“In the first place, Christian theism maintains that the subject of knowledge owes its existence to God. Accordingly, all its interpretive powers are from God and must therefore be reinterpretive powers. In the second place when the subject of knowledge is to come into contact with the object of knowledge, the connection is possible only because God has laid it there. In other words, the subject-object relation has its validity via God. Theologically expressed, we say the that the validity of human knowledge in general rests upon the testimonium Spiritus Sancti. In addition to this, Christian theism maintains that since sin has come into the world, no subject of knowledge can really come into contact with any object of knowledge, in the sense of interpreting it properly, unless the Scripture give the required light and unless the regeneration of the Spirit give a new power of sight.

In opposition to this, that antitheist holds it to be self-evident that the subject of knowledge exists in its own right and can interpret truly without any reference to God. The ‘natural man’ claims to be able to interpret nature and history properly without the need of any reference to God. The ‘natural man’ claims to be able to interpret nature and history properly without the need of any reference to God, to Scripture, or to regeneration.

It follows from this clear-cut difference, a difference that goes to the bottom so that not a single ‘fact’ or ‘law’ is left for neutral territory, that the one group must naturally regard the other as being blind. Accordingly, it is when the subject-subject relation comes up, that the problem as to what one group thinks of the other group, becomes acute. The reason why Christians have not always been alive to this difficulty is that they have not always been consistent in drawing the distinction between the Christian theistic and the antitheistic system of epistemology clearly and fully. All to often they have allowed a hazy fringe to remain when it came to the question of whether unbelievers really know material facts aright. Christianity has all to often been interpreted in a narrowly soteriological [salvational] fashion.”

Cornelius Van Til
A Survey Of Christian Epistemology — pg. 184-185

For the life of me, I don’t know how R2Kt chaps can claim to be Van Tillian given this kind of quote. Given this kind of language does anybody believe that Van Til would have countenanced the use of Natural law for the common realm?

Zrimec

Says the theonomist. But I wouldn’t expect he who is trying to circumvent human sin to actually admit that he is trying to circumvent human sin. I don’t expect Arminians to admit they undercut grace, nor Romanists to admit they anathematize the gospel.

This reinforces the anti-nomian nature of R2Kt thinking. Reformed people for generations have understood that the the second use of the law sets a standard of righteousness for the civil realm. This is all the Theonomist is contending for. Apparently R2Kt types don’t believe in the second use of the law.

So, Theonomy doesn’t try to circumvent sin but rather is crying for God’s law to be the law that sets a standard for what is and is not crime. Zrimec is insisting that God’s law is not the standard for what is and isn’t crime. I don’t expect those who are public square antinomians to actually admit they are trying to get rid of the second use of the law just as I don’t expect Arminians to admit they undercut grace, nor Romanists to admit they anathematize the gospel.

Yes, sin is still quite present (in both worship and the civil realm). But worship isn’t primarily an enterprise in law but gospel. Worship isn’t concerned for the ordering of society or even the church. Worship is a response to God’s gospel; worship is the simultaneous response to and perpetuation of a theology. Is the Reformed notion of the RPW the superior formulation of Christian worship? Yes. Does that mean human sin is eradicated when it’s enacted? Not by a long shot. But, then again, that isn’t the point. But even when the cause is to order society (i.e. an endeavor in law), the point still isn’t to marginalize sin but keep evil at bay and maximize the good. My take on theonomy isn’t that it is not simply trying to do the latter, as if it were all that innocent. I am not sure how the concern for the ordering of society should be of such import over against, or even in tandem with, the propagation of the gospel, seeing as how there is absolutely zero data in the NT that even begins to imply that sort of arrangement in priority.

Once again we see the dispensational tendency of acting if the Old Testament doesn’t exist or doesn’t inform the New Testament. But Zrimec is wrong about his NT reading. First we have the great commission which as it is fulfilled among nations always leads to the re-ordering of society. How could the re-ordering of society not be the case where people embrace Jesus and are taught to observe all things which Jesus commands? We see a brief example of this re-ordering of society in Acts 19. Paul has spent a good deal of time in Ephesus teaching and the consequence is that a reordering of society begins to take place in the economic and civil realm to the point that those of the old order who were threatened by the Gospel’s re-ordering of society created a riot.

“I don’t know, Colin, other than to say theonomists evidently don’t listen to their Augustinian-Calvinism very well. I mean, if you are suggesting an innocence by association then the FV should be left alone, as well as the abiding “Bapterinism” in the ranks or Framian notions of intelligibility against the RPW (the list could go on). Remember, the Remonstrants came out of Reformed churches. Reformed have never been ones to give each other a pass simply because of close association—they even devote one whole form of unity against the errors of their closer associates while giving only a passing mention of Romanist errors (HC Q/A 80).

I quite agree with Zrimec here. What Reformed people need to do is purge R2Kt people from their midst. All because they have been closely associated with Calvinist for a long time means nothing at all in terms of their grave error. Whether theonomists or R2Kt types have been around Calvinists a long time is irrelevant. If theonomists have to low a view of sin and are trying to circumvent sin they should be tossed just as R2Kt types should be tossed if they are libertines, anabaptists and antinomians. Clearly though if you put libertines in charge of ruling on theonomy it will go bad for theonomy just as if you put those who esteem the second use of the law in charge of ruling R2Kt it will go bad for the virus.

My Arminians are only scared of theonomy when the theonomists speak as consistently as they ought (like you all). I tell them that this is them, but only when the decibels are cranked up, they get their act together and realize what it leads to. Just as the theonomists don’t listen very well to their Calvinism, Arminians and Pelagians don’t seem to understand that theonomy is really the logical result of their system. (And if I may be permitted to wax personal, it was precisely the out-of-control culture wars in my former funda-Arminian ranks that played large part in my own defection to the dark side of a strict Calvinism. The similarities between theonomy and culture war obsessed Arminians is about as stark as anything I’ve ever seen. Theonomy is the Reformed version of a broad funda-evangelicalism, no matter how much it wraps itself up in the Reformed confessions.)

Theonomy is the result of Pelagianism the way that pregnancy is a result of the fluoride in the water. If you want a more natural fit I would recommend the observation that R2Kt is a result of ana-baptist thought. R2Kt types don’t listen very well to Calvin who said things like.

“But this was sayde to the people of olde time. Yea, and God’s honour must not be diminished by us at this day: the reasons that I have alleadged alreadie doe serve as well for us as for them. Then lette us not thinke that this lawe is a speciall lawe for the Jewes; but let us understand that God intended to deliver to us a generall rule, to which we must tye ourselves…Sith it is so, it is to be concluded, not onely that is lawefull for all kinges and magistrates, to punish heretikes and such as have perverted the pure trueth; but also that they be bounde to doe it, and that they misbehave themselves towardes God, if they suffer errours to roust without redresse, and employ not their whole power to shewe a greater zeale in that behalfe than in all other things.”

Calvin, Sermons upon Deuteronomie, p. 541-542

And again,

Psalm 2

“…without a doubt he is speaking of the kingdom of our Lord Jesus. He admonishes all kings and authorities to be wise and to take heed to themselves. What is this wisdom? What is the lesson He gives them? To abdicate it all? Hardly! But to fear God and give homage to His Son…Furthermore, Isaiah prophesies that the kings will become the foster fathers of the Christian church and that queens will nurse it with their breasts (Isa. 49:23).I beg of you, how do you reconcile the fact that kings will be protectors of the Christian Church if their vocation is inconsistent with Christianity?”

Calvin, Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Libertines, p. 79

Looks like Calvin himself is guilty of Zrimec’s charge of being an evange-fundamentalist. Was Calvin also Pelagian Steve?

Finally, though Zrimec may want to close his eyes and wish for it to go all away the culture wars are with us and they are going find wherever anybody tries to hide. We wouldn’t be having them were it not for the way R2Kt has contributed to the problem.

Yeow, you might want to pick up Meuther’s recent bio on CVT. It’s good for documenting how CVT deliberately resisted and regretted theonomy, the efforts of its architects to foist patron sainthood upon him notwithstanding. But maybe CVT just didn’t even fathom his own presuppositions and it took Greg, Gary and RJ to point them out to him? But for my money, CVT knew what he was rejecting and regretting, just like Machen knew this creature called “Fundamentalism” was not good for the Presbyterian soul.

It is true that Van Til disavowed his child. But in terms of movements that arose around his thinking he was consistently sanguine about all of them.

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.

Bret, can you give some examples of how theonomists are suffering today?

Is it not suffering enough to see God’s Word cast aside so that in 35 years we have suffered through a holocaust almost equal to the 50 Million that Stalin exterminated in Russia? Is it not suffering enough for the person who loves the Glory of God and His Christ to see His Glory diminished in the public square? Is it not suffering of one kind to have to live with the opprobrium, ridicule and calumny heaped up upon the theonomist by both God haters and those who say they love God? How many theonomists have not been ordained because of their convictions? How many theonomist have not been given plumb positions at Christian Educational establishments because of their convictions? (Bahnsen at Westminster East comes immediately to mind)

But if your question implies that none of them are locked up in prisons (yet) I would be glad to concede that. But then suffering comes in all shapes and sizes and in varying degrees doesn’t it Todd?

“The early church, good 2k folk :-), suffered, not because they were challenging and criticizing Caesar’s unrighteous rule, but that they refused to worship him as a god. Given that choice I would hope all true Christians, whether theonomic or 2k, would suffer instead of worship Caesar.”

Part of the problem with R2Kt people, in my estimation, is that they don’t really understand what idolatry is. They seem to think that if they can avoid bowing down to a flag then they are innocent of idolatry. However, I would contend that Christians do worship Caeser as God when they send their little children to government schools. Other examples could be elucidated. So, with that expanded definition of idolatry it becomes an open question of whether or not Christians would rather suffer instead of worshiping Caesar.

Stuart Robinson suffered under Lincoln exactly because he was 2k, and even the Southern Presbyterians were suspicious of him.

Don’t know much about him. You’ll have to fill me in. Still, quite apart from the particulars I understand how Tyrants could be threatened by R2Kt types. I have read stories of the time during the war of Northern Aggression where Pastors refused the orders of the occupying Union Army to pray for the President upon 2k type principles and they were run out of town.

“The true churches under Hitler were persecuted because they would not use the pulpit to throw their support behind Hitler’s policies. Thus both 2kers and more theonomist types were persecuted. The charge that only theonomists would suffer under such regimes is unfounded.”

I never denied that R2Kt types would eventually be persecuted. I quite admit that in a dualistic system such as R2Kt that the realm of nature committed to anti-Christ principles will eventually swallow whole the common realm and then will turn on the realm of grace. At that point, persecution will come. My point was that theonomy, quite to the contrary of Hart’s assertion, does know persecution and that even more so then R2Kt types since theonomist are willing to tackle the beast before it begins to swallow the Church.

“Now, there is a sense that many theonomists will suffer before 2kers, but I would argue that this is because they lack respect for the governing authorities. Again, go to Acts 25 & 26 and see how respectfully Paul addressed his civil authorities, and remember, these were atrocious leaders. And then go to Daniel’s blog and see his headline ‘Barak Obama is a Nazi.'”

Naturally, Todd, I would disagree with the first sentences, unless you would like to add that because of their respect for the Lord Christ the governing authorities see them as lacking respect.

Also while reading Acts 25, 26 we should read Acts 16 where we find the Apostle speaking a bit more directly to magistrates. Also we have our Lord Jesus calling Herod a “Fox” which was quite a strong appellation in that culture and at that time. Finally, there is the inspired language of John the Revelator which is also quite forceful. So, I would say Scripture is a mixed bag on that score.

And, I would say that Barack Obama is more of a fabian socialist then a Nazi. So, Daniel’s error was in placing in the wrong category of Socialist. Hardly something to get worked up about.

“Now can you imagine the Apostle Paul speaking like this about Agrippa or Festus? While Daniel would consider these statements bold and prophetic, I would say they violate the clear teaching of I Pet 1:13-17. So yes, in one sense the theonomists will suffer more, but that isn’t always a good thing.”

Yes, and I imagine that if had been alive during the time of Elijah on Mt. Carmel you would have tried to take him aside when he was mocking, in very jagged language, the priest of Baal.