A Reformed Response to Theonomy | Theocast

I’d love to hear what y’all think. This is not an attack on both of y’all’s personhood. Best regards in Christ.

I watched the entire video. I did not come away with a single argument as to why God's law ought not be applied today. Y’all argued for a threefold division of law (ceremonial, moral, and civil) + the distinction between moral law and positive law (that positive law does not transcend) + the aspect of covenant separation as well.

I disagree with all three of these statements. For example, many (but not all) civil laws reflect moral imperatives and precepts. Moreover, positive law can codify moral law for the purpose of enforcing it. In that case, it would be transcendent. This is, in my view, a category error. Nevertheless, even if I agreed with the arguments, the conclusion y’all are trying to make does not follow from the premises. At best, one could say that the law does not need to be transposed into modern application. However, one cannot say that it should not be. (“we ought not to apply them to people holistically and we should not seek to overlay those principles onto nation-states today like theonomists attempt to do”). This is a normative/prescriptive statement based on opinion, not on authority or on Scripture.

I have a brother that was sentenced to 25-life in 1979. He claimed innocence then and has finally gotten his case overturned. He did 38 years for a murder that he did not commit. He has been home on parole for several years. The state is paying him 40mil, but they took his life from him. No amount can repay him. If there was capital punishment back then, my brother would be dead.
Apologia has been pushing this agenda. They are offering college level courses. I think they are calling it Bahnsen U”.

One thing that i seriously appreciated in the episode is Noah. I was beginning to think I was the only one who recognized the importance of the Noahic covenant to this discussion. I've pressed theonomists on it before:

"If God intended for the entirety of the moral law to be enforced by all civil magistrates, then why didn't God give the 10 Commandments to Noah?"

Crickets every time.

It is nice to see that when it comes to this topic, the 1689 and the WCF agree, even though we disagree on the progression and relationship between the covenants.

I am inclined to push back against the claim that the Covenant of Grace(CoG) was only promised and revealed before Christ. If that were truly the case, then you would have people being saved in the Old Testament times through a covenant that didn't exist yet. A covenant must be administered to be in effect.

The Baptists' dis-administration of the CoG, paired with its over-conflation with the New Covenant, is the very thing that laid the foundations for the total denial of a CoG by the dispensationalists.

I also have to push back against the claim that Abraham was an Old Covenant figure. Not only does the Bible never make that connection, but it unashamedly sets up Abraham and Sinai as being opposed. Paul's whole argument in places like Galatians 3 and 4 is the church's continuity with Abraham despite the disconnection with Sinai. The New Testament consistently refers to the Old Covenant as the covenant of Sinai, never Abraham, never Noah. You cannot make Abraham OC without also making the promise that he would father many nations OC as well. Abraham was clearly an administration of the CoG.

I agree with you and I would be probably more against theonomy - i consider it to be false teaching, that in practise focuses more on law and this world, than gospel and kingdom of God. It is not serving to God to promote theonomy. It is completely man-made concept. That actually in practise takes focus from gospel. Chaging of government is by product in christianity, not main product. When there is revival, there will be changes in thinking of people and in laws. But carnal men who promote christian nationalism always focus on worldy things and try to change society by implementing laws. I always wonder whether they are christians at all... To affirm sola fide or sola gratia does not make someone christian. Their true belief is seen by what they are about. Like Washer used to say if I could enter into your mind, I would know who your God is... And those reformed concepts (not biblical) like covenant of grace and covenant of works are not helping clarity of scriptures either. But at least it is not damaging to gospel as theonomy is.

Theonomy died about 25 years ago. There is no theonomic movement today - people who are advocating the abiding validity of the Mosaic judicial law contra WCF XIX.iv. Rather, Christian people want some moral sanity from the government. Your Westminster profs need to get out and talk to some real people who simply want the insanity to stop.

Theonomy/theocracy/Christian Nationalism all fall into the same trap in that they put the cart before the horse in the development of Christian societies: legislation, policy, and temporal authority become more important than conversion.

And again, Jesus’ words “My kingdom is not of this world” (among other Scriptural passages) seem to be ignored.

One of the reasons we know that we don't bring the civil law forward is found when we consider Cities of Refuge. We simply can't implement this concept; it's clear that it was meant for Israel before Christ's first advent.

Appreciate the work, guys. Here is a question (ones like it are making their rounds): let's assume for a moment God grants revival and repentance to a particular city, state, or even our country. All of a sudden, the civil authorities are converted and they want to know how to please Christ. They ask, "How ought we to establish righteous laws?" Does the civil code of the Mosaic covenant have any bearing whatsoever on answering that question?

Here is a pretty relevant example. The Mosaic covenant speaks specifically to the punishment for homosexuality. Romans 13 argues the state ought to punish evildoers. Is homosexuality evil? And if so, what will that punishment be? The options seem to be: (a), use our own opinion; (b), implement what God told Israel. I think it really boils down to: by what standard?

Again, I appreciate all you two are doing to further the conversation.

Look up the debate between Roger Williams and John Cotton.

When you say Reformed, does that mean Covenant Theology? As I understand it. It means mixing both Covenants?

The law covenant was given Jews. Not Gentiles.

Abraham (Abram) was made righteous prior to circumcision. Meaning while he was a Gentile. By FAITH. Righteousness is a gift. When Christ fills you with His Spirit, He changes your nature to LOVE. You become a new creation in Christ. God is Love. No LOVE no Holy Spirit. Love is the fruit.

Three fold division of the law is a myth. Its the whole law 613. You break one you break them all. You keep one, you need to keep them all. We are not under law but under grace. If you bring yourself under law you are bewitched. You have fallen by grace. Your confessions are traditions of men. No divisions. 613 all. Please stop following Luther and Calvin. Follow Jesus.

The law is veil. Religion is veil. Slavery, bondage. The old covenant isn't carried over. Its abolished. We have a better covenant. Its a new heaven and earth. New creation. Second Adam. Not all Israel is Israel.

Confused as termites in a yo-yo

John Frame understands this in a way yall need to grasp:

"Theonomy is not absolutely different from other reform positions, but only relatively so. Theonomy is a school of thought within reformed theology... The differences between theonomist and other reformed thinkers are not sharp but somewhat fuzzy. Theonomy... Is an emphasis, a tendency... Historically, reformed thought has shown elements of both relatively theonomic and relatively non-theonomic emphasis. I do not believe that either approach May unequivocally to be "the reformed position."

Theonomists think that the judicial law is the application of the moral law with wisdom into the civil sphere. General equity guys would look at the biblical applications as normative examples of how this is done in the civil sphere today.

Your discussion of the moral law vs. positive law and knowledge of the law... Is directly contrary to what Romans 7:7-8 says.

Theocast said - the moral law is contained in the 10 commandments. And that we don't need to be told this law, because we already know it. But Romans says:

"Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead."

Thou shall not covet, is from the 10 commandments. But you emphasize that we don't need to be told it because This is the bedrock commitment of a specifically Radical Two Kingdom view. The intention of that view is to keep the Bible out of the public sphere except for in the church.

Your appeal to the noahic covenant is also based on a novel view put forward but Van Drunen who denies that the noahic covenant was made to his covenant people, but completly gnores all the standard steps of covenant signs used after the flood (sacrifices, promises, seal of promise). The noahic covenant actually works for the theonomic position, God calls all nations to follow his moral law - and nations in the bible are judged for failing in the civil sphere. Was Egypt not judged because of the moral failing of Pharoah - their civil ruler? There are so many instances in the prophets for God judging nations for not obeying God's law - in every instance it is some application of the moral law (whether idolatry, or murder, or particular injustices) but with particular applications in civil situations.

Sorry for my english. This is a particular baptism response not a reform response to the thenomy. First, i am not theonomist like a reconstructionist, but they are better than christianity today in this point. I don't read Rushdoony but yes Bhansen, and I think that they don't think to apply all civil law but the equity. Second, I will talk like a reformed historically, presbyterians like scott clark are so far of the Westminster confession and the others confessions reformed in this issue (he hates theocrathy), they follow like generally all moderns presbyterians in America a modified version of Confession of Westminster, this is from c. XVIII; I am not postmillenilist but amilenialist. Third, all confesiions reformed believe that the goverment need to take only the law of God, you can check this about goverment civil, all believe the principle of stablishment of the church. 4th in the articke 19.4 of CW they say that we need to use the principle of equity of civil law, and Beza, Gillespie, Rutherford say this special with the punishments of this... for this issue was punish Servet, for heresy, because this is against first table if the Law, snd for the cause was punisheds the remostrans in Holand, the majoriry doesn't understand this pont.5 ) all know the 3 uses of rhe law, one of them is civil, for restrain the sin externaly by the punishes...intetesting is 1 Samuel 28. 6) ussualy when no reformed talk about this issue forget first table of the law, this is the mother of relativism and pluralism. 7) romans 13 the goverments need to be servants of God, not lords, servants, they must to obey to Christ psalm 2, they don't must to create new morals laws, they must to apply the only law of God, what is the same that the natural law. 8) the great comision teach thst we must to discipulate nations, in the reform time nations will be cristianized... then this is so far to be a reformed response. Is a particular baptism response following the great desviation of confession of Savoya... that was diferent that all catholic reformed confessions. I confess like a theocratic like all reformed confessions, and this is an angular stone of apostasy, without this there isn't persecution. But Christ is the Lord of Lords and King of Kings... all must to obey him.

You're 1689 Baptists, right? Because your position seems to differ from the 1689 and its accompanying catechism in some important points:

* The 1689 equates the law written on Adam's heart (not the law written on all men's hearts, a concept which is conspicuously absent in its discussion of the law) with the Ten Commandments, and calls that the moral law--ch. 19, ¶¶ 1-3.

* It further states that that moral law--the one expressed in the 10C--is binding on all men in all places at all times, not merely on believers--ch. 19, ¶ 5

* The Catechism (Q47) identifies the 10C as summarizing the entire moral law. This, for example, the Seventh Commandment forbids, not only sex with a woman other than your wife, but all sexual immorality (Q77-78).

The 1689 simply does not teach that the "moral law" is limited to what's "innately known" (leaving aside the question of "by whom?"); it rather equates it with the positive moral law that's expressed in the OT. It does, of course, recognize the distinction (which you blur at times) among the moral, civil, and ceremonial law, but it recognizes no distinction between the binding character of "what's innately known" (or "the natural law") and the positive moral law of God.

And, of course, the Reformed understanding of the first use of the (moral) law is that it is to be a basis for civil law.

At the very end it was said that Theonomists ask, “Do you want to submit to God’s Law or man’s law?” And the response was, God commands us in the New Testament to submit to man’s law.

Which I would agree and I believe the theonomist would agree too (I don’t claim a title or camp… yet), but I think that stops short of the actual point being made by the theonomist.

In Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 where it says to submit to the government, it also says that the government is responsible for punishing evil and rewarding good as God’s ministers.

And I think it’s a very good question to ask: by what standard should the government be determining good vs evil? It’s own standard or God’s standard.

And as it stands now in my mind, I find the theonomist argument stronger as they say, we should submit to unjust government and laws made by men, yes. BUT we should be proclaiming the truth of God’s word to those men in civil authority that they OUGHT to be determining good and evil based on the standard of God’s Law, in His word, not their own standards.

I’m new to the conversation so I don’t know if theocast would agree but that is what I thought after watching.

This has been so extremely helpful for me! Thank you for that. It made things so much clearer for me - especially how Baptist federalism changes our view on theonomy.

Ill pray for the puritains. From the reformation to the colonies the pilgrim and the authority he falls under is misunderstood by theonomist puritans. I don't know they would ever understand what a pilgrim is. Their view is one they must clean everything around them and that includes seeing some pilgrims hanging out together and any difference between the pilgrim and the puritan they want to wash away. What is a Protestant without protest? Just curious really because under theonomy if pilgrims are not allowed and bashed as they are ...there will be no protest, no protestants, the church wouldn't be anymore. A pilgrims life is testimony and protest and worship and sharing the gospel. Under theonomy thats not possible. But they go easier on the pilgrims or the unbelievers? Talk they have about a prince is down right scary. My only prince is Christ. Ill die standing by that ill never deny him and claim some man a orince if some human kingdom. They're not even set on individual salvation they're going straight for all the institutions and organizations. you can even see that by the fact that their National not even trying to just take one state and turn one County or state into their vision they want the whole thing they're after the power they want the name they want to have their own denomination their own church put their name on it Crown their own Prince. Its weird and scary. Its fearful. Its faithless its ignoring the gospel and neglecting the brothers. Its self agrandizing. And if you watch real close they're going to structure the same way that your culture has been shifted through education and media they will put all their money behind educational institutions and they will wait long enough until they raised enough people in their schools, to hold the same beliefs as them because if they come out and talk too much about this Christian Prince there's people will freak out. So these fancy words, talk them self-enclosed loops, they use a whole lot of word salad. This very specific words that they use in place of what they mean as Prince but they choose different words while they're speaking to you and training you to speak that way, when they know they've written this, that their intentions is a prince. But they are surely not going to use that word everytime they talk about it, because they say people misunderstand and that it's the fault of those who misunderstand. They use loop enclosed dismiss anything that they have an enclosed loop, use their Loop to justify itself, replace words tgat sound less scary and train ppl in this word manipulation and to go after felliw Christians. Do you see how their direct Target is immediately is immediately inside the church it's not outside they talk about the world all day long they're not going out to the world they're going after the church and it's so clear as day they say Oak the world the world the world know what they're really saying is them pilgrims those protest against those people who are not willing to stand behind us and ready to Crown our Prince. The word manipulation they're playing borders on witchcraft if not already definitely witchcraft. Its manipulation. So they teach others these cue cards. These words salads, these manipulations instead of actually teaching them the Bible teaching them the gospel doubling down on indoctrination instead. No Grassroots out in the streets on the corners, not sitting with the homeless and going to the nursing home but platform building and education building and plans to dominate institutions. We are ask to fish for men not governments and institutions. Id relate it to an insubordinate bride usurping her husbands authority and rule. She is to be his helper. The church has no place as anything except the humble wife of Christ.

I'm really surprised at how many people are involved in the conversations of late and have no understanding of our own history of our own church history. Look at all the Bloodshed between the reformers in England in the colonies look at the Bloodshed between the Pilgrims and the Puritans read the bloody tenant understand the history of Rhode Island understand why Rhode Island wouldn't sign the Constitution and requested that we have a Bill of Rights before they would sign. This is not like some new revelation popped up in the 70s or sime say they just want to go back to a reformed original view of things when no reformers saw things the same way did not all have the same with you and because of that there was a lot of bloodshed.

Jesus could have taken all the nations if he wanted he could have just gone and commissions the kings instead of his disciples. he could have sent his disciples to the kingdoms, to the Nations. He could have spent his ministry training us to conquer Nations instead of fish for men. He could have saved his own life and just offered the Pharisees all the kingdoms of the world because in their view Jesus wouldn't have needed to die he just needed to teach the law to all the kings and that would just save the world everybody I mean I'm not really sure what they're getting at going after institutions. Sad really

Theonomists are big into educational curriculum publishing. Any pilgrim publishers? I'm wondering how much theonomy is structured into the curriculum of these publishers. I usually buy from anabaptist publishers but im not anabaptist. Are there some other publishers holding to a pilgrim worldview?

Horrible critique

While we're quibbling about these things, satanic theocrats are inducting the public into de facto satanism (cannibalism, pedophilia, transgenderism, etc). Wouldn't it be fair for us to induct people into de facto Christianity?

Paul says righteousness holds promise both for this life, and the life to come: we should promote righteousness, destroying the lying arguments of the satanic theocrats, by means of pushing the benefits in this life of righteousness.

Ecclesiastes 8
11Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil.

We can shape culture, thus Law (whoever defines "love" to The People defines "Law" legislated by The People), by pushing and advertising, and magnifying the benefits of living in keeping with the way we were created to live--The People are being misled by temporary "benefits" of a "Do as thou wilt" version of "liberty" ("liberty" that is not explicitly Christian IS STILL explicitly religious: satanic) that only ends in misery and self-destruction (eg, suicide rates increase AFTER "trans" surgery--but they say "This is salvation for your kid--'affirm' their 'identity' (we brainwashed them to have)--would you rather have a dead son or a living 'daughter'?")--AND The People can determine they want to crack down on infractions against de facto Christianity, in that it is a spread of misery and destruction, JUST AS the satanic theocrats are determining crack downs on infractions against de facto satanism, claiming we are spreading misery and destruction that they themselves are responsible for through our pushing of righteousness.

Ideally, we would repeal 1st Amendment "freedom of religion"--on the grounds that it has been found to work contrary to the overall intent of "Self-Government" (corruption is the issue we are having--Christianity alone produces righteousness which produces trustworthy public servants)--replace it with "Freedom to practice 'Mere Christianity'", and grant only "Mere Christians" the ability to influence the Christian society. Unbelievers would be permitted to work jobs that would not influence society, but never be mistreated, since that is contrary to Christianity--but they cannot vote, cannot write a book, cannot own a business, etc.

Would all posited/ positive laws as relating to old covenant Israel be abrogated when the New Covenant was inaugurated?
I have in mind the positive law concerning the proper day of the weekly sabbath.

Thank you for making this. Very helpful.

WLC 95 Of what use is the moral law to all men? A. The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and will of God, and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly; to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives; to humble them in the sense of their sin and misery, and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and of the perfection of his obedience. (WLC 1:95 WCS)

WCF 7.6 Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fulness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations. (WCF 7:6 WCS)

This isn’t a reformed response

I hate talks about….religious terms….thank GOD that JESUS did not use this ludicrous language and terms….the Old Testament is a mirror….IT SHOWS SIN….when we believe in JESUS and HOLY SPIRIT is in us we obey because we love god not as works to look good…because we are sinners in this life….the commands to LOVE….will lead us to choose what is right. All of these religious terms really turn me off. SPEAK PLAINLY … especially for people who are poorly educated. So many people have been ‘dumbed down by society.

I wish I could attend one of your churches but how to manage that from Montana seems to be a significant problem., I need reformed teaching, now that I see that dispensationalism is wrong. i'm 69 and I eat up the Word. What books should I order from you and I'll need a mailing address because I don't use credit cards. I never believed the pre trib rapture in Calvalry chapel churches but I didn't know there was another truth. I liked that they went verse by verse and worship in singing was spiritual. i really like you two, and your mouthes are devoid of bad words which is reallt IMPORTANT to me. Thank you, Rebecca

Theonomy was the majority Reformed confessional view in regards to God's Law until the 18th century. Starting with Calvin, through almost all the Reformed Confessions and until people started retreating from it.

You realize the death penalty was never abolished in the New Testament era, nor until 1976?

Theonomy didn’t work for Israel why would it work for America? 😂. Israel’s history is filled with abominations and idolatry we haven’t yet reached in America and they had all 613 commandments of God. What makes theonomists think they can fix our culture by implementing what Israel couldn’t accomplish. Paul already gave the answer to theonomy. Rom 7:4-6. The law brings death. Christ alone gives life.

Theonomists say that God gave the law to Israel as a universal standard of political ethics for the nations but Israel herself was a rather poor representative of how the law could bring righteousness to a nation. They were more despicable than the Gentiles surrounding them. How do theonomists suggest it will work any better for America?!

I think an error these guys make, and that Theonomists gain a point, is that they define moral/natural law as something written on the hearts of men, and sufficient for government. “Everyone knows you shouldn’t murder”. But everyone DOESNT know you shouldn’t murder. Child sacrifice has been a practice through hundreds of pagan cultures over the centuries. What these guys are adopting is a Catholic view of natural law that man can with certainty know the moral law apart from Scripture, while the Theonomists redirect their understanding of natural law back to Scripture.

Theonomy? This term is not being used in any significant way right now. At least not as a lead title. Christian nationalism is the new buzz phrase. Who even thinks of its first 20th century movement originators like RJ Rushdooney and Greg Bahnsen Gary North Marcellus Kik James Jordon etc. Institures Of Biblical Law, Rushdooneys legal equivalent to Calvins Institutes. Theonomy And Christian Ethics Greg Bahnsen theonomic philosophy to advance the program. Interesting that no signer of the 1689 designated themselves aa " Reformed" Baptists despite their adaptation of the Westminster. The most ardent and dedicated adherents of Reformed Theology do not consider Baptists as Reformed. Soteriology notwithstanding. While Reformed believers have had to readjust their beliefs and covenant thought because of the Baptists who truly bequeathed to the world liberty of conscience in any matter of faith and practice Reformed people in America by and large reevaluated and adopted a different mentality from their Reformed brethren in 16th century western Europe. The freedom the English Puritans experienced in Holland was short lived as the history of the Massachusetts colony showed. Because we were introduced to Christian culture which replacecd non Christian culture after Constantine became Emperor we are so used to the idea, and it is a good idea that coming from a Christian consensus and base the governing authorities of any particular western nation must and should look to the law of God to base its moral and legal system in the political sphere. The truth is law will of necessity will be determined in any political arrangement conceived so why not the laws of God ratter than the mere laws of man which will be based in mans sin and moral relativism if not directly obtained and infered by the law word of God. To what length and degree is any socierty in its civil institutions and legal authority use the Bible to achieve any legal structure? Here is where the arguments begin. The first century apostolic church did not have to face such a dilemma due to the times and political arrangement they lived under when pagan Rome ruled over the world they inhabited. All good Christians believe unequivocally that infanticide ought to be illegal and a crime against God and his image bearers. But what of Homosexuality? We all recognize the crime of murder beside infanticide ought to have laws which threaten severe punishment even capital punishment when violated but what of a willfully and openly rebellious disobedient teen? Should adultery be treated as a crime of only as a sin and dealt with only by a church? Should adulterous people be arrested and receive capital penalty? They had such a law in Geneva when Calvin and the consistory existed. The records of Geneva confirmed this absolutely even though the few who were arrested were not exected. The law and penalty for violation was on the books. That is a fact. The arguments and dilemmas that can arise are many and men like Rushdooney and Bahnsen were very eager to point this out when in debate. If you can see RJ Rushdooney's interview with liberal and former Baptist minister Bill Moyers aired on PBS in the 1980s.

The 10 commandments were written in stone. So why did we change the Sabbath just because Rome told us to???

The three-fold division of the law as Moral (Ten Commandments), Judicial/Civil and finally Ceremonial isn't q bublical division. There are obviously an observable difference in subject matter between the passages against lying, and the passages against murder, and passages about priest sacrifice, but that is not the same as an internally recognised division of these into systematic categories. Theonomy pressuposes it, but it's not there. And according to Exodus 24 & 25 (I think thats tge number) as well as Deuteronony 4, the Ten Commandments are the opening words of the Covenanst law of moses, they represent all the Law as given uniquely to Israel. People, the three-fold division and the Ten Commandments as a universal law for all mankind are the crux of the faulty and blasphemous foundation for Theonomy.

Found this useful, thanks