of America.

3.) Obama mentions that all these groups … “Shared the same land.” Knowing Obama’s lean I can’ t help but wonder if this is a swipe at the European understanding of owning land. Before the mean evil Europeans showed up with ideas of land ownership the original peoples shared the land. Certainly, Obama’s convictions are that private property is counter-productive.

4.) Obama says that before America was even an idea that this was the shared land of Mexicans. Before America was an idea would have had to be some time before 1776. Mexico became a country in 1810. You do the math, because Obama clearly cannot.

5.) Obama insists on the idea that America is a proposition nation. Obama says that America was made because of shared values that we (the pre-America “We”) hold so dear. Here is the problem. I am willing to bet that I don’t share any values with this man or with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. As such, either they aren’t Americans are I am not an American. I’m guessing that they think it is yours truly who is not an American since I don’t share their values.

6.) Obama then quotes from the Declaration of Independence (that same Declaration of Independence that referred to his earlier mentioned Indian tribes as “savages”) but he leaves out a key phrase in his quote. He leaves out the phrase … “Endowed by their Creator,” and quotes the Declaration of Independence as if it doesn’t make reference to a “Creator.” It is very difficult to believe that this was just an “oversight.” It is more in keeping with the little things this man does and says to show contempt for the country.

7.) Obama zeroes in on “equality.” But of course it is not the “equality” which the Founders believed, but it is the “equality” of the French Revolution. It is the equality of sameness.