Pro Regno

PART 4: My own evaluation of the important contribution of theonomic postmillennialism

by Slabbert Le Cornu[1]

Previous articles:

[PART 1: Introduction & The unscholarly uninformed method of CETE and the two crucial main questions in this debate that are also of big importance for the reformed community in SA]

[PART 2: What does Theonomic Postmillennialism teach themselves in answer to CETE article’s accusations, according to the sources CETE uses but seemingly did not study?]

[PART 3: Reformed theonomic roots through church history, also in South Africa]

“Abstract: Although the extreme form of Theonomism has only affected a small number of Reformed members in South Africa, it seems that Theonomist Postmillennialism has a greater underlying influence in the Reformed Churches in South Africa. General churchgoers in the Reformed Churches of South Africa generally confuse the Regulatory Principle (sic) with Theonomism and are uninformed about precisely what Theonomism is. Furthermore, signs of Theonomism as it developed in the USA are also visible in South Africa. Yet, there is great ignorance about the exact effect that Theonomism has on Reformed congregations in South Africa, especially regarding the eschatological views held by individual congregations.”[1]

“The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him.” (Proverbs 18:17)

Introduction to all 4 parts

The first quote above is the ‘abstract’ summary of dr. Morne Diedericks’s[2] article, Critical evaluation of Theonomist eschatology[3], that were published in the the GKSA’s theological journal, In die Skriflig.[4]

The second quote is from Proverbs 18:17, and is the goal of this and future articles.

There will be four parts in this response on ‘Critical evaluation of Theonomist eschatology’ article (abbreviation from now on: CETE).

Part 1: The unscholarly uninformed method of CETE and the two crucial main questions in this debate that are also of big importance for the reformed community in SA

Part 2: What does Theonomic Postmillennialism teach themselves using the sources CETE mentions in its ‘references’?

Part 3: Reformed Theonomic roots through history, also in South Africa.

Part 4: My own evaluation of the important contribution of theonomic postmillennialism

Please read this last part, part 4 in the context of part 1 to 3.

PART 4: My own evaluation of the important contribution of theonomic postmillennialism 

I ended part 3 with these words: 

In part IV I will end with some of own thoughts on theonomic postmillennialism, what I believe the unique semper reformanda contribution is of Theonomic ethics for our times, because of one of their very important foundational influences: “Van Tillian Apologetics”:

“There is no alternative but that of theonomy and autonomy.” – Cornelius Van Til, Christian Theistic Ethics, p. 134

In essence, theonomy is the the attempt to be the most consistent application of Van Til’s apologetic method to reformed ethics, especially socio-political ethics. Biblical Law, yes foundationally the Ten Commandments, but also the basic principles of the socio-political laws of Moses (explaining and applying the TC in detail, which is enduring for all times and not bound to Jewish/OT times), seen in the light of the NT and Christ’s coming (see part 3), should be the sole foundation of all societies laws.

Michael McVicar, who did a major academic study and published a important book on RJ Rushdoony’s teachings and impact, writes about the major influence of Van Til on Rushdoony:

“Van Til and the Origin of Christian Reconstruction

Rushdoony’s chance encounter with The New Modernism in a friend’s library precipitated his rapid adoption of the presuppositional perspective. After reading Van Til in March 1946, Rushdoony immediately began adopting Van Tillian themes and terminology in his letters. In a letter to a Presbyterian Mission official, Rushdoony offered the first clear exposition of Van Til’s ideas in his correspondence without mentioning Van Til: “I have been doing considerable studying since my coming here and am increasingly convinced that without a doubt our present day Biblical studies are grounded, not on sound scholarship but on philosophical presuppositions and are thus unrelated to fact.” Instead, Rushdoony explained that the zealous faithful look at scholarship with skepticism because it seems to deaden their encounter with God. Van Til’s ideas had clearly taken root in Rushdoony’s mind. From the first appearance of the term “presupposition” in his correspondence, to a clear rejection of the anti-intellectualism and the dispensational bent of contemporary fundamentalists, Rushdoony had seen the critical power of Van Til’s ideas.

By 1947 Rushdoony began encouraging his friends to read The New Modernism, and by the early 1950s Rushdoony embraced a systematic Reformed perspective based on Van Til’s presuppositional apologetics. He became convinced that the only way Christians could renew American culture was through epistemological self-awareness. This insight was the origin of the concept of Christian Reconstruction and the work of the Chalcedon Foundation. From it he developed the notion that  Christians can reconstruct the world by bringing “every thought captive” to the Word of God as embodied in the Bible. By developing this focus on epistemology, Rushdoony spent the 1950s authoring his first withering attacks on secular humanism and, most importantly, secular education. He worked tirelessly to popularize Van Til and sought to empower Christian educators and thinkers.

In a future issue of Faith for All of Life, I will take up where this story leaves off and provide readers the story of the long, productive friendship between Rushdoony and Van Til. Their collaboration emerged from their deep personal respect for each others’ ideas and their shared desire to develop Christian self-awareness as the prerequisite for cultural renewal. We’ll see how Rushdoony helped popularize and spread Van Til’s ideas to a wide audience and learn how the two men spent their lives as champions of one another’s work.”

See also these two helpful reviews of McVicar’s book, here and here, in answer to CETE’s evaluation,  as an example on how McVicar, as a non-theonomist, in a scholarly objective work deals with the topic of christian reconstructionism/chalcedon/theonomy, as the one reviewer puts it, which helps us also how to study and evaluate other believer’s and/or christian movements:

“Writings on Christian Reconstruction over the past fifty years have swung between one of two extremes, both within and without Reformed circles. On the one end are those who are violently uncritical, who parrot the movement’s talking points as gospel. Strangely, a number of his followers, many of whom could never have met him, refer to him as “Rush,” as though he were a lifelong buddy. On the other are those whose criticisms are just as thoughtless who lead readers to fret that theonomists are about to overrun the church or even the world (for a brief survey of such writings by McVicar, see pages 215-216). This is why McVicar’s Christian Reconstruction: R. J. Rushdoony and American Religious Conservatism is such an important book. It is a fair summary and analysis of the movement, taking in its remarkable aspects and its faults, without resorting to the triumphalism of the fanboy or the fear-mongering exemplified in the journalistic approaches of Michelle Goldberg or Chris Hedges. McVicar’s work lived up to and exceeded my expectations.”

“McVicar’s book is exemplary for its depth of analysis, setting its subject in his cultural context, with deft handling of the religious and political ethos of post-war America. It should be of great interest to those who, like I once did, got into Reconstruction through various avenues. Christian Reconstruction reveals the genius of Rushdoony, yet should warn the would-be theonomist of adhering to the movement wholeheartedly. It also serves as a rebuke to those whose hand-wringing over the theonomic overthrow of the church or society–the true nature of Rushdoony’s influence is both more and less than the fear-mongers realize, and as a failed movement, there is ultimately not much to fear. Students of American evangelicalism are also given an important look into the era with a book that has uniquely filled a gaping void. It will remain the standard socio-historical interpretation of Rushdoony for many years to come.”

But now back to Van Til’s influence on theonomy:

Van Til’s thought applied to pastoral theology and ethics

What Jay Adams, the ‘father of biblical counselling’ did in the field of pastoral theology and counseling, applying Van Til’s thoughts and teachings, i.e. no neutrality at all, the theonomist did in reformed ethics. Dr. Wes Bredenhof writes:

“Adams was following in the footsteps of Cornelius Van Til.  Van Til argued that Reformed principles, drawn from Scripture, must be consistently applied in apologetics.  Jay Adams took that approach and applied it to pastoral theology.  The starting point and governing standard must always be the Word of God. Prior to Adams, this hadn’t been fully recognized in Christian counselling.”

The reformed theonomists, following Van Til’s consistency, calls for a much more consistent understanding and application of God’s laws for our day. In essence nothing new (see part 3), but they want biblical law to be the final standard and source of all law and societies, and not be only a part or mixture with humanistic natural law, and other western society law orders.

Gary North also writes (Dennison, 324):

“It was dr. van Til which made the students aware anew of the importance of pure doctrine. No fact is unrelated to God of the Bible, he declared. All truth, to understand correctly must be seen in the light of the revelation of the Creator and Savior. By God’s grace, we as His redeemed creatures, His thoughts behind Him. The Christian faith is not possibly the truth not, it’s the truth. All human philosophy and science is weighed and found to be too light. God sustains all things, including the
unbelievers. The believer and the unbeliever all have metaphysics in common, but epistemologically they have nothing in common. In our proclamation of God and His grace, we must present the Triune God as the only ground for our redemption from sin, and from our total life and think.”

In my own evaluation of the Christian Reconstructionist and/or theonomic movement I already given some of my own critique against Rushdoony and other concerns about CR thought (mostly against ‘some’ theonomists that do not appreciate the central role of church enough, and about Federal Version realted issues that are not very clear), but I also explained the major contribution of C. van Til as one of their foundational influences (see Die Kultuurbeskouing van RJ Rushdoony), irrespective of the fact that he was not a ‘Theonomist’ (with a a capital ‘T’) himself, and that he had some concerns about ‘Chalcedon and Rushdoony’, but also appreciation for Rushdoony (see Rushdoony’s book, By What Standard – an analysis of the philosophy of Cornelius van Til, here, read appendix 4 as a summary of the book. He states on page 1,2 of this appendix, “To a great measure the crisis of modern man, as well as the crisis of theology, can be traced to a lack of an adequate standard … The book of Job made me a Calvinist. The book of Job made clear to me by what standard we must understand the whole of life.”  He then goes on the explain the answer from the book of Job in the rest of the appendix, a must read).

Gary de Mar (North, 1991: 64) writes about the further (more consistent) reformation the theonomist/recontstructionists were pleading for, based on historical calvinism:

“From Kuyper to Schaeffer, the same themes were stressed: (1) God is sovereign over all of life; (2) the Bible applies to every facet of society; (3) God’s law is the standard for righteousness and justice for men and nations; and (4) nowhere do we find a worked out system to learn how the implications of the reformed worldview are worked out in the particulars except in the writings of Christian Reconstructionist authors. If you have followed this odyssey from Kuyper to Schaeffer, you can see how easily it is to adopt the distinctives of Christian Reconstruction. Schaeffer, like those who  proceeded him, understood where worldview Calvinism leads. He chose to skip over Reconstruction and head straight for civil disobedience. But there is no hope for a culture if resistance is its only option for change. What happens if the resisters win? What then? How should we then live? Schaeffer never told us in the details. The problem remained: Who would put wings on Calvinism’s world-and-life view airplane?”

In my own evaluation, I wrote in comment of these words by de Mar (p. 2):

“Herein lies, in my view, the importance and significance of Rushdoony’s (and other theonomists) contribution to Christianity. First, negatively (which he learned from Van Til), he wants to epistemologically self-conscious totally breaks with natural law theology, philosophy and the social contract ideas – which are in line of the Greek, Roman and Enlightenment Renaissance thinkers – which is today the foundation of the modern pluralistic humanist social order, and, secondly, positively, he wants a consistent, explicit biblical social order (with biblical content) set, grounded in the Reformed faith and view of life.

In the face of contemporary humanistic natural law democracy and worldview, which also accepted by many modern Calvinists, Rushdoony (and theonomy) calls for a return and further reformation of the authentic Reformational biblical theocratic Christianity, as we find it in our Reformational heritage of men like Augustine, Calvin, Knox, Rutherford, etc.”

It was therefore especially Van Til’s total and radical rejection of the idea of ​​neutrality in any area of ​​life between believer and unbeliever, and especially the rejection of “natural law” as the common ground between believers and unbeliever (hence also on cultural life), which led to some of his ‘followers’ began to ask the very important question:’ if natural history ideology does not must not form the basis of human thoughts and deeds [nor of cultural life], then, what should be the foundation of all of life? Some of his students ‘books’ titles reflect also this question:
– By What Standard [Rushdoony]
– By This Standard [Bahnsen]
– No Other Standard [Bahnsen]

Van Til’s apologetic and philosophical contribution – which is a head-on collision with the modern theological and philosophical thinking – unequivocally leads to the choice: “theonomy or autonomy “in the people’s total cultural life. However, he never really had the positive alternative, effect or content of his ‘theonomy’ established.

Gary North made it clear “you can not beat something with nothing”, and that was were Rushdoony and others works stepped in with the idea of ​​a biblical social order (which of course everything has to do with our cultural life), based on the gospel and biblical law.  The starting point was a rejection of the humanistic natural law ideas as the standard for life … In a sense, it can be said that Rushdoony and other theonomists wanted to rebuild further where Van Til rightly broke down humanistic thought and ideas.

Conclusion
My own conclusion of the theonomic-postmillennial debate, CETE’s evaluation of it, is the following:

Reformed Theonomic postmilliannialism in its basic teachings according to Scripture is not a ‘extreme’ danger to reformed thought, believers and churches, but a welcome contribution to further thought and studies in the field of ‘reformed ethics’, especially ‘reformed socio-political ethics’ that should be studied in their original sources by all.  The last words of one of the reviewers of McVigar’s important book at the end of his review (Selbrede), regardless that he also disagrees with some of McVigar’s evaluation of RJR/CR, is the same that could be applied to the theonomic posmillennialism thought tank and authors, past and current … and future:

“No, the book is not perfect, but the author has made the next researcher’s job ten thousand times easier. The stables can now be cleaned out with a swish broom. If this volume isn’t the cause for appreciation on that ground alone, we have proven how dull of understanding we are. In the shadow of Dr. McVicar’s book, the world will no longer have a beam in its eye when it comes to R. J. Rushdoony and Christian Reconstruction. To then whine and complain about any motes in Dr. McVicar’s eye is to quibble. Buy it. Read it. Critique it. Learn from it. If you can do better, prove it.”

We can learn a lot from CR/Theonomy, while giving good critique where needed, especially against the over zealous tone of some of the theonomist advocates, yes, they have been fighting like Peter of old (cutting of ears) against the anti-theonomists, defending against some ‘extreme attacks’, and yes even fighting among themselves, some very sad stories about division even among family members … like it happens with other believers, families, churches, even reformed ones … since the Fall…. nothing new.

Like I mentioned in part 1, I cannot agree with many of the ‘battle rhetorics’ on both sides of the debate, but I can understand some of the reasons for the strong replies against all the anti-theonomic postmillennialism ignorant attacks against theonomic thought, as can be seen unfortunately in the ignorant one sided evaluation given in CETE in many of the quotes (see part 1).

But knowing that even a Calvin and Luther were no angels in rhetoric and debates themselves, and not trying to justify unloving debate and critique from both sides or any other side, we still have to focus on the original sources and writings and studies of theonomy and postmillinialism itself.

The ‘extreme’ dangers in terms of the law through at least reformed history, has always been, and still is legalism (salvation by law/politics) on the one side, and antinomianism (we have been freed of God’s law by Jesus in all aspects) on the other side … and theonomists are not legalists or antinomianists at all.

I see myself as a Belgic Confession article 25 theonomist (see part 3). In terms of eschatology I am convinced by many aspects of both postmillennialism and amillennialism, maybe I am a optimistic ammillennialist or a pessimistic postmillennialist? What ever the future holds by God’s sovereign good plan that works everything for our good, the victories and the losses, the crosses and the crowns (Rom. 8:28-39) through our personal lives and all of history, the church are always more than conquerors in Christ our Lord and Saviour.  We must hold on to both the parables of the ‘wheat and the tares’ (Matt. 13:24-30) and the ‘mustard seed’ (Matt. 13:31-33) with all it teaches and all it applications for all of life and history (1 Kor. 10:31).  Building on God’s sovereign grace, will and election, then from our side faith, repentance, obedience and calling in every area of life and thought is central, not the detail specifics of our eschatological charts.

But most of all, I hope all serious reformed brothers will study the original sources of reformed theonomists, like Bahnsen (ethics), Rushdoony  (statism and education) and Gentry (postmillenialism) that all have a major contribution to these different areas of Christian thought and life, to help believers and churches to fulfill their callings in the 21st century, to the glory of God and service of our neighbours.

I want to conclude with the advice I have given readers at my blog here, when I replied to one of the more aggressive critics of theonomy, how to approach any debate, especially between reformed brothers, adapted for this article:

1. Most important, go read Calvin, Rushdoony and Bahnsen (and any other theologian) themselves, ad fontes (back to the sources!), not what others say about them, for or against, that is secondary sources that could be helpful, but not original.

2. One does not have to agree with all detail, to still learn a lot from a past or current theologian. I learn a lot from RS Clark and other Westminster Californian R2K theologians on many other topics, and recommend many of their works, while disagreeing with their R2K, non-literal 24 day creation views, etc. The same with many other (past and current) reformed theologians that are (in my view) much too anti-theocratic/theonomic, but I still love and respect these brothers to learn from them, and recommend them with some reservations. They still are my reformed brothers in the faith, once delivered, and I will fellowship with them.  I do not go along with the ‘for or against theonomy’ sjibolet of some zealous warriors (from both sides!).  The irony is, that many that warn against ‘extreme’ reformed brothers and groups, seem to be ‘extreme’ in their own rejections and evaluations of other reformed groups?

3. Dr. Clark has given recourses to read for being against our theonomy reformed brothers, you can read it there at his website. But don’t stop reading there…

4. Here are some other sources about the topic, also pro and against, and also some of my own writings (in Afrikaans) wherein I also give my own critiques about christian reconstructionism, etc.:

Die Kultuurbeskouing van RJ Rushdoony, ds. S Le Cornu

Pro and Con Theonomy

Bahnsen sources

(Standard works on the topic: Theonomy in Christian Ethics; By This Standard; No Other Standard)

What is Theonomy?

(A two page introduction and summary by Bahnsen)

“The Westminster Assembly and the Equity of the Judicial Law“

The Bahnsen Project: all his lectures and preaching at sermon audio

Rushdoony sources

(Standard works on the topic: Institutes of Biblical Law, vol. 1-3)

Teokrasie en Teonomie in die ZAR, by Totius, by Calvyn en die outentieke Reformatoriese belydenisskrifte van die 16/17de eeu

Pro Regno nr.12 – Die teokrasie en teonomie van NGB artikel 36

Theonomy library

Adding: see the different sources to this 4 part study, from both sides of the debate.

References

Bahnsen, G.L., 1991, No other standard: Theonomy and its critics, Inst for Christian Economics, Tyler, TX.

Bahnsen, G.L., 2002, Theonomy in Christian ethics, 3rd edn., Covenant Media Press, Nacogdoches, TX.

Bos, F.L. (red.), 1957, Ware Christelijke Belijdenis der Nederlandse Kerken, Kok, Kampen.

Bucer, M. 1954, De Regno Christi, in the Library of Christian Classics, Westminster, Philadelphia, 1954. https://bit.ly/3dupgKU

De Mar, G., 2017, Theonomy: an extension of Calvinism’s judicial theology. https://americanvision.org/14290/theonomy-an-extension-of-calvinisms-judicial-theology/

Dennison, C.G. (ed.), 1986. , The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1936-1986, Philedelphia, OPC.

Diedericks, M., 2021, ‘Critical evaluation of Theonomist eschatology’, In die Skriflig 55(1), a2753. https://doi.org/10.4102/ids.v55i1.2753

Du Plessis, J.A., 1917, Op die spore van Calvinisme in ons maatskaplike en staatkundige lewe, Veritas Vincet: Potchefstroom.

Du Plessis, L.J., 1941. Die Moderne Staat, Stellenbosch, Pro Ecclessia Drukkery.

Du Plessis, L.M., 1977, Calvyn oor die staat en die reg, Potchefstroom, PU vir CHO.

Feenstra, J.G. 1950. Onze Geloofsbelijdenis. Kampen, Kok. https://bit.ly/3rJfyN3

Ferguson, S., 1990, ‘An Assembly of Theonomists?’, in W.S. Barker & W.R. Godfrey (eds.), Theonomy, A reformed critique, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.

Gillespie, G. 1846. Wholesome severity reconciled with Christian Liberty. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/26849/26849-h/26849-h.html

Gillespie, G. 1985. Aaron’s Rod Blossoming: or, the Divine Ordinance of Church Government Vindicated, Sprinkle Publications, Virginia, 1646 (reprint) https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A42757.0001.001?view=toc

Harris, R.L. 1979, “Theonomy in Christian Ethics: A Review of Greg L. Bahnsen’s Book”, in Presbuterion: Covenant Seminary Review 5:1 (Spring 1979).

Jonker, W. D. 1975. Die Bybel en Gods wil vir ons lewe, Kaapstad, NG Kerk-Uitgewers.

Junius, F., 2015, The Mosaic Polity (Sources in Early Modern Economics, Ethics, and Law), . Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty. Kindle Edition.

Kline, M.A., 1977, ‘Review of Greg L. Bahnsen: Theonomy in Christian ethics’, The Craig Press xvii, 619–630.

Kline, M.A., 1978, Comments on a Old-New Error: A Review Article, in Westminster Theological Journal 41:1 (Fall 1978).

Le Cornu, S., 2000. Die Kultuurbeskouing van RJ Rushdoony. https://proregno.com/2010/02/01/verbondseminaar-2000-christus-en-kultuur/

McVicar, M.J., 2015, Christian reconstruction: R.J. Rushdoony and American Religious Conservatism, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.

North, G., 1991. Theonomy: An Informed Respone, ICE, Tyler, Texas.

Oosterhuis, J. (2020). Roman Dutch criminal law and Calvinism: Calvinist morality in De Criminibus (1644) of Antonius Matthaeus II. In A. Masferrer (Ed.), Criminal Law and Morality in the Age of Consent: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 67-95). Springer International Publishing. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice Vol. 84 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64163-4_4

Polman, A.D.R., 1958, Woord en Belijdenis: eenvoudige verklaring van de Nederlandse Geloofsbelijdenis, deel 2, T. Wever, Franeker.

Polyander, J. et. al, 1625/1964, Synopsis of Overzicht van de Zuiverste Theology. J. Boersema Drukkerij, Enschede. https://proregno.com/2020/05/12/polyander-oor-die-wet-van-god-stelling-49-51-geld-die-burgerlike-wette-van-israel-nog-vir-vandag-se-owerhede-en-onderdane/

Rushdoony, R.J., 1973, The institutes of biblical law, The Craig Press, Nutley, NJ.

Rutherford, S., 1649, A Free Disputation against Pretended Liberty of Concience, London. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=eebo;idno=A92140.0001.001

Schilder, K., 1977. Christelijke Religie: over de Nederlandse Geloofsbelijdenis. Kopiëerinrichting v.d. Berg, Kampen.

Schissel, S.M. (ed.), 2002. The Standard Bearer – A Festschrift for Greg. L. Bahnsen,  Covenant Media Press, Texas.

Strevel, C.B., Theonomic Precedent in the Theology of John Calvin, in: The Standard Bearer – A Festschrift for Greg. L. Bahnsen (Texas: Covenant Media Press), p. 319-368. https://proregno.com/2020/07/15/theonomic-precedent-in-the-theology-of-john-calvin/

Van der Vyver, J.D., 1982. Inleiding tot die Regswetenskap, Butterworth, Durban.

Van Bruggen, J., 1965. Het Amen der Kerk: De Nederlandse Geloofsbelijdenis Toegelicht s: Oosterbaan & Lê Cointre N.V., Goes. https://bit.ly/3oERLfz

PART 3: REFORMED THEONOMIC ROOTS THROUGH CHURCH HISTORY, ALSO IN SOUTH AFRICA

by Slabbert Le Cornu[1]

[PART 1: Introduction & The unscholarly uninformed method of CETE and the two crucial main questions in this debate that are also of big importance for the reformed community in SA]

[PART 2: What does Theonomic Postmillennialism teach themselves in answer to CETE article’s accusations, according to the sources CETE uses but seemingly did not study?]

“Abstract: Although the extreme form of Theonomism has only affected a small number of Reformed members in South Africa, it seems that Theonomist Postmillennialism has a greater underlying influence in the Reformed Churches in South Africa. General churchgoers in the Reformed Churches of South Africa generally confuse the Regulatory Principle (sic) with Theonomism and are uninformed about precisely what Theonomism is. Furthermore, signs of Theonomism as it developed in the USA are also visible in South Africa. Yet, there is great ignorance about the exact effect that Theonomism has on Reformed congregations in South Africa, especially regarding the eschatological views held by individual congregations.”[1]

“The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him.” (Proverbs 18:17)

Introduction to all 4 parts

The first quote above is the ‘abstract’ summary of dr. Morne Diedericks’s[2] article, Critical evaluation of Theonomist eschatology[3], that were published in the the GKSA’s theological journal, In die Skriflig.[4]

The second quote is from Proverbs 18:17, and is the goal of this and future articles.

There will be four parts in this response on ‘Critical evaluation of Theonomist eschatology’ article (abbreviation from now on: CETE).

Part 1: The unscholarly uninformed method of CETE and the two crucial main questions in this debate that are also of big importance for the reformed community in SA

Part 2: What does Theonomic Postmillennialism teach themselves using the sources CETE mentions in its ‘references’?

Part 3: Reformed Theonomic roots through history, also in South Africa.

Part 4: A Plea for biblical scholarship and brotherly relations among reformed brothers in our Kingdom callings here in Africa for now and the future

We deal with part THREE now, please read part 1 & 2 First to understand the context of part 3:

PART 3: Reformed Theonomic roots through church history, also in South Africa

Introduction
The last CETE accusation (nr. 6) against theonomic postmillennialism (accusations 1-5 was answered in part 2, see also the introduction – part 1 – to this four part articles series, here) to answer is: that – according to CETE – Theonomy’s unique contribution to reformed socio-political ethics, namely the abiding validity of the judicial laws and penalties for today, are ‘new’ and not in line with the ‘traditional view of the church’

We will see from historical sources, that the essence, of course not the detail (times and contexts differ), but the essence of theonomy, i.e. a call for a return to the wisdom of the Mosaic case/judicial laws and penalties for our socio-political times, is no 20th century or american reconstructionist ‘new’ idea, but has been there as part and parcel of reformed theology, confessions and ethics among many theologians and churches of the Reformation. Of course one can disagree on the specifics and precisely what (and how) laws and penalties are still binding and/or applicable, but the essence of theonomy is rooted in biblical reformed theology, ethics and history.

Modern day social-political antinomianism
What is actually ‘new’ in our day, is not the historical theonomic thought, but as can be seen in CETE’s critique, that more and more who say they are ‘confessional reformed’, are very hostile towards the usefulness and application of Moses’ civil laws ‘in their general equity’, also for today.

It could also be because of a lot of ignorance of the history of Mosaic law as understood by reformed theologians and jurist in the past, and that could thankfully be fixed, if there is a humble return in studying original sources from the past, yes, ad fontes needed!

Therefore, what is ‘modern and new’, is that many reformed brothers of our day, are not only throwing out the filthy waters of the misuse of BC article 36/WCF chapter 23 theocratic-theonomic ‘church and state’ thought and practice in the past, but they are throwing out the magisterial Reformers biblical foundation that all of life, including socio-politics, must bow before King Christ and serve Him in all areas of life and thought, therefore also in the laws of a country or nation. As one theologian quoted below, said (PY De Jong):

“We refuse to compartmentalize our lives by limiting our worship of and obedience to God to some small part. In his word, given in both Old and New Testaments, God demands that we recognize the sweeping scope of his claims upon our lives. Our relationship to God and self, to fellow man and the created order is regulated by his revealed will.”

Unfortunately many of these reformed brothers of us will plead for God’s law for personal, family and church life, and we wholeheartedly agree with that, but then they want to stop there. They then also say in society and ‘the world’, God’s Ten Commandments as given through Moses, and applied and explained by other moral and civil laws, must not be the final and highest rule or be standard for our societies, magistrates and leaders.

They have become socio-political ‘antinomianists’, contra to the confessional reformed churches and theologians through history, which pleaded for the Word of the God, the gospel and biblical law, to be the standard for all of live: personal, family, church and the whole of society, each area of life and thought.

Many have also become (very) anti-Belgic Confession article 36 and anti-Westminster Confession article 23, anti-theocratic (and not only anti-theonomists), i.e. they don’t like the idea that not only the church, but that both church and the civil government are called to bow before King Jesus Christ (Psalm 2; Rom. 13; 1 Tim. 2) and should fulfill their callings, each in their own areas (‘sovereignty in each area/sphere’) according to God’s Word, both tables of the law.

As proven already in part 1 and 2, it is much easier (but lazy bad scholarship) to give a twisted and/or misrepresented view of Reformed Theonomic socio-political ethics, and then claim it is ‘new’ or not in line with the ‘traditional view of the church’.

Approach

I will do the same as in part 2, first give the essence of CETE’s accusation with one quote, and then answer it all with giving extensive quotes from the following sources (not necessarily in that order), about the judicial laws and penalties, and also a related issue that are seen as ‘new and theonomic’, and that is, that the magistrate must apply both tables of the law in their area or domain:

– Dutch Reformed theologians and jurists

– Belgic Confession article 25 explanations

– English reformed theologians, also on WCF 19.4 (general equity of the ‘judicial laws’)

– South African Reformed jurists and theologians on the law as standard for society/civil government

In part 4 I will conclude with my own thoughts on ‘theonomic postmillennialism’, and some thoughts for the future.

CETE ACCUSATION 6: Theonomic Postmillenialism’s view of the judicial laws are not in line with the ‘traditional view of the Church’ (p. 2)

CETE asserts:

“What distinguishes Theonomism from the traditional view of the Church, is that Theonomism holds to the continuity of the judicial law, as given to Old Testament Israel, except for the judicial laws that were brought to fulfilment in the New Testament (McVicar 2015:5). Theonomists acknowledge that the ceremonial laws were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and therefore no longer apply today. Theonomism is thus characterized by its specific view of the Old Testament judicial laws and the validity of the judicial laws today (Bahnsen 2002:207–214).” (p. 2)

Now, let’s look at this, is the modern Theonomists ‘new’ and has the (reformed) traditional church, i.e. theologians never said that the judicial laws (and penalties) are still binding or not applicable at all?

BUT, before we dive into history, what does Theonomy actually teach, let us hear from their best reformed exponent, from his own words (book), dr. Greg L. Bahnsen (1991: 9-16), and ask yourself as the reader, is this at all ‘new’ or so-called ‘extreme’ = dangerous for the biblical reformed faith and church?:

A Brief Synopsis of Theonomy

“Any conception of the role of civil government that claims to be distinctively “Christian” must be explicitly justified by the teaching of God’s revealed word. Anything else reflects what the unbelieving world in rebellion against God may imagine on its own. If we are to be Christ’s disciples, even in the political realm, it is prerequisite that we abide in His liberating word (John 8:31). In every walk of life, a criterion of our love for Christ or lack thereof is whether we keep the Lord’s words (John 14:23-24) rather than founding our beliefs upon the ruinous sands of other opinions (Matt. 7:24-27).

And as those especially in the Reformed heritage confess, to the extent that our view of civil government (or any matter) does adhere faithfully to Scripture, that view stands above any and all challenges which stem from human wisdom and tradition (Rom. 3:4; 9:20; Col. 2:8).

Thus Christians who advocate what has come to be called the “theonomic” (or “reconstructionist”) viewpoint reject the social forces of secularism which too often shape our culture’s conception of a good society. The Christian’s political standards and agenda should not be set by unregenerate pundits who wish to quarantine religious values (and thus the influence of Jesus Christ, speaking in the Scripture) from the decision-making process of those who set public policy.

Theonomists equally repudiate the sacred/secular dichotomy of life, which is the effect of certain extra-scriptural, systematic conceptions of Biblical authority that have recently infected the Reformed community – conceptions which imply that present-day moral standards for our political order are not to be taken from what the written word of God directly and relevantly says about society and civil government. This sacred/secular stance is a theologically unwarranted and socially dangerous curtailing of the scope of the Bible’s truth and authority (Ps. 119:160; Isa. 40:8; 45:19; John 17:17; Deut. 4:2; Matt. 5:18-19).

We beseech men not to be conformed to this world, but transformed by the renewing and reconciling work of Jesus Christ so as to prove the good, acceptable and perfect will of God in their lives (2 Cor. 5:20-21; Rom. 12:1-2). We call on them to be delivered out of darkness into the kingdom of God’s Son, who was raised from the dead in order to have preeminence in all things (Col. 1:13-18). We must “cast down reasonings and every high thing which is exalted against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5) in whom “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are deposited” (Col. 2:3).

Thus believers are exhorted to be holy in all manner of living (I Peter 1:15), and to do whatever they do for the glory of God (I Cor. 10:31). To do so will require adherence to the written word of God, since our faith does not stand in the wisdom of men but rather in the work and teaching of God’s Holy Spirit (I Cor. 2:5, 13; c£ I Thes. 2: 13; Num. 15:39; Jer. 23:16). That teaching, infallibly recorded in “every scripture” of the Old and New  Testaments, is able to equip us “for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17) – thus even in public, community life.

For these reasons theonomists are committed to the transformation (reconstruction) of every area of life, including the institutions and affairs of the socio-political realm, according to the holy principles of God’s revealed word (theonomy).

It is toward this end that the human community must strive if it is to enjoy true justice and peace. Because space will not allow a full elaboration, with extensive qualifications and applications, of the theonomic position here, it may prove helpful to begin with a systematic overview and basic summary of the theonomic conception of the role of civil government in terms of Christ’s rule as King and of His inscripturated laws:

1. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are, in part and in whole, a verbal revelation from God through the words of men, being infallibly true regarding all that they teach on any subject.
2. Since the Fall it has always been unlawful to use the law of God in hopes of establishing one’s own personal merit and justification, in contrast or complement to salvation by way of promise and faith; commitment to obedience is but the lifestyle of faith, a token of gratitude for God’s redeeming grace.
3. The word of the Lord is the sole, supreme, and unchallengeable standard for the actions and attitudes of all men in all areas of life; this word naturally includes God’s moral directives (law).
4. Our obligation to keep the law of God cannot be judged by any extrascriptural standard, such as whether its specific requirements (when properly interpreted) are congenial to past traditions or modern feelings and practices.
5. We should presume that Old Testament standing laws continue to be morally binding in the New Testament, unless they are rescinded or modified by further revelation.
6. In regard to the Old Testament law, the New Covenant surpasses the Old Covenant in glory, power, and finality (thus reinforcing former duties). The New Covenant also supersedes the Old Covenant shadows, thereby changing the application of sacrificial, purity, and “separation” principles, redefining the people of God, and altering the significance of the promised land.
7. God’s revealed standing laws are a reflection of His immutable moral character and, as such, are absolute in the sense of being non-arbitrary, objective, universal, and established in advance of particular circumstances (thus applicable to general types of moral situations).
8. Christian involvement in politics calls for recognition of God’s transcendent, absolute, revealed law as a standard by which to judge all social codes.
9. Civil magistrates in all ages and places are obligated to conduct their offices as ministers of God, avenging divine wrath against criminals and giving an account on the Final Day of their service before the King of kings, their Creator and Judge.
10. The general continuity which we presume with respect to the moral standards of the Old Testament applies just as legitimately to matters of socio-political ethics as it does to personal, family, or ecclesiastical ethics.
11. The civil precepts of the Old Testament (standing ‘judicial” laws) are a model of perfect social justice for all cultures, even in the punishment of criminals. Outside of those areas where God’s law prescribes their intervention and application of penal redress, civil rulers are not authorized to legislate or use coercion (e.g., the economic marketplace).
12. The morally proper way for Christians to correct social evils which are not under the lawful jurisdiction of the state is by means of voluntary and charitable enterprises or the censures of the home, church, and marketplace – even as the appropriate method for changing the political order of civil law is not violent revolution, but dependence upon regeneration, re-education, and gradual legal reform.

Notice what these principles tell us about the theological and moral character of theonomic ethics. The foundational authority of scripture (#1) and the precious truth of salvation by grace alone (#2) provide the context within which every other theonomic thesis is developed and understood.

“Theonomic” ethics is committed to developing an overall Christian world-and-life-view (#3) according to the regulating principle of sola Scriptura (#4) and the hermeneutic of covenant theology (#5). The new and better covenant established by Christ does offer Biblical warrant for recognizing changes in covenantal administration (#6), but not changes in moral standards, lest the divinely revealed ethic be reduced to situationism or relativism -just one tribal perspective among many in the evolutionary history of ethics (#7).

Righteousness and justice, according to Biblical teaching, have a universal character, precluding any double-standard of morality. “Theonomic” ethics likewise rejects legal positivism and maintains that there is a “law above the (civil) law” to which appeal can be made against the tyranny of rulers and the anarchy of overzealous reformers alike (#9).

Since Jesus Christ is Lord over all (cf. #3), civil magistrates are His servants and owe obedience to His revealed standards for them (#9). There is no Biblically based justification (c£ #5) for exempting civil authorities from responsibility to the universal standards of justice (c£ #7) found in God’s Old Testament revelation (#10).

Therefore, in the absence of Biblically grounded argumentation which releases the civil magistrate from Old Testament social norms (c£ #5, #6), it follows from our previous premises that in the exercise of their offices rulers are morally responsible to obey the revealed standards of social justice in the Old Testament law (#11). This does not mean, however, that civil rulers have unlimited authority to intrude just anywhere into the affairs of men and societies (#11 #12); their legitimate sphere is restricted to what God’s word has, authorized them to do – thus calling for a limited role for civil government.

Finally, Christians are urged to use persuasive and “democratic” means of social reform – nothing like the strongarm tactics slanderously attributed to the theonomic program (#12).”

________________________________________

REFORMED QUOTES ON THE MOSAIC JUDICIAL LAWS AND PENALTIES

Now with that 12 theonomic thesis’s, let’s see what some reformed theologians, etc. said about God’s judicial laws and penalties. Yes, of course there has always been differences, some just deny any relevance and application of Mosaic judicial laws and penology, but many also made statements that are in essence ‘theonomic’, as represented by Bahnsen’s words above (remember: the question is not whether they were biblical correct or not, but whether there is also theonomic lines in the past, theologians that also pleaded application of judicial laws and penalties, like ‘modern’ theonomists do):

THE REFORMED CONFESSIONS

In Belgic Confession article 25 we confess about the law, the latter part:

“… In the meantime we still use the testimonies taken from the law and the prophets, both to confirm us in the doctrine of the gospel and to order (or ‘regulate’, French: regler, Latin: componamus) our life in all honour, according to God’s will and to His glory.” (see also BC art. 2-7, 24 and 36)

Let’s hear some dutch reformed theologians theonomic thoughts on it, i.e., that the judicial laws still apply, yes differently in our NT times … as the Theonomists also teach:

a) KLAAS SCHILDER (1890 – 1952)

“We are protesting against the Antinomians that attempt to leave the OT closed, they say: we have nothing to do with it. The OT may not stay closed, because we are taking evidence/witness from it. One may speak about the civil and ceremonial laws, provided it is done in New Testament light. That is, we should not apply all laws today. A certain national and societal form was given to Israel. With us it is a different form. But the underlying principle must be maintained. The prophets too, yes, the whole Old Testament must be maintained.” (1977: 83)

b) J. VAN BRUGGEN  
“Also, Israel’s law for civil and moral life has certainly not lost its force. The Mosaic law has received far too little attention from the church. The theologians leave it because it is ‘law’ and the jurists pass it because it is written in the Bible. The revived interest among us in understanding the law is a good thing.” (1965: 125)

c) ADR POLMAN (1897 – 1993)
“The children of God are indeed delivered from the law as a letter that kills, because through Christ they have been redeemed from the curse of the law. But with this the law, which is holy, just, and good (Rom. 7:12), has not lost its meaning as rule of gratitude. The towards God and the neighbour, as defined in the law of the ten commandments, remains the fulfillment of the law for the Christian (Rom. 13:10, Gal. 5:14). One can even rightly say that the civil and ceremonial parts of the Law have not lost their significance for the practical life of the Christian life. The Mosaic legislation enshrines principles for political and social life, which are valid for all times.” (1958: 115, 116)

d) FL BOS

“Also the spirit of the civil laws of Moses, as declared by Christ, is of abiding validity. The great commandment of love, upon which the whole law hangs (Matt. 22:40), retains eternal power (1 Cor. 13:13).

And although those Old Testament ordinances had to do with completely different situations and relationships, their concrete application of the commandment to love, especially also in matters of property and social relations, is still strongly preached against all kinds of neo-socialist aspirations (cf. Ex. 22:21-27; 23:1-22; Deut. 15:1-11, etc.)

In short, considering times and circumstances and the progress of God’s revelation, the entire Old Testament still contains an ongoing message to us, and the law and the prophets continue to help direct our faith toward the gospel of Jesus Christ (cf. John 5:46; Luke 24:25-27; Acts 26:22,23, etc.), and also useful for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16,17).” (1957: 129)

e) PY DE JONG (1915-2005)

“In addition, the Old Testament retains its validity to regulate our life in all honorableness to the glory of God, according to his will. Usually in speaking of the Old Testament we distinguish the moral, the civil and the ceremonial laws. The law of the ten commandments, though containing certain ceremonial and civil aspects, retains its force in the church of all ages. This law is proper to man’s being. By grace we are enabled to follow its precepts again in cultivating a life of good works which shall be to the praise of God. The ceremonial laws which regulated Israel’s worship pointed forward to the atoning work of the Savior and were fulfilled by him. The civil laws were grounded in God’s announcement of himself as king of his covenant people. In these laws we find many matters which pertained peculiarly to the Jews. Yet the underlying principles are valid for all peoples and nations. On this basis they deserve respectful and repeated attention.

For the Christian all of life is religiously conditioned.

We refuse to compartmentalize our lives by limiting our worship of and obedience to God to some small part. In his word, given in both Old and New Testaments, God demands that we recognize the sweeping scope of his claims upon our lives. Our relationship to God and self, to fellow man and the created order is regulated by his revealed will. To ascertain him we must listen to his voice which speaks so eloquently of him as the God of the covenant. This conviction alone will provide a powerful antidote to prevalent secularization ot life. With the saints of the Old Testament we still sing (Psalm 119-slc),

“Thy Word is as a lamp unto my feet,

A light upon my pathway unto heaven;

I’ve sworn an oath, which gladly I repeat,

That I shall keep, as always I have striven,

Thy righteous judgments, holy and complete,

When unto me Thy helping grace is given.”

(1980: 195, 196)

f) JG FEENSTRA

“c. The civil law.

God is the King of Israel. Theocracy is in Israel. Therefore, God as the Lawgiver has also given laws for civil life. In those laws we find something specifically Israelite and something universally human. God had given a law that with the Jubilee all property would be returned to its original owner. In fact, only the lease years of a country were sold. So many years separated from the Jubilee, so many years were reckoned for the price of the land. Now the Jubilee in Christ has been fulfilled. But the general human idea is this, that we must be careful not to move field after field, and that we have the vocation to fight against poverty. And that universal humanity remains in effect.

Here the Christian jurist, above all, has the task of studying Israelite law, in order to find the enduring norms which God has given in that law, and to make them valid even for today’s life. Francis Junius has pointed to the rich significance of Israelite law. This study should be taken in hand.” (1950: 321)

JOH. FRANCKE

“This part of the Report is the weakest part of the argument. It has been admitted that in Israel’s legislation there are principles for all times and peoples … Calvin wants to hold on to the basic idea of the law and then see it concretely applied in contemporary legislation. He doesn’t want to hear about an imitation. … The mosaic legislation does provide a model to follow. We will therefore also use art. 36 on this point should be read in the light of art. 25 of the same confession, where it plainly reads, That the truth and substance of the divine law abides, though the shadows have come to an end, to REGULATE OUR LIFE ALSO IN ALL HONESTRY, TO GOD’S HONOR, ACCORDING TO HIS WILL. … “If the Report recognizes that in Israel’s law there are principles for all times and peoples.”

H. VELDKAMP

If the law is thus for all time, it is also binding on all nations, yes on all people. Formally, it was given only to Israel. And that when Israel has its own people, freed from Egypt. At the same time, it got more laws, which were transient, but this was the immutable constitution. It was the law of the covenant, and every transgression was a breach of the covenant. But the intention was that Israel
would pass on these words of God to all nations. They were entrusted to them, not to them
to keep for himself alone, but to bless all nations with it.

The shape wears of course a strong Israelite stamp, such as, for example, the promise of a long life in the Promised Land in the fifth commandment, and also the repeated mention of ox and ass,
and so on. But it’s the content that counts, and that applies to everyone. There is no separate law for different nations. There is also no double standard for different classes. Princes and subjects, lords and servants, rich and poor are equal to one law of the Lord bound. Everyone without distinction has to submit to it. And the church of the Lord in our time has the same calling as Israel of old: this will of the Lord through to give, and to submit to the conscience of all.

In every sermon always the the voice of John the Baptist, who did not hesitate to say to the prince: It is you not permitted! Silence is infidelity! If the Church no longer bears her testimony, and
does not call for an unconditional bow to the eternal law of God, even in political and social life, then it may be anxiously asked, who will? Yes, then God Himself will do it, and He will destroy the disobedient church and the disobedient let the world experience through the language of facts that there is no future for those who do not turn to the law and the testimony. [p. 118]

FRANCISCUS JUNIUS & THEODORE BEZA

“This treatise (The Mosaic Polity), appearing in English for the first time, engages the perennial question of how the laws of Moses ought to be applied to contemporary political situations. Through clear distinctions and theses, and by drawing on diverse sources ranging from Greek and Roman law to medieval Christian theology, Junius develops a method of classifying and interpreting the Mosaic laws that honors both their particular Jewish context and their universal and perpetual significance. Junius’ Mosaic Polity also reveals the interdisciplinary nature of early modern theology, law, and politics, and the influence of Junius’ treatise and method is evident in such Reformed political luminaries as Johannes Althusius and Abraham Kuyper.”

“… With respect to the judicial laws, Junius argues that there is an immutable part and a mutable part—an enduring universal obligation and a temporal particular obligation. This distinction is developed at length (Theses 12–30), and the discussion of the mutable part of the laws takes him into an analysis of how immutable principles are accommodated to mutable circumstances….”

“Whereas Calvin has occasional forays into these topics, Beza treated the Mosaic law and political matters extensively, sometimes in entire treatises. He too preserves the traditional three-part division of the Mosaic law, although his Lex Dei Moralis, Ceremonialis, et Politica (1577) does not so much explain as collate the Mosaic laws into the ethical (or moral), ceremonial, and judicial categories for ease of reference. Regarding the application of the political laws of Moses, Beza makes two basicpoints: “the political shows what the use of the ethical is in the common society of human beings and arms magistrates against transgressors,”[46] and “the magistrate is the guardian of both tables of the commandments, considered with respect to human society.”[47] Similarly, Junius assumes that the magistrate is responsible for guarding both tables of the Decalogue and for “assisting his society in aspiring to the gate of eternal salvation,” and Junius also sees the Mosaic political (or judicial) laws as a “servant” of the moral law and existing on account of it.[48]” (2015)

JOHANNES POLYANDER (1568-1646)

“Theorem 49 (on the law): The Civil Law is the laws which determined the duties of the Authorities and subjects of the Israeli Civil State in fixed civil statutes, and ratified them with corporal punishment against the rebels, according to the standard of the two tables of the Decalogue, and especially from the second table.

Theorem 50: Its main utility was that through careful observance of the commandments of the moral and the ceremonial law, righteousness associated with godliness would prevail, among the Jews in particular.

Theorem 51: The things that belong to the common law in these laws now also oblige all kinds of Authorities and subjects; but the things of these laws, which belonged in particular to Jewish law, perished along with the ordinance of Moses.” (1625/1964)

JOHANNES PISCATOR, German Reformed theologian (1546–1625)

“In his book, Disputations of the Judicial Laws of Moses, he has the following chapters, that confirms his view that the judicial laws and penalties, all seen in the light of the NT fulfillment in Christ, are still applicable in NT times, rightly understood, here are some headings:

“3. Against Twenty-Two Objections.

1. The judicial law was for Israel only.
2. The judicial law requires revision of itself.
3. The judicial law no longer binds unless it is repeated in the New Testament.
4. Paul’s teaching in Romans 13
5. Must we become Jews first?
6. Jewish legislation ended with Christ’s Advent.
7. The Gospel does not affect civil governments.
8. Caesar has the authority to make new laws
9. The judicial law existed only to distinguish Israel until the Blessed Seed should come.
10. The entirety of the law was abrogated after John the Baptist.
11. Christians are free from the yoke of the entire law.
12. Galatians establishes the abrogation of both the judicial and the ceremonial laws.
13. Whatever laws may be are from God”

In the introduction to the book we read:

“His clear and firm stance on God’s justice as revealed in the judicial laws of Moses influenced giants of Reformed theology for nearly two centuries afterward. As the reader will learn, Piscator’s views were held by several key figures, helped shape the Puritan movements and governments in both England and America, and influenced the formation of the Westminster Confession of Faith. It is time that this nearly-forgotten theologian, and his doctrine of the law, be resurrected and given a rightful consideration among the hall of fame of Reformers. To that end, we present Piscator’s work on the judicial laws of Moses most often cited often by subsequent writers: the Appendix to his commentary on Exodus. Originally titled “Observations on Chapters 21, 22, 23, namely, an explanation of controversial questions about the abrogation of the judicial laws of Moses,” it is here published as a stand-alone book: Disputations on the Judicial Laws of Moses.”

ANTONIUS MATTHAEUS II (1601-1654)

“The pervasiveness of Calvinism and Calvinist morality on criminal law in the early modern Dutch Republic, is shown through an analysis of the work of Antonius Matthaeus II, De criminibus (On crimes) of 1644. In Matthaeus’s restatement of criminal law, certain inherent ambiguities of Calvinism become manifest. Matthaeus’s Calvinist conviction becomes particularly evident in contested issues of criminal law. At these places, in discussion with Civil and Canon lawyers, but particularly also with other Reformed theologians and legal scholars, Matthaeus developed his own stance, on how to interpret and explain Roman criminal law and local customary criminal laws in light of the orthodox—Calvinist—religion.

Matthaeus’s consequent Calvinism can help to explain certain ‘modern’ opinions, such as his rejection of torture as a mean to achieve confessions. Due to the absolute primacy of divine will and law in De criminibus, the role of natural, practical reason remains quite limited. Indeed, although Matthaeus distinguished between moral and enduring laws with direct bearing on criminal law and religious prescripts without such direct consequence for the law, he failed to give any clear reason or criterion for such distinction.

For criminal law, the enduring moral laws were to be found mainly in the Decalogue and the Mosaic Laws that explicated those commandments. According to Matthaeus, these enduring moral laws of the Decalogue corresponded with natural law.” (Oosterhuis, 2020)

“In the passage quoted above, Matthaeus argued that the rule that simple theft should be punished with a fine—and not a capital penalty—was not only juridical (judicialis), but partly moral (moralis). Here, Matthaeus employed terminology principally in use by theologians and moralists, both Catholic and Protestant. These theologians distinguished between three types of biblical laws: (i) moral laws (lex moralis), the enduring moral teachings of the Decalogue and the New Testament; (ii) juridical, forensic or civil laws (lex juridicales, ius forensi), the rules and procedures by which ancient Israelites and apostolic Christians governed their religious and civil communities; and (iii) ceremonial laws (lex ceremonialis), the Mosaic laws that governed the religious life of the ancient Israelites.

Certain Protestant theologians argued that only the definition of crimes was part of the moral and enduring law, but that the punishment of those crimes was part of the juridical or civil law, and thus at the discretion of magistrates. As proponents of this view, Matthaeus listed some prominent first and second generation Reformers—French, Italian, German and English: Calvin, Vermigli, Melanchton, Chemnitius and Perkins.

Matthaeus argued, however, that also the punishment of crimes was part of the moral law, at least partly, admittedly in the sense that magistrates were limited in their discretion insofar that they should not impose a capital penalty for theft. Indeed, several Protestant theologians defended that the kinds of punishment of the crimes in the Mosaic Laws pertaining to the Decalogue were also of a moral and enduring nature, not just the definition of the crimes. Of the Reformed theologians listed by Matthaeus to support his opinion, Vermigli and Musculus, had a quite nuanced opinion. The more strict opinion that simple theft should never be punished capitally was held by a number of Calvinist Divinity professors at Leiden—Franciscus Junius (1545–1602), Lambertus Daneau (1535–1590) and André Rivet (1572–1651)—, Strasbourg—Johannes Piscator (1546–1625)—and Franeker—Guilelmus Amesius (or William Ames, 1576–1633).” (Oosterhuis, 2020: 75, 76)

Matthaeus’s own words:
“All Mosaic Laws, on the evidence of Duarenus and Contius, which pertain to the teaching of the Decalogue have their foundation in natural equity and bind Christians today. This law does not exclusively belong to the courts, but in part to morals: since our Saviour in different places confirms laws of this nature (for example John 8:3; I Corinthians 10:8; Matthew 15:3–4; Matthew 26:52; Job 12:8 juncto Deuteronomy 15:11; Matthew 5:8 et seqq.), it follows that they are not abolished and cannot be abolished by the decree of any human being, since every magistrate ought to be the servant and executor of the divine will (Romans 13:1–4).” (Oosterhuis, 2020: 75)

“This law [i.e. on the capital punishment for adultery] does not belong exclusively to the courts nor was it written for the Jews alone, but is in accordance with natural reason and it has reference to the observation of the seventh commandment and it must be regarded as of a mixed nature, in part belonging to the courts and in part moral. Laws of that kind bind us even today, as I said in the preceding book in the Title on Theft.” (Oosterhuis, 2020: 78)

LUTHER, MELANCHATON, ETC.

“Just as the civil magistracy is obligated to restrain and punish public blasphemy and perjury, it is also obligated to restrain and punish individuals in its own judicial district, for public false teachings, improper worship services and heretical acts. And this God orders in the second commandment, where he says, “Whoever dishonors God’s name, shall not remain unpunished” [editor’s note: it is really the third commandment, paraphrased]. Everyone is obligated, in keeping with his station and office, to avoid and to deter blasphemy.

And on the strength of this commandment, princes and magistrates have the power and duty to abolish improper worship services, and in their place, to establish true teaching and correct worship services. This commandment also instructs them to deter public false teaching, and to punish the obstinate. Leviticus 24[:16] speaks to this: “Whoever blasphemes God is to be killed.” [I]f we hold God’s honor in high respect, we must in all seriousness take preventive measures, so that blasphemy and damaging errors are not carried far and wide”

ULRICH ZWINGLI COMMENTING ON EX. 18:21

“[A] judge or magistrate ought particularly to be a Christian and a spiritually-minded man. So God himself deigned to call them by his own name Elohim, because they should be most like God as high priests of righteousness, equity and firmness.”

JOHN CALVIN, THE THEONOMIST?

“I had several goals in publishing this collection of John Calvin’s sermons on Deuteronomy. The first was to provide primary source evidence to answer the question: “Was Calvin a theonomist?” These sermons reveal clearly that the answer is yes. … This pamphlet reprints North’s preface to John Calvin, The Covenant Enforced. North argues from Calvin’s writings that Calvin believed that the Mosaic law should form the foundation for Christian socio-political reflection. Calvin further held that the curses and blessings of the covenant, enunciated by God in Leviticus 26 and reiterated by Moses in Deuteronomy 28, are still in force today.”

For a excellent explanation of Calvin’s ‘anti-theonomic’ words in the Institutes, IV.20.14, see this article:

Theonomic Precedent in the Theology of John Calvin

“Calvin’s understanding of the continuing authority and applicability of the Mosaic judicials to modern civil governments is warmly debated in Reformed circles. Theonomists maintain that their commitment to apply God’s law to all areas of life, including civil magistrates, is the judicial extension of Calvin’s theology. Citing natural or common law as a sufficient basis for civil ethics, others strongly reject the theonomic appeal to Calvin.

It is also suggested that even though Calvin and theonomists reach many of the same formal conclusions on Christian political ethics and penology, Calvin’s rationale for utilizing the Mosaic judicials is markedly contrary to that of theonomists, thus rendering any appeal to him illegitimate. These and similar criticisms, while helpful in clarifying many issues, do not overturn the theonomic conviction that the theology and ethic of the great Geneva reformer provide Reformed precedent for the continuing authority and application of the Mosaic judicials to modern civil governments.

It is suggested that the reason for the widely divergent assessment of Calvin’s political ethic is due to his “divided judicial legacy.” While his sermons and commentaries are basically theonomic, in that they seek to apply the Old Testament case laws and penalties to modern civil governments, Institutes, with its teaching on natural law, is clearly anti-theonomic. North states that some of Calvin’s comments concerning natural law in the Institutes have “left the door open to generations of Calvinists who could, in good conscience, call themselves Calvinists and still accept a wide range of political and economic humanism.”

Such a concession is unnecessary. As this paper will demonstrate, one weakness of current Calvin scholarship, though not of North’s research, is the failure of analysts to deal adequately with Calvin’s copious commentaries and sermons. There is no fundamental difference, however, between these and his Institutes. If Calvin’s comments on natural law are interpreted in the light of his overall theology, his use of natural law terminology does not represent a departure from his constant commitment to Sola Scriptura in the realm of political ethics.”

“Clearly, therefore, Calvin’s comments to the King of France in 4:20:14 are specifically directed against the Anabaptists. His primary purpose, the intent that must govern all other interpretations, was to expose the anti-Christian practices of the Muensterites and to separate the French Protestants from them. The radicals were the ones who denied that a commonwealth is duly framed which neglects the political system of Moses. Revolution, not evangelization and education, was the Anabaptist answer to sin in a society. Moreover, the Muenster Anabaptists were guilty of failing to distinguish in God’s law that which remains perpetually binding and that which does not. They were guilty of seeking to establish a Jewish theocracy.

Of course, according to Calvin, this is impossible and illegitimate. Those aspects of the ceremonial and judicial laws that applied only to Israel have passed away. “We must bear in mind that common division of the whole law of God published by Moses into moral, ceremonial, and judicial. And we must consider each of these parts, that we may understand what there is in them that pertains to us, and what does not.”

JD van der Vyver (Calvinist jurist) on Calvin’s view of the law

“Calvin deduced some natural law norms from the other Mosaic laws (i.e. not directly or not only from the Ten Commandments – slc). He says, there must be a distinction in the laws of Moses, those Mosaic laws that have eternal value, and those that were only for the Jews.” (1982: 56)

WES BREDENHOF ON CALVIN’S VIEW OF MOSAIC CIVIL AND JUDICIAL LAWS

“Calvin had a nuanced view of the Mosaic civil and judicial laws.  His guiding principle was general equity – looking for the kernel that is universally applicable since it is written on the hearts of men.  The entire Law of God as summarized in the Decalogue remains in force for magistrates today, both the first and the second table.  However, the penalties attached to infractions of the second table can vary according to times and circumstances.  The important thing is that such infractions are punished.  When it comes to the first table, because God’s honour is at stake, Calvin maintained that the most severe penalties were appropriate.”

LJ DU PLESSIS ON CALVIN’S THEORY OF THE STATE

“The Ten Commandments namely, also has a political aspect as formulation of the general legal principles, the application or positivization of which by the state is partly determined by varying national and country circumstances. Yes, in the Mosaic legislation itself a distinction must be made between the enduring principles and the then positivization of it according to the circumstances of Judaism at that time. The enduring legal principles of the Decalogue were briefly specified by Calvin as follows. The first table requires that also the authority will serve God according to his Word and, after official capture of the public worship service, will protect it from revolutionary violation, in the extreme cases even with the death penalty, further that everything that can promote superstition, from the public worship is served, blasphemy is punished and the oath is used to settle disputes and at least one day out of seven is made available for public participation in the public worship service associated with the service of mercy. ” [1941:124]

LM DU PLESSIS ON CALVIN’S CALL TO KINGS TO SERVE THE KING

“While Calvin defends his case before the king (as judge) from the Holy Scriptures (and even with the help of the statements of the church fathers), he is also bold enough to tell the king from the Scriptures, unashamedly, what exactly is expected from him: the king should grant the rightful protection to matters concerning the inviolability of God’s glory and the kingdom of Christ, because the prince is, after all, a servant of God. A prince commits robbery if does not rule accordingly.” [1977:  99, 110]

HENRICH BULLINGER (1504-1575)

“I know that many have wished that you had not defended this principle; but many also thank you, and among others our church. Urbanus Regius has long ago proved, in a work of his own, and all the ministers of Luneberg agree with him, that heretics, when they are blasphemers, ought to be punished. There are also many other pious men who think the same, and consider that such offenders ought not only to be silenced, but to be put to death. Do not repent therefore of what you have done: the Lord will uphold your righteous efforts. I know that your disposition is not cruel, and that you will favour no barbarity. Who knows not, that a boundary must be set to things of this kind? But how it could be possible to spare such a man as Servetus, that serpent of all heresies, that most obdurate of men, I see not.”

MARTIN BUCER (1491-1551)

“Since no one can describe an approach more equitable and wholesome to the commonwealth than that which God describes in His law, it is certainly the duty of all kings and princes who recognize that God has put them over his people that they follow most studiously His own method of punishing evildoers. For inasmuch as we have been freed from the teaching of Moses through Christ the Lord, so that it is no longer necessary for us to observe the civil decrees of the law of Moses, namely in terms of the way and circumstances In which they are described, nevertheless, insofar as the substance and proper end of these commandments are concerned, and especially those which enjoin the discipline that is necessary for the whole commonwealth, whoever does not reckon that such commandments are to be conscientiously observed is certainly not attributing to God either supreme wisdom or a righteous care for our salvation.” (1954: 378)

WILHELMUS A’BRAKEL (1635-1711)

“It is the duty of civil government to uphold not only the second table of the law, but also the first. It must see to it that God is honored. It may not tolerate any idolatry, worship of images, or any false religion within her jurisdiction, but must rather eradicate these. It must prevent the vain use of God’s Name practiced by cursing, swearing, and blasphemy. It must prevent the desecration of the Sabbath, punish violators of this commandment, and see to it that the gospel is proclaimed everywhere within its jurisdiction. It must see to it that the church, as the darling of the Lord Jesus, is protected and preserved; and that neither internal dissension nor any external oppression disturb or destroy the church, but that instead she be safely preserved in the use of the privileges and liberties which her King Jesus has given her.”

DE JURE MAGAZINE (April 1977)

“The fact that church and state in the ZAR were so close to each other had no small effect on the judiciary. The Protestant church affiliation of all judicial officials, for example, was an important qualifying factor. Judges were to be people who were “practiced with the laws of Moses alone, but who tested and examined daily the law and the Gospel of Moses with costly attention.” As for legislation, the people wanted the law “that God and our Creator gave to Moses to serve as the basis of all laws. … In the verdict one could notice in most cases that the magistrate was well acquainted with the civil laws given to the Jewish people through the intervention of Moses, and that the magistrate was of opinion, that he was not far from the would be way if he did not rule in accordance with the laws. ”

B. SPOELSTRA

“Because each separate district got its own magistrate and the learned legal men were very scarce at first, magistrates were appointed people with a very common sense, even though they rarely sat on the school benches. In the court session it was then nor the law book that was always consulted, not a search for precedents, but only the common sense was ready to give guidance. In the verdict one could notice in most cases that the magistrate was well acquainted with the civil laws that were given to the Jewish people through Moses, and that the magistrate was of the opinion that he would not be far off the road if he ruled in accordance with the laws. ”

DIRK POSTMA (1818-1890)

“Question 21: What do we mean by the civil laws of God given to Israel? Answer: Those statutes, commandments, and ordinances, which pertain to Israel as a special nation in the land of Canaan, according to which they should conduct themselves in their homely and public life, in both peace and war.

Queston 22: Are we still bound by those laws under the New Testament? Answer: In so far as they concerned Israel as a special nation, they never imposed any direct obligation upon other nations; but in so far as they have a general moral character, they are certainly for all peoples, therefore also — and especially for us Christians — the very best laws and precepts of justice and equity.

Consequently, Christian nations should behave accordingly, and their statesmen and lawyers should take care that their laws do not conflict with it, although in many respects the proverb mutatis mutandis (other circumstances require different laws) must also be observed here, but inasmuch as they have general moral features, they are equivalent to the Ten Commandments, they are, as it were, a further explanation and application of them; they thus contain the declaration of God’s eternal will.

And woe to a nation and people that sin against this, especially when it is done by a Christian nation, which has been informed by the word of God!”

TOTIUS THE THEONOMIST? (prof. dr. JD Du Toit)

“Note further that although the Book of Proverbs is so world-wide in content, the common name “God” is not used here, but “LORD”, specifically the Covenant Name. The wisdom meant here, therefore, relies entirely on the Revelation as contained in the Holy Scriptures When, therefore the Law of the Lord is not explicitly mentioned here, yet it is clear that the fear of the Lord is closely related to the Revelation of God; i.e. the wisdom rests on the Law and the Prophets. Even more. The words righteousness and justice and righteousness, which are spoken of throughout Scripture, more or less agree with what is meant by wisdom here. It is therefore clear that wisdom in the Old Testament is distinct from all other natural wisdom, and that its purpose is the realization of the will of the Lord in life.”

“With the claim that a commandment, (which) was given in the Old Testament, was abolished, we must be careful. For such a conclusive assertion, good reasons must be given. And if that is missing, our claim will have to be further qualified or given up altogether. In general, in connection with the civil and ceremonial laws given by the Lord to Israel, we must establish that a distinction must be made between the particular Israelite form in which the legislation came into being and the generally applicable essence or core on which it is based... As for the tithe, we think that the specifically Israelite form has passed away; but with it the great principle contained in it is not given up.”

“Imagine that it was said to Moses: You must not interfere with politics, and to Isaiah, leave politics alone, and to Amos and Ezechiel or to reprimand Paul or Peter to not speak about slave or free, kings and subjects, men and women, parents and children, taxes and many other things!” (Du Plessis, 1917: 21)

GKSA THEOLOGIANS: LJ DU PLESSIS, WJ SNYMAN, JD DU TOIT (TOTIUS), A DUVENHAGE, S. DU TOIT (20th century Reformed theologians from South Africa)

“Important in this regard is also the following conclusion to which Prof. LJ du Plessis comes: ‘Now it is hardly necessary to point out that although Calvin accepts many of the provisions (namely of the Decalogue-Dep.) as universally valid, he nevertheless does not consider them as applicable as such in all states. On the contrary, if God Himself moderates His strict commandment requirement to make it feasible by political means, then He Himself shows the way for positivization of the abiding aequitas core of His commandment, i.e., that what certain social circumstances require will be taken into account.

The Mosaic law do provide a model to follow. But the appropriate way is to adapt the commandment to local circumstances and to educate the company concerned to a higher legal conviction, where he can not yet bear the severity of the commandment. Especially the nature and degree of punishment (for certain crimes will depend on circumstances, provided that what God forbids is only also opposed by state roads in proportion to the seriousness and multiplicity of the crime. ”(The State Theory of Jean Calvin, p. 60.) (Cf. also from the same work, p. 58: “Thus heresy must not be punished, but revolutionary violation of the right with regard to religion.”)

“It may still be mentioned here that the first and second Helvetic Confessions, the English Confession of 1553, the Scottish Confession of 1560 and the Westminster Confession of 1647 in this matter, agrees with Belgic Confession article 36.”

WILLIE D. JONKER

Thus, in the Old Testament there are also laws that are specific to the existence of the people of Israel. It contains provisions over the division of the land, over the sabbath year. about slaves, law codes and similar matters. When the national existence of Israel with the coming of Christ were not the bed anymore in which the stream of God’s redemptive work flow anymore, so did those laws lose their binding character for the people of God. In Christ,  the position that the Israelite king had in God’s rule over the people of Israel, were  fulfilled. The kingdom of God becomes universal in nature since the day of Pentecost. The people of God live spread in many nations and countries. Israel’s civil laws therefore does not count in the same way for the believers in the New Covenant. … Still it is about concrete applications in one-time personal and historical situations. Therefore, such concrete prescriptions do not apply to exactly same way for all people of other times. The lasting will of God must in obedience to the guidance of the Spirit in new circumstances are “concretized” anew. The Bible itself show us this way.

“This does not mean that the very concrete precepts and commandments of the Bible would no longer have meaning for us. No, they retain their meaning to us, not in the sense that we have to literally execute them as they stand there, but in the sense that they put us on a authoritative way shows how God wanted His will in certain situations had to be done. They leave us the many finer shades of doing the will of God as it is in the complex, sinful life must take place.

If we carefully study the different concrete commandments and commands of the Bible, we will notice that they always point to the abiding will of God which also applies to us and that they even in their concrete form want to show us what we should take into account keep in our obedience to the will of God in our own situation.

Therefore, we should keep reading the whole Bible and not too soon think that we can only skip the law passages of the Old Testament, or that we are not interested in specific assignments assigned to specific people are not given in the Bible. The Holy Spirit can use those passages to convince us today of what God wants for we are in our own situations.” (1975: 20-23)

D. ARNOLD

“The mosaic legislation and enforcement of justice is so good that it could serve as a model for all states of law. That’s what Daniel Arnold said yesterday at the Colloque Biblique Francophone. Daniel Arnold, teacher of ethics and dogmatics at the Institut Biblique Emmaüs in Saint-Légier (Switzerland), continued his series of lectures on “Ethical Education of the Old and New Testaments”. … All earthly judges must realize that as vicars they judge for God and therefore cannot judge arbitrarily.  The Old Testament knows only two kinds of punishment, according to Arnold: the death penalty for serious crimes and the satisfaction in the form of money or property. Imprisonment is absent from the mosaic penal system, as well as physical mutilation as it does occur in Islamic law.”

Minister VAN MIDDELKOOP

Christian thinking about humanitarian intervention can easily be combined with the practice as experienced and shaped by Minister Van Middelkoop of Defense. The mosaic martial laws and the Pauline definition of government are important sources of inspiration for him. … It says there (Rom. 13), “For she is God’s servant for your good.”  “According to Paulus, the government acts well if it protects its citizens well,” says the minister. “If that doesn’t happen, you can pat the government on the fingers. In the latter case, also with military means.” Effortlessly, Van Middelkoop switches back to the Old Testament when he refers to the mosaic martial laws of Deuteronomy 20. “There is an incredible amount of wisdom in that.” Wars must be waged as disciplined as possible, the minister concludes. He also referred to it in a parliamentary debate on cluster bombs, which often cause many civilian casualties. “In the siege of a city, the fruit trees must be spared, because after the siege, life must be allowed to resume.”

WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH, CHAPTER 19:3,4

“Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.”

GEORGE GILLESPIE (1613-1648)

“It will be asked, “But how does it appear that these or any other judicial laws of Moses do at all appertain to us, as rules to guide us in like cases?” I shall wish him who scruples this, to read Piscator’s appendix to his observations upon the 21-23 chapters of Exodus, where he excellently disputes this question, whether the Christian Magistrate is bound to observe the judicial laws of Moses, as well as the Jewish Magistrate was.”

“Christ’s words (Matt. 5:17), “Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill,” are comprehensive of the judicial law, it being a part of the Law of Moses. Now he could not fulfill the judicial law, except either by his practice, or by teaching others still to observe it; not by his own practice, for he would not condemn the adulteress (Joh. 8:11), nor divide the inheritance (Luke 12:13-14). Therefore, it must be by his doctrine for our observing it.

If Christ in his sermon (Matt. 5), would teach that the moral law belongs to us Christians, in so much as he vindicates it from the false glosses of the scribes and Pharisees; then he meant to hold forth the judicial law concerning moral trespasses as belonging unto us also; for he vindicates and interprets the judicial law, as well as the moral (Matt. 5:38), An eye for an eye, etc.” (1846)

“I know some divines hold that the judicial law of Moses, so far as concerneth the punishments of sins against the moral law, idolatry, blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, adultery, theft, etc., ought to be a rule to the Christian magistrate; and, for my part, I wish more respect were had to it, and that it were more consulted with.” (1985: 3)

SAMUEL RUTHERFORD (1600 – 1661)

“It is clear the question must be thus stated, for all the laws of the Old Testament (which we hold in their Moral equity to be perpetual) that are touching blasphemies, heresies, solicitation to worship false Gods and the breach of which the Godly Magistrate was to punish, command or forbid only such things as may be proved by two or three witnesses, and which husband and wife are not to conceal, and from which all Israel must abstain for fear of the like punishment. … The express law of God, and of nature written in the hearts of all, proveth that the seducer should die, Deut. 13. If a prophet or a Dreamer arise, and say, let us go after other gods, he shall be put to death. That is no temporary law obliging the Jews only.  … Our adversaries are obliged to give us precept, promise or godly practice why a moral sin forbidden and severely punished in the Old Testament, should yet remain a moral sin in the New Testament, and yet not be punishable by men or churches” (1649)

JOHN OWEN (1616 – 1683)

“Although the institutions and examples of the Old Testament, of the duty of magistrates in the things and about the worship of God, are not, in their whole latitude and extent, to be drawn into rules that should be obligatory to all magistrates now, under the administration of the gospel,–and that because the magistrate then was “custos, vindex, et administrator legis judicialis, et politiae Mosaicae,” from which, as most think, we are freed;– yet, doubtless, there is something moral in those institutions, which, being unclothed of their Judaical form, is still binding to all in the like kind, as to some analogy and proportion.

“Subduct from those administrations what was proper to, and lies upon the account of, the church and nation of the Jews, and what remains upon the general notion of a church and nation must be everlastingly binding.”

“And this amounts thus far, at least, that judges, rulers, and magistrates, which are promised under the New Testament to be given in mercy, and to be of singular usefulness, as the judges were under the Old, are to take care that the gospel church may, in its concernment as such, be supported and promoted, and the truth propagated wherewith they are intrusted; as the others took care that it might be well with the Judaical church as such. And on these, and such like principles as these are, may you safely bottom yourselves in that undertaking wherein you seek for direction from God this day.”

FRANCIS NIGEL LEE ON THE GENERAL EQUITY OF THE JUDICIAL LAWS THROUGH HISTORY

“Church history teaches us that not only after Calvary but even after the destruction of the nation of ancient Israel in 70 A.D., the “general equity” of the judicial laws continued in the Christian Church as the new Israel of God! And not only at the nominal christianization of the Roman Empire under Emperor Constantine at the beginning of the fourth century A.D., but even subsequently under  Christian Emperors like Justinian, civil codes were established which in large measure reflected the “moral duties” or the “general equity” of the judicial laws of Israel.

Later, even after the disintegration of the Holy Roman Empire, the first civil laws of all modern Western nations were largely modelled on Biblically-judicial principles, as a result of the widespread corpus christianum idea of the later middle ages (cf. Charlemagne and the Carolingian revival). This is reflected also in Wycliffe and his Lollards. Later still, after the sixteenth century Protestant  Reformation, John Calvin encouraged the imposition of the Biblical punishments for witchcraft and adultery and incest in Geneva.

So too other early Reformed theologians such as (Calvin’s friends) Bucer and de Chandieu and Bullinger; Knox’s Scots Confession (arts. 14f), De Bres’ Belgic Confession (art. 25), Olevianus’ & Ursinus’ Heidelberg Catechism (91-115); and Thomas Cartwright and Philip Stubbs and Henry Barrow and William Perkins and John Wollebius and William Ames are all good examples of the many consistent Protestants who regarded the “moral substance” of the judicial laws of Israel as still binding in the world today.”

MEREDITH KLINE, A ‘EXTREME’ ANTI-THEONOMIST CONCEDES

“At the same time it must be said that Chalcedon (referring to RJ Rushdoony’s institution and theonomic thought as such) is not without roots in respectable ecclesiastical tradition. It is in fact a revival of certain teachings contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith – at least in the Confession’s original formulations. These particular elements in the Confession, long since rejected as manifestly unbiblical by the mass of those who stand in that confessional tradition (as well as by virtually all other students of the Scriptures), have been subjected to official revision. The revision, however, has left us with standards whose proper legal interpretation is perplexed by ambiguities, and the claim of Chalcedon is that it is the true champion of confessional orthodoxy. Ecclesiastical courts operating under the Westminster Confession of Faith are going to have their problems, therefore, if they should be of a mind to bring the Chalcedon aberration under their judicial scrutiny.” (1978: 173)

LAIRD HARRIS (non-theonomist)

“Theonomy was until recently a little-used word…. But the word is now being used to designate a new idea… that the governments of the world today should be guided in their judicial decisions by all the legislation of the Old Testament and, in particular, should assess the Old Testament penalties for an infraction of those laws, where civil or religious… The view is not really new; it is just new In our time. It was the usual view through the Middle Ages, was not thrown over by the Reformers and was espoused by the Scottish Covenanters who asked the Long Parliament to make Presbyterianism the religion of the three realms—England, Scotland and Ireland.” (1979: 1)

SINCLAIR FERGUSON (non-theonomist)

“… It would have satisfied those Divines (at the Westminister Assemby – slc), like Gillespie, who wished that more attention woulde be given to the Mosaic penology … Essentially, Bahnsen accepts the doctrinal orthodoxy of the original text [of the Confession = WCF 19]. Whether or not this is in conflict with the intention of the American Presbyterian emendation of the Confession, it is certainly in keeping with the traditional Scottish Reformed understanding of it.”

“It should be noted that in many instances the practical implications theonomy may not necessarily be a denial of the  teaching of the Westminster Confession. The words of Chapter XIX, IV can be understood to include the view that Mosaic penalties may be applied by the Christian magistrate (of ‘general equity’ so dictates).  We have already noted that such views were widespread among the Divines in relation to specific crimes. But this is simply to recognize that there may be common ground in practice between the Confession’s teaching and theonomy.”

“The strongest position a theonomist could adopt on the basis of the Confession would be that it did not a priori reject the application of the Mosaic judicial punishment for crimes considered seriatim. But theoretical theonomy as such is not the teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith.”

“… the Confession’s teaching on the Mosaic judicials extends as far as to include certain applications of the Mosaic law consistent with those sought by theonomists … the penological implications of this view might be indistinguishable from the practical implications of theonomy … in several instance, therefore, in practical outworking and that of theonomy are one … (the confession position) is not necessarily identical with that of theonomy … (Rutherford’s) arguments are at some points strikingly similar to those of Bahsen.” (1990: 327-348)

BAHNSEN’S EXPLANATION OF WCF 19.4 (GENERAL EQUITY OF THE CIVIL LAWS)

“There can be no question, then, that the leading and most influential theologian at the Westminster Assembly (Gillespie -slc) maintained that the “general equity” of the Mosaic judicial laws continued to require civil officials in the New Testament era to enforce the penal sanctions of that law. According to George Gillespie, “the will of God concerning civil justice and punishments is no where so fully and clearly revealed as in the judicial law of Moses. This therefore must be the surest prop and stay to the conscience of the Christian Magistrate.” Gillespie openly stated that he had no hesitation in holding “that he who was punishable by death under the judicial law is punishable by death still; and he who was not punished by death then, is not to be punished by death now.” He saw the modern state as regulated in its civil code by the penal provisions of the law of Moses.”

OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) on Theonomy

“Question: Does the OPC have a position on theonomy, or done any “official” studies on the subject?

Answer: To the best of my knowledge, our General Assembly has never appointed a study committee on theonomy, which is how a matter would be dealt with by our entire denomination. Our official doctrinal positions are found in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms (which is subordinate to the Bible, of course, and which we believe is an accurate summary of its essential doctrines). The Orthodox Presbyterian Church would have an “official position” on theonomy if the Westminster Standards somehow required it or ruled it out of bounds.

The problem is that “theonomy” is a rather broad category, encompassing a range of views. A number of self-described theonomists disagree with each other on various points of doctrine. Thus, the relationship of theonomy to the Westminster Standards depends on what “brand” of theonomy is under discussion.

Some critics of theonomy argue that it contradicts the Westminster Standards’ on how the Law of God given to Moses is to be applied to day (Westminster Confession of Faith ch. 19). Some theonomists argue their views are in fact required by the Westminster Standards. All theonomists (to the best of my knowledge) would argue their views are at the very least allowable by the Westminster Standards.

As you can see, I’m unable to give a clear answer to your question because there is no one definition of the term “theonomy.” You will find a range of opinion in the OPC regarding theonomy, but no official position on the movement one way or the other.”

REFORMED CHURCH IN NZ: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?

“Theological controversy can bring out the best and the worst in the Church. If handled correctly, it will sharpen our understanding of the message of the Scriptures and its application to our contemporary world. The Church can emerge from a period of theological discussion and debate with a much greater clarity on the issue at hand. However, if badly handled, contention over a point of doctrine can be destructive and harmful for the Church. It can lead to unnecessary division and ill-feeling between brothers and sisters in both blood families and the family of God. …

In view of this divergence of viewpoint among theonomists, the committee concluded that it was “not possible to make a blanket endorsement or denial of theonomy with respect to the confessions.” We believed the conclusions reached in the report to be in harmony with both Scripture and Confessions, yet we could not say this of all the various shades of theonomic opinion. …

Comparing Bahnsen’s views with the historic Reformed view it is clear that there is a basic agreement about the relationship between Church and State. “The debate does not center around whether or not the magistrate should apply God’s law, but to what extent God’s law applies in its detail.”

The committee believed it was both beyond their mandate and their ability to offer a definitive solution to a problem that has exercised the minds of able Reformed theologians and thinkers through the centuries. Instead they formulated statements regarding the Church, the State and God’s law which they could all agree with. The areas of agreement are as follows: …

Having looked at the theonomy issue in New Zealand, one of the first observations we could make is that there is nothing new under the sun. Long ago the writer of Ecclesiastes reminded us of this (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Through all the centuries of Church history and theological debate Christians have discussed the relationship between the Testaments, the respective roles of the Church and State, and the application of God’s law to society at large. In the 17th century in particular the English Puritans invested a great deal of time and energy unto discussions on God’s law. Our own study in New Zealand in the 20th century is but a small and humble contribution to the ongoing work of the Church in coming to understand God’s word and its application to the contemporary world.”

MORE QUOTES ON THEONOMY THROUGH EARLY-MEDIEVAL-REFORMATION AND MODERN CHURCH HISTORY

CONCLUSION

It is very clear from this few sources that theonomic ethics and thought are not ‘new’ and whether one agrees with it or not, that is part of the ‘tradition of the church’, i.e. the reformed churches of the reformed confessions and reformation heritage.  Of course many of the theologians quoted above where not 20-21st century Theonomists (for obvious reasons!), but they were theonomic in basic views of the judicial laws and penalties.

Therefore the wisdom and wise words of RCNZ brothers should be careful thought and prayer for all debates between reformed believers, groups and churches, yes pro- and non- or anti- theonomic  brothers, to watch that our zeal to whatever side of a issue, glorifies the Lord and serve His church. Let’s keep on learning from each other, also from reformed history on law and ethics, all in the light of Acts 17:11 and a lot of prayer to really listened, read, understand and differ if we need to, in love for God and His church.

In part IV I will end with some of own thoughts on theonomic postmillennialism, what I believe the unique semper reformanda contribution is of Theonomic ethics for our times, because of one of their very important foundational influences: “Van Tillian Apologetics”:

“There is no alternative but that of theonomy and autonomy.” – Cornelius Van Til, Christian Theistic Ethics, p. 134

References

Bahnsen, G.L., 1991, No other standard: Theonomy and its critics, Inst for Christian Economics, Tyler, TX.

Bahnsen, G.L., 2002, Theonomy in Christian ethics, 3rd edn., Covenant Media Press, Nacogdoches, TX.

Bos, F.L. (red.), 1957, Ware Christelijke Belijdenis der Nederlandse Kerken, Kok, Kampen.

Bucer, M. 1954, De Regno Christi, in the Library of Christian Classics, Westminster, Philadelphia, 1954. https://bit.ly/3dupgKU

De Mar, G., 2017, Theonomy: an extension of Calvinism’s judicial theology. https://americanvision.org/14290/theonomy-an-extension-of-calvinisms-judicial-theology/

Diedericks, M., 2021, ‘Critical evaluation of Theonomist eschatology’, In die Skriflig 55(1), a2753. https://doi.org/10.4102/ids.v55i1.2753

Du Plessis, J.A., 1917, Op die spore van Calvinisme in ons maatskaplike en staatkundige lewe, Veritas Vincet: Potchefstroom.

Du Plessis, L.J., 1941. Die Moderne Staat, Stellenbosch, Pro Ecclessia Drukkery.

Du Plessis, L.M., 1977, Calvyn oor die staat en die reg, Potchefstroom, PU vir CHO.

Feenstra, J.G. 1950. Onze Geloofsbelijdenis. Kampen, Kok. https://bit.ly/3rJfyN3

Ferguson, S., 1990, ‘An Assembly of Theonomists?’, in W.S. Barker & W.R. Godfrey (eds.), Theonomy, A reformed critique, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.

Gillespie, G. 1846. Wholesome severity reconciled with Christian Liberty. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/26849/26849-h/26849-h.html

Gillespie, G. 1985. Aaron’s Rod Blossoming: or, the Divine Ordinance of Church Government Vindicated, Sprinkle Publications, Virginia, 1646 (reprint) https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A42757.0001.001?view=toc

Harris, R.L. 1979, “Theonomy in Christian Ethics: A Review of Greg L. Bahnsen’s Book”, in Presbuterion: Covenant Seminary Review 5:1 (Spring 1979).

Jonker, W. D. 1975. Die Bybel en Gods wil vir ons lewe, Kaapstad, NG Kerk-Uitgewers.

Junius, F., 2015, The Mosaic Polity (Sources in Early Modern Economics, Ethics, and Law), . Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty. Kindle Edition.

Kline, M.A., 1977, ‘Review of Greg L. Bahnsen: Theonomy in Christian ethics’, The Craig Press xvii, 619–630.

Kline, M.A., 1978, Comments on a Old-New Error: A Review Article, in Westminster Theological Journal 41:1 (Fall 1978).

Le Cornu, S., 2000. Die Kultuurbeskouing van RJ Rushdoony. https://proregno.com/2010/02/01/verbondseminaar-2000-christus-en-kultuur/

Oosterhuis, J. (2020). Roman Dutch criminal law and Calvinism: Calvinist morality in De Criminibus (1644) of Antonius Matthaeus II. In A. Masferrer (Ed.), Criminal Law and Morality in the Age of Consent: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 67-95). Springer International Publishing. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice Vol. 84 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64163-4_4

Polman, A.D.R., 1958, Woord en Belijdenis: eenvoudige verklaring van de Nederlandse Geloofsbelijdenis, deel 2, T. Wever, Franeker.

Polyander, J. et. al, 1625/1964, Synopsis of Overzicht van de Zuiverste Theology. J. Boersema Drukkerij, Enschede. https://proregno.com/2020/05/12/polyander-oor-die-wet-van-god-stelling-49-51-geld-die-burgerlike-wette-van-israel-nog-vir-vandag-se-owerhede-en-onderdane/

Rushdoony, R.J., 1973, The institutes of biblical law, The Craig Press, Nutley, NJ.

Rutherford, S., 1649, A Free Disputation against Pretended Liberty of Concience, London. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=eebo;idno=A92140.0001.001

Schilder, K., 1977. Christelijke Religie: over de Nederlandse Geloofsbelijdenis. Kopiëerinrichting v.d. Berg, Kampen.

Schissel, S.M. (ed.), 2002. The Standard Bearer – A Festschrift for Greg. L. Bahnsen,  Covenant Media Press, Texas.

Strevel, C.B., Theonomic Precedent in the Theology of John Calvin, in: The Standard Bearer – A Festschrift for Greg. L. Bahnsen (Texas: Covenant Media Press), p. 319-368. https://proregno.com/2020/07/15/theonomic-precedent-in-the-theology-of-john-calvin/

Van der Vyver, J.D., 1982. Inleiding tot die Regswetenskap, Butterworth, Durban.

Van Bruggen, J., 1965. Het Amen der Kerk: De Nederlandse Geloofsbelijdenis Toegelicht s: Oosterbaan & Lê Cointre N.V., Goes. https://bit.ly/3oERLfz

PART 2: What does Theonomic Postmillennialism teach themselves in answer to CETE article’s accusations, according to the sources CETE uses but seemingly did not study?

by Slabbert Le Cornu[1]

[PART 1: Introduction & The unscholarly uninformed method of CETE and the two crucial main questions in this debate that are also of big importance for the reformed community in SA]

“Abstract: Although the extreme form of Theonomism has only affected a small number of Reformed members in South Africa, it seems that Theonomist Postmillennialism has a greater underlying influence in the Reformed Churches in South Africa. General churchgoers in the Reformed Churches of South Africa generally confuse the Regulatory Principle (sic) with Theonomism and are uninformed about precisely what Theonomism is. Furthermore, signs of Theonomism as it developed in the USA are also visible in South Africa. Yet, there is great ignorance about the exact effect that Theonomism has on Reformed congregations in South Africa, especially regarding the eschatological views held by individual congregations.”[1]

“The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him.” (Proverbs 18:17)

Introduction to all 4 parts

The first quote above is the ‘abstract’ summary of dr. Morne Diedericks’s[2] article, Critical evaluation of Theonomist eschatology[3], that were published in the the GKSA’s theological journal, In die Skriflig.[4]

The second quote is from Proverbs 18:17, and is the goal of this and future articles.

There will be four parts in this response on ‘Critical evaluation of Theonomist eschatology’ article (abbreviation from now on: CETE).

Part 1: The unscholarly uninformed method of CETE and the two crucial main questions in this debate that are also of big importance for the reformed community in SA

Part 2: What does Theonomic Postmillennialism teach themselves using the sources CETE mentions in its ‘references’?

Part 3: Theonomic Postmillennialism reformed roots through history, also in South Africa.

Part 4: A Plea for biblical scholarship and brotherly relations among reformed brothers in our Kingdom callings here in Africa for now and the future

We deel with part two now, please read part 1 first to understand the context of part 2:

PART 2: What does Theonomic Postmillennialism teach themselves in answer to CETE article’s accusations, according to the sources CETE uses but seemingly did not study?

Introduction

The purpose of part 2[1] is to show from the theonomic-postmillennial sources that the author of CETE (and the sources he used to reject reformed theonomic-postmillennial thought) did not study these original sources themselves or/either have just decided to maliciously misrepresent the reformed brothers they disagree with. What all the reasons could be for this I will leave in the hands of our Lord.

Now if the author did some solid objective research, reading the sources themselves and not only quoting from secondhand sources, some sources unfortunately very hostile indeed, he would have learned a lot from the reformed theonomic viewpoints and could have given a much better balanced critique that would have been helpful for both theonomic and non-theonomic brothers, also in South Africa.

Approach

I will first summarize and quote the major accusation from CETE, secondly, answer the accusation directly with some quotes from the theonomic postmillennial sources used by CETE, to show the opposite of the accusation. I deliberately give long quotes from the theonomic sources, to let themselves speak, please see the sources details in the references below. Thirdly, I give some comments in-between the quotes, specifically at the end to add some perspective (see the last page of CETE article for the sources used, emphases added), but my own view will be seen in part 4 of this series:

CETE ACCUSATION 1:  All theonomists are postmillennialists

CETE states: “There is a common saying in eschatological circles that not all Postmillennialists are Theonomists, but all Theonomists are Postmillennialists (Kloosterman 1994:3).”

ACTUAL FACTS are:

Greg L. Bahnsen writes:

“A common error of some theonomy opponents is to assume that theonomy entails postmillennialism. The two theological constructs, however, are distinct; in no way do they stand or fall together. Postmillennialism is concerned with “what will be”; theonomy focuses on “what should be.” Many theonomists are amillennialists; few postmillennialists are theonomists.” (2002: XV, footnote 4)

CP Venema, a non-theonomist writes:

“Though not all postmillennialists are reconstructionists …” (2000: 341, 342, footnote 2)

CETE ACCUSATION 2: Theonomic postmillennialism has a worldly political view of the Kingdom of God, wants to force the Christian faith on society, establish the kingdom by politics, wants to ‘bring in’ the kingdom of God

CETE states:

“The Kingdom of God is not established by the application of judicial laws by social institutions, or forms of government. According to Amillenniastic eschatology, the Kingdom of God is something that has already come, and not something that still needs to come. However, the fullness and final establishment of the Kingdom of God is something that would only instituted after the return of Christ, by the union of heaven and earth (Venema 2000:233).” (p. 4)

“Theonomist Postmillennialism, as Bahnsen (2002:428) puts it, emphasizes material progress and the growth in power of Christ’s Kingdom on earth. In this, the nations that do not want to bow under the authority of the Christocracy, are forced to bow. Kline points out that millennial theories such as Theonomist Postmillennialism and Dispensationalism, which await the visible messianic kingdom on earth before the return of Jesus Christ, will be forced to deny or annihilate the sphere of the state in their social doctrine, because there will be no room for any other form of government on earth, except for the messianic kingdom.” (p. 5)

“The Church are strangers on this earth. The Church does not seek fixed structures and earthly foundations in the implementation of judicial laws. The Church clings in faith to the heavenly city, which has solid foundations, and of which God is the builder. Despite the opposition the Church is experiencing here on earth, the Church is not taking its eyes off Christ, who is already victorious.” (p. 6)

Comments: the author’s ignorant and plain false presupposition is that Theonomic Postmillenialism teaches the Kingdom a) have not been established already in Christ, b) yet has to bel established by laws now (‘we’ bring in the kingdom of God on earth) or in the future before the second coming without the gospel, and therefore theonomists do not believe c) in the fullness and final establishment of the Kingdom of God after the return of Christ.

The ACTUAL VIEW of Theonomic Postmillennialism about the nature of God’s Kingdom:

RJ Rushdoony writes in his magnum opus study of biblical law what the foundation and source is of the kingdom in Christ:

“The key to remedying the [modern] situation is not revolution, nor any kind of resistance that works to subvert law and order. The New Testament abounds in warnings against disobedience and in summons to peace. The key is regeneration, propagation of the gospel, and the conversion of men and nations to God’s law-word. Clearly, there is no hope for man except in regeneration.” (1973: 113)

Gary de Mar writes clearly:

“Reconstructionists as postmillennialists do not teach that we “bring in the kingdom.” The kingdom has come, is coming, will come, and one day will be delivered up to God the Father, when “He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet” (1 Corinthians 15:24-25). The Bible clearly tells us that Jesus’ reign is a present reality. He is sitting on David’s throne (Acts 2:22-36); He has been seated at the Father’s “right hand in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 1:20); all things have been put under Jesus’ feet by His Father (v. 22); and “He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son” (Colossians 1:13).” (North, 1991: 97)

Kenneth L Gentry writes:

“Despite much confusion from detractors of theonomic ethics, the theonomic approach to moral conduct is not an attempt to offer a plan for works justification. Theonomy simply teaches that the Word of God is the supreme standard by which people will be judged. Having a revealed and objective standard takes the guesswork out of righteous living. Neither does theonomy involve an attempt to force Christianity on a nation by raw political, judicial, or military power. Though God’s Law sets the pattern for all of life (not just the inner personal sphere of human existence), the long-range implementation of God’s Law must follow, not precede, massive Christian revival. Then a nation of judicially righteous people will seek a judicially righteous government according to the standard of God’s righteousness, not fallen and sinful man’s.” (1993: 69)

Bahnsen writes in summary:

“Therefore, it is mean, illogical, and inexcusable propaganda for some theonomic critics to dismiss it as allegedly:  (1) Judaizing the New Testament, (2) making the law our dynamic of sanctification, (3) denying any distinction between moral and judicial laws, (4) taking the civil use of God’s law as the way of bringing in His kingdom, (5) wishing to impose the kingdom by the sword, (6) asking the state to enforce all the Mosaic laws and curb all outward evil, (7) shifting emphasis from personal piety, evangelism, and the church so as to stress instead the cultural mandate, politics, and capital punishment, (8) demanding postmillennial eschatology, or (9) viewing America as God’s chosen nation.

Three more major misrepresentations, dealing with the status of Old Covenant Israel, deserve special mention.  Some claim (10) that theonomists seek to establish a church-state today.  Others allege the opposite:  (11) that Theonomy says the Old Covenant form of the kingdom has not changed, wherein separation of the religious cult (strictly equated with the New Covenant church) from the state (which was no different from civil rule in any other nation) was total and rigid—making Israel’s church-state relationship identical with the relationship called for today.  Finally, it has been pretended (12) that Theonomy overlooks or logically denies the typological character of the Old Covenant economy as a special redemptive-historical prototype of Christ’s coming kingdom.

Once again, however, a multitude of references from Theonomy disprove such false reports; for example, in a response to Kline I could allude to over fifty places in the book which countered his characterization.  That is hardly acceptable performance for scholarly circles.  Let it suffice to observe here that chapter 20 argues from Old and New Testaments in favor of an institutional separation of church and state; acknowledging “legitimate and noteworthy differences” between the Old Covenant order and the situation today, I maintained that “a parallel” exists with the church-state relation, but not an equation.  Finally, “with respect to typology, it might be suggested that Israel as a nation is a type of the church of Christ.  is certainly scriptural warrant for that comparison.”    Such were the book’s own words.  And these views falsely attributed to theonomic ethics are not logically essential to it (as analyzed above) to begin with, anyway.” (2002: foreword)

CETE ACCUSATION 2: Theonomic postmillennialism is ‘anti-state’ and churchly and politically ‘revolutionary and rebellious’

CETE says:

“This group is characterized by their ecclesiastical devotion, their strong opinions about the family, large families and their fiery devotion to home-schooling. The group is also known for its activism on social media, anti-state attitude, active involvement in community organizations that oppose the state and has a negative attitude towards the current state of the church (Ingersoll 2015:63).” (p. 1)

“Should the state not apply the judicial laws of the Old Testament for the purpose of establishing the Kingdom of God on earth, the state is not really a state, and that state should be opposed and replaced.” (p. 3)

“Theonomist Postmillennialism and Dispensationalism, which await the visible messianic kingdom on earth before the return of Jesus Christ, will be forced to deny or annihilate the sphere of the state in their social doctrine, because there will be no room for any other form of government on earth, except for the messianic kingdom. From this one can deduce that Theonomy advocates a type of Christianized state, an ideal state that acts on behalf of the Saviour on earth. Bahnsen (2002:426), however, is unable to identify his millennial Christocracy with the state. It is for this reason that the Theonomists also logically come to the rejection of the state as sovereign sphere.” [p. 5)

“From this one can deduce that Theonomy advocates a type of Christianized state, an ideal state that acts on behalf of the Saviour on earth. Bahnsen (2002:426), however, is unable to identify his millennial Christocracy with the state. It is for this reason that the Theonomists also logically come to the rejection of the state as sovereign sphere. In this, Theonomists in Reformed Churches find the dilemma regarding the confession of the Belgic Confession article 36, because they do not want to acknowledge the role of the state.” (p. 6)

The ACTUAL VIEW of Theonomic Postmillennialism on the State and ‘revolution’:

Gary North writes:

“Politics is a ministry of God. It is not the only ministry, but it is one. The civil magistrate brings God’s negative sanctions in history. In a democratic society, voters bring negative sanctions against civil magistrates. Thus, politics begins with the individual citizen, who is covenanted in a civil order under God. He governs himself, and then he executes judgment through politics. Politics is the means of establishing and controlling civil government. This does not mean that politics is central to government. It is one of the great heresies of our era that only civil government is “government,” and that the other, lawful, God-ordained governments are something less than government. There is self government, church government, and family government. It is this monopolizing of the concept of government by the State that is at the heart of the loss of liberty in the twentieth century.” (1991:44)

Bahnsen writes:

“… consider a situation where the state fails to enact laws which would coerce others to behave in the way Christians believe they should… our only moral option is to work for the [gradual (GLB elsewhere)] reform of our laws, rather than taking the law into our own hands to enforce our viewpoint like vigilantes.”  (Schlissel, 2002: 145)

De Mar writes:

“as Gary North has recently pointed out, “Christian reconstruction depends on majority rule.” God uses lawful historical means to extend His earthly kingdom. Reconstructionists thus affirm that God’s laws should be passed and enforced according to the rules ofthe democratic process. Reconstructionists do not preach revolution or a top-down bureaucratic take-over. But Reconstructionists also do not believe that the will of the political majority is the final law in society. If this were the final law, then the will of the political majority would be the will of God. The democratic majority would then be God. What Christian could believe such a doctrine?” (North, 1991: 122)

“Modern postmillennial Reconstructionists are not revolutionary because they have a more consistently biblical view of the future. Reconstructionists generally believe they have time, lots of time, to accomplish their ends. Moreover, they are not revolutionary because they believe that Christians achieve leadership by living righteously. Dominion is by ethical service and work, not by revolution. Thus, there is no theological reason for a postmillennialist to take up arms at the drop of a hat. Biblical postmillennialists can afford to wait for God to judge ungodly regimes, bide their time, and prepare to rebuild upon the ruins. Biblical postmillennialists are not pacifists, but neither are they revolutionaries. Biblical postmillennialism provides the Christian with a longterm hope. Because of his long time-frame, the postmillennialist can exercise that chief element of true biblical faith: patience. Because he is confident that the Lord has given him time to accomplish the Lord’s purposes, the postmillennialist need not take things into his own, sinful hands.

The Lord will exalt us when He is ready, and when He knows that we are ready. Our calling is to wait patiently, praying and preparing ourselves for that responsibility, and working all the while to advance His kingdom. Historically, Christians who lack this long-term hope have taken things into their own hands, inevitably with disastrous consequences. Far from advocating militancy, biblical postmillennialism protects against a short-term revolutionary mentality.” (North, 1991: 141)

RJ Rushdoony writes on different governments:

“Christ’s words (Matt. 5:41) were thus a warning against revolutionary resistance. His warning was repeated by St. Paul in Romans 13:1,2, with the warning that resistance to duly constituted authority is resistance to the ordinance of God. At the same time, we must note that “Peter and the other apostles,” when forbidden to preach by the authorities, declared, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts5:29). There is no discrepancy between these positions. Respect for duly constituted authorities is required both as a religious duty and a practical policy. The world is not bettered by disobedience and anarchy; evil men cannot produce a good society. The key to social renewal is individual regeneration.

All authorities are to be obeyed, parents, husbands, masters, rulers, pastors, always subject to the prior obedience to God. All obedience is under God, because required by His word. Therefore, first, the covenant people cannot violate any due authority without taking the name of the Lord in vain. Disobedience at any level constitutes disobedience to God. Second, to strike a parent, or to assault a police officer, or any due authority, is thus to strike at God’s authority also and to use the right of self-defense for an aggression against authority. Third, to curse one’s parents is to attempt to place God on the side of rebellion against God’s central authority, the parent, and God’s central institution, the family. In murder, a man assaults and takes the life of an individual, or several individuals. In every anarchistic assault on authority, the assailant attacks the life of an entire society and the very authority of God.” (1973:121)

“That which is imitated is the divine government, the Kingdom of God. This kingdom existed in Eden; its laws governed Adam and Eve and were finally broken by Adam and Eve. Civil authorities, as well as the church, school, and family, were ordained by God as varying aspects of the abiding Kingdom of God; each bears the marks of the fall, but all are ordained by God. The direct government by God has since been mediated through various institutions, of which one is the state. … It is important to restate here the meaning of government in its historic Biblical sense. The basic government of man is the self-government of Christian man. The family is an important area of government also, and the basic one. The church is an area of government, and the school still another. A man’s calling is an area of government, and society at large governs men by its standards and opinions. The state is thus one government among many; it is civil government, and it cannot be permitted to usurp or claim areas which do not belong to it. Because of the Biblical understanding of government, many law spheres exist, and each has its inner authority, discipline, and requirements. These spheres are separate but interlocking.”  (1973: 772)[2]

CETE ACCUSATION 3: Theonomic Postmillennialism is racist

CETE claims:

“Some of the criticism against the group is about their strict patriarchal attitude, strong nationalism, characteristic racism, and a view that the woman is seen as a material possession (Burack 2017:4).” (p. 1)

The ACTUAL VIEW of Theonomic Postmillennialism on racism:

Rushdoony writes:

“The revolutionists and the statists thus have a common cause, to destroy society, to wipe out community. It is important to understand the reasons for this. Men have tried over and over again to establish a community on the basis of blood. Modern attempts to do so include the national states, Nazi Germany, the Arab states, and Israel. Others have extended this racist idea of community to include all men, a one-world order [that is, liberal global government types S.H.].”  R.J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law: Volume 2, p. 83.[3]

North writes:

“Hitler’s anti-semitism was probably associated with his adoption of pagan gnostic beliefs. But Hitler was as anti-Christian as he was anti-semitic. The same can be said for Lenin and Stalin … The ones who enrage me most are the racists, who implicitly place genetics above the covenant as an explanation for social change. They are a fading  influence today, but they still exist in right-wing circles. I am not charitable with these people. They belong on someone else’s mailing list. The sooner they are off of mine, the better.” (1991: 8,163)

Rushdoony writes:

“Paul’s concern is familistic and religious. He refers to ‘Israelites’ as ‘my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.’ This does not mean a racial allegiance. Israel owed its origins to Abraham; of Abraham’s sons, only Sarah’s son, Isaac, was of the chosen line. When Abraham went to Lot’s rescue with 318 fighting men from his own household (Gen. 14:14), this meant that probably twice that number were too old or too young for warfare. Add to this another thousand females, old and young, and we have a household or family of some 2,000 persons, of whom only one, Isaac, was of Abrahamic blood. All these, however, were circumcised into the covenant (Gen. 17:10-14). Through the centuries, into medieval Europe, all converted slaves became Jews and covenant members. The family and the faith of the family was the governing fact, not blood.”[4] (1997: 157, 158)

CETE ACCUSATION 4: Theonomic postmillennialism don’t do justice to the discontinuity of the Old to the New Testament and are therefore just as ‘extreme’ as the Dispensationalists

CETE states:

“This core element of Theonomistic eschatology lies in the Theonomistic hermeneutical principle of the continuity between the Old and New Testament covenant. This continuity of the covenant contrasts with Dispensationalists’ focus on the discontinuity of the covenant between the Old and New Testaments. Kline (1977) explains: ‘To put the matter in a comparative perspective, this theory of Theonomic politics stands at the opposite end of the spectrum from Dispensationalism. The latter represents an extreme failure to do justice to the continuity between the Old and New covenants. Chalcedon’s error, no less extreme, is a failure to do justice to the discontinuity between the Old and New covenants.’  (p. 3)

Comment: Kline (and others) try to create the false impression that theonomists do not see any kind of discontinuity between the OT and NT, and label them therefore as so-called ‘extreme’.

The ACTUAL VIEW of Theonomic Postmillennialism on continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments

Bahnsen writes:

“Our study of the New Covenant scriptures has shown us, in summary, that there are definite discontinuities between the New Covenant relation to the law and that of the Old Covenant. The New Covenant surpasses the Old in glory, power, realization, and finality…. The Covenantal administrations are dramatically different . . . but not as codes defining right and wrong behavior or attitudes.” (2002: 36)

“We should presume that Old Testament standing laws continue to be morally binding in the New Testament, unless they are rescinded or modified by further revelation. In regard to the Old Testament law, the New Covenant surpasses the Old Covenant in glory, power, and finality (thus reinforcing former duties). The New Covenant also supersedes the Old Covenant shadows, thereby changing the application of sacrificial, purity, and “separation” principles, redefining the people of God, and altering the significance of the promised land. … The general continuity which we presume with respect to the moral standards of the Old Testament applies just as legitimately to matters of socio-political ethics as it does to personal, family, or ecclesiastical ethics.” (2002: 12, 13)

“The redemptive history and national covenant enjoyed by Israel certainly set the Old Testament Jews apart from modern nations as significantly unique” (p. 324). Again: “the redemptive dispensation and form of the kingdom in the Old Covenant has dramatically changed in the New.” Another example: the article stated that theonomy “brings forward into the new covenant age the same relation of Church and State that existed under the Mosaic covenant.” However, in my published views I say just the opposite: for instance, in the chapter on “Church and State” in By This Standard (and many other places) I indicate that “Of course there were many unique aspects to the situation enjoyed by the Old Testament Israelites…” (p.288).

I explicitly affirm the proposition that “there are significant. . . differences between our situation today and the church state situation in Old Testament Israel” (p. 331). The article goes on to represent theonomists as holding “that a nation today may be in the same covenant relationship to God as was Israel in the Old Testament” – a preposterous falsehood. No nation stands in special, redemptive covenant with God as did Old Covenant Israel, and that truth has never been compromised or questioned.”

“A similar attack on a straw man is found in Kline’s surprisingly vehement and vitriolic review article,[5] where readers were misled about Theonomy’s view of Israel’s typological significance. Kline barely touched the actual theonomic position anywhere—and not at all when speaking of its “radical fault.”  He seemed to reason fallaciously that some discontinuity between Old Covenant Israel and modern nations proves complete discontinuity and that any typological value in Israel’s civil policy meant it was merely typological (and not also definitive of justice).  Kline’s major conceptual error is to speak as though civil “justice” in the same kind of case can be completely different in two cultures (“cultural relativism”).  The critical arguments he advanced against theonomic ethics had already been answered in the book, and he attempted no biblical demonstration of anything contradictory to the book’s conclusions anyway.” (2002: xxxv)

“We must presuppose unity in the word of God, which stands to all generations, and not discontinuity, for who among men can presume to alter the word of the living God? Thus God alone can pronounce what is new about the New Covenant, and He has not revealed (in the pages of Scripture at any rate) that after Christ’s advent there is a new law. To approach the New Testament with the premise that only that which is repeated from the Old Testament is still binding is faulty procedure; everything God has said should be that by which man lives (Matt. 4:4), not simply those things which God has spoken twice (and at the right places). We must live by every Scripture unless God explains otherwise, and with respect to the law of the Older Covenant Scriptures we have no annulment, but rather an emphatic confirmation.” (2002: 194)

“The New Testament writers assumed that they built upon the foundation of the Older Testament teaching; Christ definitely ratified such an assumption by saying, “Do not begin to think that I came in order to abrogate the law or prophets, I came not to abrogate but to confirm; for until heaven and earth pass away not one iota or one horn shall become invalid, not until everything has taken place” (Matt. 5:17 f.). Only God has the authority and prerogative to discontinue the binding force of anything He has revealed; man, therefore, must live by everything which proceeds from God’s mouth (Matt. 4:4) without diminishing it (Deut. 4:2). Since the law is not against the promises (Gal. 3:21), we are not warranted to affirm discontinuity with the Older Testament except where expressly indicated otherwise; such a method would be backwards. We must live by every Scripture, not just those which God has spoken twice (and in the right places). The Christian is not to wield an “unwritten Torah” in opposition to God’s clearly revealed word. Continuity between the Testaments, not discontinuity, must be presupposed.   “Whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction” (Rom. 15:4). If the Scriptures are seen as a progressive revelation, then the New Testament must be used to understand, not undermine, the Older Testament; again the presumption would have to be continuity, not contradiction. The attempt to cancel the obligation which Christians have to all of God’s law by introducing a hermeneutical principle not justified by the teaching of Scripture is simply an imposition of an autonomous requirement upon the canon of God’s word. “The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined . . . can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures.” (2002: 321, 322)

“First, based upon the discontinuity between Old Testament practice and the “customary application” of God’s law, Kline has assumed that it is the Old Testament that needs some explanation or justification when in fact it should be the customary practice that is called into question; we should not assume that our ways are normal and that God’s ways are an abnormality which needs vindication.

Second, the assumption that God’s ways ever need justification according to some rationale or plan discernable and explicable by human intellect or patterns of thought needs to be challenged; simply in virtue of His status as Lord Creator our God has the prerogative to lay down commandments to which we are obligated and for which He need give no explanation. His ways are just by definition and so need not be related to an eschatological order to be congenial to us; even His “positive” commands (e.g., the conquest of Canaan) must be viewed as righteous in terms of the Lawgiver that stands behind them. Even if typological anticipations are appropriately found in God’s “positive” commands, such typology does not constitute legal justification for them; rather, one need only understand God in His person and authority—not God in His eschatological plans—to submit gladly to His stipulations. His goodness and justice have a presuppositional, and hence unquestionable, status (cf. Deut. 32:4; Isa. 45:9); that God offers us evidence of His goodness in Scripture and history does not justify the assumption that we must seek out and find some way to justify certain of His ways as congenial to the Christian religion!” (Bahnsen, 2002: 585, 586)

“Those critics of the Old Testament’s case laws who maintain, as dispensationalists do, that an Old Testament civil law is automatically annulled by the New Covenant unless formally reconfirmed by the New Testament, have a theological problem with this law. That dispensationalists hold such a hermeneutic is not surprising; their system is based on the almost total judicial discontinuity of each of seven different covenants in history. On the other hand, that non-dispensationalists also defend a hermeneutic of total judicial discontinuity is remarkable. It leaves them without a biblical theory of civil government. They are forced to appeal to some secular theory of civil law, most often a version of natural law – the assertion of the moral and judicial neutrality of the mind of covenant-breaking man. Yet this myth of neutrality is usually denied by most modern evangelicals. Thus, to acknowledge the continuing authority of the civil law against bestiality, those who deny judicial continuity between the two testaments must resort to strange exegetical gyrations. When they do, this question is legitimate: What about the law’s specified civil sanction, execution?” (1991: x, xxi)

“Dispensationalists often confuse themselves and equivocate regarding the expression “live under the law,” sometimes taking it to mean living under the terms of the Mosaic covenantal administration (called “the law”), but at other times taking it to mean living according to the moral standards revealed by Moses (also called “the law”). It is therefore easy to slide from an obvious truth (viz., that Christians are not under the Old Testament administration of God’s covenant) into an obvious falsehood (viz., that Christians have moral standards different from the Old Testament’s). Scripture does not present the law-covenant as fundamentally opposed to the grace of the New Covenant, thus exposing a false antithesis at the heart of dispensational thinking.

According to the theonomic position, the Old Covenant administration of law (or the Mosaic administration itself) did not offer a way of salvation or teach a message of justification which differs from that found in the gospel (the New Covenant). The Old Covenant was not a covenant of works which proposed salvation by works of the law. It was rather a covenant of grace which offered salvation on the basis of grace through faith, just as does the good news found in the New Testament. The difference was that the law-covenant looked ahead to the coming of the Savior, thus administering God’s covenants by means of promises, prophecies, ritual ordinances, types and foreshadows that anticipated the Savior and His redeeming work. The gospel proclaims the accomplishment of that which the law anticipated, administering God’s covenant through preaching and the sacraments. The substance of God’s saving relationship and covenant is the same under the law and the gospel.

Scripture does not present the law-covenant as fundamentally opposed to the grace of the New Covenant. For example, consider Hebrews 3-4. According to New Testament theology, why was God displeased with the Israelites so that they could not enter the promised land? The answer is that they were disobedient (3:18), but this is the same as the answer that they were lacking faith (3:19)! They had gospel preached to them, even as we do (4:2), but they failed to enter into God’s promised provision because they failed to have faith (4:2) – which is just to say, they were guilty of disobedience (4:6)! You cannot pit faith and obedience against each other in the Old Covenant; they are different sides of the same coin – even as in the New Covenant (James 2:14-26).

Paul asks quite incredulously, “Is the law then against the promises of God?” Should the grace of the Abrahamic covenant be seen as contradicted by the law revealed by Moses? The Apostle’s answer is “May it never be!” (Galatians 3:21). The law was never intended to be a way of works-righteousness, as Paul goes on to say. By her self-righteous effort to gain merit and favor before God by obedience, Israel “did not arrive at the law” at all! (Romans 9:31) And why not? “Because they sought [righteousness] not by faith, but as it were by works” (v. 32). Paul knew from his personal experience that he needed to die to legalism, to the use of the law as a means of merit before God.

And how did Paul learn that lesson? Listen to Galatians 2:19. “I through the law died unto the law, that I might live unto God.” It was the law itself which taught Paul not to seek righteousness and God’s acceptance through law-works! “Law” and “Grace” may be tags for different covenantal administrations (viz., Old and New Covenants), but they both were administrations of God’s grace as the way of acceptance before Him. Paul very clearly included the Mosaic covenant – the “law” covenant, which erected a wall between Jews and Gentiles (alienating the uncircumcision from “the commonwealth of Israel”) – as part of “the covenants of promise” (Ephesians 2:12).” (2002: 70-72)

CETE ACCUSATION 5: Theonomic postmillennialism shift the ‘focus’ of the church and spawns evangelical activism, it changes the missional task of the church

CETE states:

“The establishment of this Christocracy shifts the focus of the Church to the reconstruction of society. The agenda, task and focus of congregations should, therefore, according to Theonomistic eschatology, shift to an administrative plan for how the Kingdom of God is to be built on earth, according to Old Testament laws (Beed & Beed 2017:18). Kloosterman (1994) adds: ‘Probably contrary to the desires and intentions of modern theonomy’s best exponents, the movement as a whole has spawned a kind of evangelical activism within the church that is in danger of substituting a Christianized society for the church’s primary mission of preaching unto repentance and conversion.’ (p. 4)

“The eschatological view of Theonomist Postmillennialism changes the nature of missionary work. They believe that it is now the Church’s role to establish the Kingdom of God on earth, by implementing the Kingdom’s judicial laws. This causes their attitude towards missionary work to change to an aggressive Christocracy, where the Church forces the nations to live under the rule of the Christocracy. ‘For God’s commission to the civil magistrate, as understood in theonomic politics, stands in unmanageable tension with God’s commission to the church to evangelize the nations’ (Kline 1977:629).

From this, the great danger of Theonomistic Postmillennialism becomes visible, because according to Gaffin (1990:16) it undermines the core task of the Church, namely to proclaim the gospel to the nations, while being ‘aliens and strangers on earth’ (Heb 11:13). Theonomistic Postmillennialism tries to take over the work of the Holy Spirit by forcing unbelievers to live under a Christocracy (Gaffin 1990:17). It is precisely from this eschatological perspective that Reformed Church councils experience a lack of love among some Theonomists.” (p. 5)

The ACTUAL VIEW of Theonomic Postmillenialism on the central place, importance and calling of the Church (in distinction of the state)

North writes:

“So, pietists have sharply separated the kingdom of God (narrowly defined) from the world. Separating the institutional church from the world is necessary, but separating God’s kingdom from this world leads to the surrender of the world to Satan’s kingdom. Thus, it is never a question of “earthly kingdom vs. no earthly kingdom”; it is always a question of whose earthly kingdom, God’s or Satan’s? To deny that God’s kingdom extends to the earth in history – the here and now – is necessarily to assert that Satan’s kingdom is legitimate, at least until Jesus comes again. But Satan’s kingdom is not legitimate, and Christians should do whatever they can to roll it back. Rolling back Satan’s earthly kingdom means rolling forward Christ’s earthly kingdom.

What Christian Reconstructionists argue is that this originally Protestant view of the kingdom of God in history has been steadily abandoned by Protestants since at least 1660, to the detriment of the gospel in general and Protestantism specific ally. They call for the recovery and implementation of the older Protestant view of God’s kingdom. This is what has made Christian Reconstructionists so controversial. Today’s Protestants do not want to give up their medieval Roman Catholic definition of the kingdom of God, and they deeply resent anyone who asks them to adopt the original Protestant view. Their followers are totally unaware of the origins of what they are being taught by their leaders.” (1991: 29, 30)

“Political reform should come only after the reform of the church and the reform of the family, in this order. The modern church hates the very thought of comprehensive evangelism. It hates the greatness of the Great Commission. Christians want to narrowly define evangelism in order to reduce their comprehensive responsibility before God.” (1991: 34)

North writes:

“When God says to “evangelize,” He means we should tell the good news to the world: not easy news, or inexpensive news, but good news. The good news is this: Jesus Christ has overcome the world. “Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world” (I John 4:4). The Great Commission is a great victory …

“The institutional Church is the primary administrator of the Great Commission, for it alone controls lawful access to the sacraments. The family is the primary covenantal agency through which the dominion covenant is to be extended. The family supports the local church financially in most cases, except when there is an emergency for a particular family. Churches are not equipped, as non-profit institutions, to initiate projects under the dominion covenant. The task of the local church is to preach, give moral guidance, heal the  sick, feed the destitute, and administer the sacraments. It is not designed to innovate businesses and other dominion-oriented projects.

The State is not a primary covenantal agency in either of these tasks, evangelism or dominion, although it imitates both Church and family when it becomes autonomous and rebellious. The State is required by God to defend both Church and family from physical attack. It not to become an initiating agency. Its task is negative: to impose negative sanctions against evildoers (Rom. 13~3-7). Socialism is the result of a pseudo-family State; empire is the result of the pseudo-Church State. We preach the centrality of the Church. But we also preach that there is a whole world to bring under God’s righteous rule.” (Gentry, 1993: xii en xiii)

Gentry writes:

“God has ordained three basic institutions in society: the Church, the family, and the State. A biblical understanding of their respective roles and inter-relationships is fundamental to developing a Christian worldview. The fulfilling of the Great Commission in history will require not only a proper understanding of each of these institutions, but also concerned involvement in each. … Church is seen as optional to the Christian life by too many Christians today. Many who profess to be Christians know too little of devoted commitment to Christ. They seem oblivious to the demands of the Great Commission regarding discipleship. What, then, should be the Christian’s approach to church life, as he submits himself to Christ under the Great Commission?

Principles of the Covenantal Church:

1. Commitment to the local church. A major and indispensable aspect of our commitment to Christ involves our membership in, attendance at, worship in, and service through the local church. …
2. Engagement to worship. Christ expects His people to worship Him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24), corporately in the fellowship of God’s people. …
3. Training in the truth. The Christian should seek a church, that promotes sound doctrine and the development of a Christian worldview based on biblical teaching. …
4. Training in hierarchical covenantalism. The church is to be composed of a system of courts designed to locate responsibility and resolve problems, as Christ’s people have His authority ministered to them. …
5. Promotion of Christ’s cause. In that the church is commanded to go into the world (Matt. 28:19a), it should do so in the name of the Triune God (Matt. 28:19b). There are a number of opportunities for local evangelistic outreach for the church: friendship evangelism, Bible conferences/seminars, radio and/or television ministry, tape ministry, campus outreach, newsletter ministry, and more. …
6. Service in the world. Although the Church is not of the world, it is in it and must make her presence felt as “salt” in the earth (Matt. 5:13). This will involve organizing a truly functional diaconal ministry of social concern and outreach in the name of Christ.” (1993: 111-118)

Bahnsen writes:

“The church and state are separate realms with different functions; only the state has a warrant to use violence and the iron sword, but then it is not autonomous in so doing. All who use the sword must submit to God’s direction. The contrast between the state sword and the sword which has been given to the church for its use could not be greater. One is physical, the other is spiritual; one restrains the hand, the other converts the heart.

In Ephesians 6:12 Paul explains that our Christian struggle is not against flesh and blood enemies, but against spiritual forces of wickedness. The kingdom of Christ, which is not of this world, is set in direct opposition to the kingdom and Satan. Hence the Christian needs a weapon suited to his kingdom and its foe; the one and only weapon of the Christian panoply which Paul exhorts believers to put on is the “sword of the spirit, which is the word of God” (Eph. 6:17). This sword has true power from the Holy Spirit; we can have complete faith in its vitality and virtues. The sword of the Spirit, God’s word, harkens back to the Old Testament where Isaiah’s mouth was sharpened as a sword (Isa. 49:2), where the Lord is said to slay the wicked by the words of His mouth (Hos. 6:5), and where it is said that “He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the Spirit of His lips will He slay the wicked” (Isa. 11:4). In 2 Thessalonians 2:8 Paul assures us that the lawless one who opposes the kingdom of Christ will be slain with the Spirit of the Lord’s mouth. The word of God was written by the agency of the Holy Spirit; He is the one who gives internal conviction of its truth, and He is the one who can assure the efficaciousness of its preaching.

This is the sword to be used by Christ’s church: the gospel of Christ preached (based on the word of God written). This preaching of the gospel can bring life (John 6:63) or can induce spiritual death (2 Cor. 2:14-17; cf. 1 Peter 2:8); as such it is a “sword” which functions as the “keys” of the kingdom (Matt. 18:18)! Hebrews 4:12 elaborates upon the power of the Christian sword: “the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, and joints and marrow; it is able to judge the very thoughts and intents of the heart.”

This sword surpasses the sharpness and ability of the state sword. The word of God can bring conviction of sin (John 16:8), salvation (Rom. 10: 8-10), and power (Rom. 1:9). It is not a dead letter but a living oracle (cf. Acts 7:38) which abideth forever (1 Peter 1:23). This word of the gospel has the power of the New Covenant in it: it proclaims an accomplished redemption, writes the law of God upon the inner heart, and guarantees its own worldwide prosperity (cf. Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8). Nothing is hidden from the probing light of this word, for it penetrates to the deepest parts of man’s person (cf. 1 Cor. 14:24-25). The word of God is glorious for its efficacious power (cf. Isa. 55:11; 1 Thess. 2:13); it is an eschatological word, for it, as the coming day of the Lord, can bring to light the hidden works of darkness (cf. 1 Cor. 4:5). Like God its author, the word is “heart knowing” (cf. Acts 1:24; 15:8). By contrast to the sword of the state, which slays the body of the sinner, this word of God works akin to the circumcision knife of the Old Testament priest (cf. Josh. 5:2 ff.) by circumcising the sinner’s heart.” (2002: 430, 431)

“It is hard to avoid the New Testament witness that holiness is supposed to characterize not only personal and ecclesiastical aspects of life, but rather “all manner of living” (1 Pet. 1:15), that God’s glory is to be pursued not only in home and church but also in “whatsoever you do” (1 Cor. 10:31). Christ calls His followers to be the salt “of the earth,” not merely in the church! In the end, the critics of theonomy do not renounce any and all Christian involvement in social affairs and political reform after all. At best, their complaint is with the “wrong emphasis” found in theonomic ethics, and at best this complaint is slippery and poorly conceived. We may readily grant that socio-political reconstruction has less urgency than personal spirituality or the church, but this does not bear whatsoever upon the truth or error of the theonomic standard for politics. Theonomists do not, as theonomists anyway, diminish, undervalue or obscure the surpassing importance of personal salvation, a pious walk with God, and the life of the church. We would not for a moment suggest that the New Testament message of the accomplishment and application of redemption to God’s people by Jesus Christ – with a view to the individual’s standing before God and his eternal destiny – is of secondary importance or merely a means for getting to what is “really” important, namely social transformation. We cry out with Paul: “God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me and I unto the world” (Galatians 6:14).” (1991: 51)

“For instance, I do not disagree with Poythress, but have taught for years, that the manner of conquest seen in the Old Testament (viz., holy war) has changed in the New Testament (to proclamation and persuasion) – without arbitrary typologies, but on the basis of the Biblical text (e.g., 2 Cor. 10:3-5). I must, however, decry the way in which Poythress turns this theological truth into a shameful false antithesis, when he asks “Do we follow the Great Commission? Or do we use state laws to suppress false worship by force?” (p. 290) Likewise, he indulges in all-too-easy question-begging when he argues – as though it were theologically relevant – that obedience to Deuteronomy 13 today would make evangelism “more difficult” (pp. 306, 396-397). Theonomists who have concluded that this part of the law should ideally be applied by modern states have also made it abundantly clear that Deuteronomy 13 is not an evangelistic policy or appropriate to missionary situations.” (1991: 310, 311)

Prof. John Frame (2012), a helpful critic of theonomy writes:

“To his credit, Rushdoony emphasizes strongly man’s need of regeneration as the prerequisite for law-keeping (pp. 706, 709, 725, 43, 113, etc.). He also emphasizes eloquently and cogently the personalism of biblical ethics—the fact that Scripture treats man as a responsible person rather than as an environmentally determined victim (pp. 24ff, 272, 339, 434, 446, 467, 486, 507, 570f, etc.). He shows quite well in these sections how the fashionable “personalisms” of secular thought actually depersonalize man by denying his responsibility. We should note also Rushdoony’s refreshing defense of the passions as over against stoicized forms of Christianity (p. 635). Regeneration, personalism, a positive view of the passions—these are important first steps in the formulation of a biblical doctrine of moral agency.”

My own comments

Like I mentioned in PART 1 of this article series, if the result of these articles is that we all return to reading the sources on both sides of a debate, especially when it is among reformed believers, then I have reached my main goal.

It is one think to disagree, even strongly, with other reformed believers, not sharing someone’s view of the Mosaic civil laws applications for today or his eschatology, is is quite another thing, for whatever reason, if one grossly misrepresent or even distort other’s views to mean the opposite of what they actually teach.

And of course, theonomic postmillennial brothers are also sinners saved by grace through faith alone, and they also can err and sin in many situations, also in how they react to certain accusations send their way, or they can, like all of us, theonomic or not, not show a humble spirit or write in a unloving way, church schisms, and that should also be condemned. It is unfortunately true of both sides of this debate, it is true for all believers, also all who love the faith, see even Peter and Paul in Galatians 2.

But in saying that, we still have to look at the topic or issues itself objectively.

What theonomy teaches itself and postmillennialism, and test it all according to Scripture, we must study the sources in the light of spirit of Acts 17:11. And if we honestly do that, we will clearly see that the main teachings and teachers of ‘theonomic postmillennialism’ are:

1) not ‘extreme’ (whatever that means as a label weapon?), but within the reformed confessional history and tradition of the biblical reformed faith and ‘reformed ethics and eschatology’.

2) do not teach that ‘we’ as believers must still ‘bring in the kingdom by law or the state’, but believe the Kingdom has come definitely already in Christ alone, grows and bear fruit in and through history, and only comes fully and perfectly when Christ returns.

3) do not believe in salvation by politics, but believe like all reformed believers in salvation by grace alone, through faith alone. ‘Politics’ has a definite role to play, but are the fourth, not the main  form of government.

4) are not anti-State or revolutionary, but do reject both Anabaptism and Statism, civil government is one of 4 governments: self, family, church, state. Theonomic postmillennialism stand in the biblical confessional tradition of theocratic-theonomy thought of ‘chruch and state’ as confessed in BC article 36 (see PART 3 of this series)

5) are not changing the ‘gospel focus’ mandate of the church, but emphasize it to see that it has worldwide and all of life implications for all of life (Matt. 13:31-33; 1 Cor. 10:31). Of course there are also non-reformed believers interested in theonomy and postmillenialism, but it’s main leaders are all reformed confessional believers, especially Bahnsen and Gentry, with a very strong emphasis on the crucial role and importance of the church in the Kingdom of Christ.

6) in line with Scripture and the reformed confessions they see both covenantal continuity and discontinuity between the OT and NT, and believe the Scriptures themselves must determine each.

In PART 3 we will look at the last of the accusations against theonomic postmillennialism:

CETE ACCUSATION 6: Theonomic Postmillennialism’s view of the judicial laws are not in line with the ‘traditional view of the Church’ (p. 2)

We will see that in part 3, the essence, of course not the detail, but the essence of theonomy in terms of specifically calling for a return to the wisdom of the Mosaic case/judicial laws and penalties for our day, is not a totally new 20th century or American reconstructionist idea, but has been there, from at least in the time of the Reformation until today.

What is actually ‘new’ in our day, is not the historical theonomic thought, but as seen in CETE’s critique, that more and more who says they are ‘confessional reformed’,  are very hostile towards the usefulness and application of Moses’ civil laws ‘in their general equity’ (WCF 19.4; BC article 25), also for today. It could also be (hopefully!) because of a lot of ignorance of the history of the mosaic law as understood by reformed theologians and jurist in the past, and that could thankfully and hopefully be corrected.

Most important sources to read
Lastly, there are many theonomy sources available as can be seen in the references. If someone does not know where to start, my recommendation should be, read Bahnsen on theonomic ethics (Theonomy in Christian Ethics & No Other Standard), and Gentry postmillennial eschatology (He shall have Dominion) about postmillennialism.[6]  For these 3 main sources, some articles as introductions, see the following websites: cmfnow.com and kennethgentry.com[7]

In Afrikaans, see my own article, a bit dated now, but could be helpful historic overview for some for a SA reformed perspective on theonomic postmillenialism:

Christus en Kultuur: Die kultuurbeskouing van RJ Rushdoony

_________________________________

References

Bahnsen, G.L., 1991, No other standard: Theonomy and its critics, Inst for Christian Economics, Tyler, TX.

Bahnsen, G.L., 2002, Theonomy in Christian ethics, 3rd edition., Covenant Media Press,

De Mar, G., 2017, Theonomy: an extension of Calvinism’s judicial theology. https://americanvision.org/14290/theonomy-an-extension-of-calvinisms-judicial-theology/

Diedericks, M., 2021, ‘Critical evaluation of Theonomist eschatology’, In die Skriflig 55(1), a2753. https://doi.org/10.4102/ids.v55i1.2753

Frame, J. 2012. The Institutes of Biblical Law: A Review Article. https://frame-poythress.org/the-institutes-of-biblical-law-a-review-article/

Gaffin, R.B., 1990, ‘Theonomy and eschatology: Reflections on postmillennialism’, in W.S. Barker & W.R. Godfrey (eds.), Theonomy, A reformed critique, pp. 197–224, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.

Gentry, K.L. 1990. The Greatness of the Great Commission. Institute of Christian Economics, Tyler, Texas. https://christianreconstructionist.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/the-greatness-of-the-great-commission-kenneth-gentry.pdf

Gentry, K.L., 1993, God’s law in the modern world: The continuing relevance of Old Testament law, P&R, Phillipsburg, NJ.

Kloosterman, N.D., 1994, ‘Theonomy and Christian reconstruction’, in International Theological Congress at Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands, June 2–24, viewed 21 July 2021, from https://www.academia.edu/362582/Theonomy_and_Christian_Reconstruction.

Le Cornu, S., 2000. Die Kultuurbeskouing van RJ Rushdoony. https://proregno.com/2010/02/01/verbondseminaar-2000-christus-en-kultuur/

North, G., 1976, ‘Common grace, eschatology, and biblical law’, Journal of Christian Reconstruction 3, Winter 1976, 77, 13–47.

North, G., 1987, Dominion and common grace: The biblical basis of progress, Dominion Press, Fort Worth.

North, G., 1988, Unholy spirits: Occultism and New Age humanism, Dominion Press, Waterbury Center, Vermont, VT.

North, G., 1991, Christian reconstruction: What it is, what it isn’t, pp. 80–82, Inst for Christian Economics.

Poythress, V.S., 1995. The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses. P&R Publishing. https://frame-poythress.org/ebooks/the-shadow-of-christ-in-the-law-of-moses/

Rushdoony, R.J., 1973, The institutes of biblical law, The Craig Press, Nutley, NJ.

Rushdoony, R.J., 1997. Romans & Galatians. Ross House Books, Vallecito, California.

Schissel, S.M. (ed.), 2002. The Standard Bearer – A Festschrift for Greg. L. Bahnsen,  Covenant Media Press, Texas.

Strevel, C.B., Theonomic Precedent in the Theology of John Calvin, in: The Standard Bearer – A Festschrift for Greg. L. Bahnsen (Texas: Covenant Media Press), p. 319-368. https://proregno.com/2020/07/15/theonomic-precedent-in-the-theology-of-john-calvin/

Venema, C.P., 2000, The promise of the future, The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh.
_______________________________

Endnotes:

[1] Part 1: https://proregno.com/2021/11/15/an-informed-reformed-theonomic-response-on-the-extremely-uniformed-article-a-critical-evaluation-of-theonomist-eschatology-part-1/

[2] See also, RJ Rushdoony, Christianity and the State. https://chalcedon.edu/store/39917-christianity-and-the-state

[3] See: https://theonomyresources.blogspot.com/2010/07/r-j-rushdoony-versus-kinism.html

[4] See also, Exaggeration and Denial, here: https://chalcedon.edu/magazine/exaggeration-and-denial

[5] Bahnsen reference here is to one of CETE’s main (secondhand) critical sources against theonomy, see Kline (1977).

[6] Some of these books are free online here: https://christianreconstructionist.wordpress.com/free-books/

[7] See also http://theonomy101.blogspot.com/ https://theonomyresources.blogspot.com/p/downloads.html
https://americanvision.org/

An Informed Reformed Theonomic Response on the extremely uniformed article “A Critical evaluation of Theonomist eschatology”

by Slabbert Le Cornu[1]

PART 1: Introduction & The unscholarly uninformed method of CETE and the two crucial main questions in this debate that are also of big importance for the reformed community in SA

“Abstract: Although the extreme form of Theonomism has only affected a small number of Reformed members in South Africa, it seems that Theonomist Postmillennialism has a greater underlying influence in the Reformed Churches in South Africa. General churchgoers in the Reformed Churches of South Africa generally confuse the Regulatory Principle (sic) with Theonomism and are uninformed about precisely what Theonomism is. Furthermore, signs of Theonomism as it developed in the USA are also visible in South Africa. Yet, there is great ignorance about the exact effect that Theonomism has on Reformed congregations in South Africa, especially regarding the eschatological views held by individual congregations.”[1]

“The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him.” (Proverbs 18:17)

[PDF edition of this article can be download here.]

Introduction

The first quote above is the ‘abstract’ summary of dr. Morne Diedericks’s[2] article, Critical evaluation of Theonomist eschatology[3], that were published in the the GKSA’s theological journal, In die Skriflig.[4]

The second quote is from Proverbs 18:17, and is the goal of this and future articles.

There will be four parts in this response on ‘Critical evaluation of Theonomist eschatology’ article (abbreviation from now on: CETE).

Part 1: The unscholarly uninformed method of CETE and the two crucial main questions in this debate that are also of big importance for the reformed community in SA

Part 2: What does Theonomic Postmillennialism teach themselves using the sources CETE mentions in its ‘references’?

Part 3: Theonomic Postmillennialism reformed roots through history, also in South Africa.

Part 4: A Plea for biblical scholarship and brotherly relations among reformed brothers in our Kingdom callings here in Africa for now and the future

Part 1: The unscholarly uninformed method of CETE and the two crucial main questions in this debate that are also of big importance for the reformed community in SA

“Once a movement or party gets a name, whether they give themselves the name or whether others give them the name, the name has two meanings – one meaning, in which the party or movement uses it itself, and (another) meaning, in which their enemies or adversaries engage themselves. – Perold

It is clear from the outset where the author of CETE stands – regardless of the fact that he quotes two authors that gives some positive appreciation (also) of Theonomy and/or the Christian Reconstruction movement, in the beginning and end of his article (Frame, p.1; Carter, p. 7). Everything in-between is nothing else than a big warning to stay away from this ‘extreme’ school of thought, by a author that unfortunately looks like he have not read the original sources of those he labelled as ‘extreme’, while leaning only on secondary sources by some of ‘Machen’s Warrior Children’ (Frame, 2003)[5] against the reformed theonomic brothers in the USA.

The author of CETE nowhere goes into discussion with theonomic scholars themselves, such as Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Gentry, etc., trying to understand these brothers, learn from them, and then give helpful robust critique from their own writings.[6] His article is a one-sided non-scholarly non-objective quote from secondary sources aiming to write off and ignore other reformed thinkers, and no independent own study of the topic of theonomy and postmillennialism.

The crucial importance of the underlying debate

The importance of replying to CETE, is because fundamentally, the article’s content is not only about a certain group of American reformed believers as such, but also about two underlying issues or questions that are related to CETE’s content, that has been a question for the church through all the centuries, namely:

a) What is the nature of the Kingdom of God? What is the calling of reformed believers, individually but also as a church in this world. It is a question about the Kingdom of God, what is our biblical calling in this world?

b) By what Standard should we then live when we are saved by grace alone, through faith in Christ alone, to the glory of the triune God alone, a redemptive-ethical question: what is the standard or norm of our Kingdom activities, personally, family, church but also in all areas of life, specifically also in the socio-political areas of life, relationship between ‘church and state’ issues, etc.

What is the Kingdom, what is the Kingdom’s standard, and what is the Kingdom’s relationship to this world. Is there absolutely no relationship (world avoidance – the anabaptist tendency?) or is there total uniformity (the social gospel ideas?), see prof. L. Floor’s work, Die Evangelie van die Koninkryk.[7]

The church of Christ, children of the Lord, have always wrestled with implications of the kingdom that has already come in Jesus Christ into this world, but is not of this world (John 17: 14-17). The already but not yet tension (1 Cor.15: 20-28).

Does the Kingdom take shape or bear fruit only in personal lives, family life, the visible aspect of the church: teaching, service and discipline (1, 2 Tim, Titus), or does it have more implications or consequences for the whole life, every inch for Christ, antithetically (the vision of Calvin, Puritans, Covenanters, Voortrekkers, Kuyper, Bavinck, Totius, Stoker, PU vir CHO, etc)?  Are our calling limited to certain areas of our life, our does it go out to all areas of life and thought?

“Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” (1 Co 10:31)

Is there, for the reformed believer, one law-standard at home and the church, but another (neutral?) law-standard for the world?  The question is not ‘what is’, but what ‘should be’, our reformed calling, should the world be confronted only by the gospel, or by both law and gospel, each in it’s own rightful place and order according to the Scriptures (Matt. 5:1-20; Rom. 3:20-31; 1 Tim. 1:8-11). Or must we continue with the dualism of: on Sunday and at home it is all the law and gospel, but from Monday to Saturday it is all any law but God’s law and some neutral kind of ideas that should rule, and maybe a gospel message thrown in for piety sake?

The 20th-21st century reformed debate in the USA must be carefully distinguished

The focus of this reply to CETE is not all the different kingdom and ethical views in the USA, but it is needed to understand Theonomy as a movement historically also and the reactions to it. The big discussion among reformed brothers in the 2nd half of the 20th century in the USA was (and still is)[8], not only between ‘pro or anti-Theonomic’ reformed brothers, but, the bigger even more important discussion is between ‘pro or anti-theonomic’ brothers, i.e. between those (Theonomic and non-Theonomic, i.e. belonging or not belonging to the self-consciously Christian Reconstruction/Theonomic school of thought as a ‘thinktank’)[9] who still see the revealed Word of God (esp. the Ten Commandments) as the final absolute standard for all of life, also in the socio-political areas of life, for both Church and State, and, those that want some kind of natural law idea, i.e. not the explicit Word and God’s revealed laws, as summarized in the Ten Commandments as a foundation of a society.

The latter group, are called  the ‘Two Kingdoms’ theology view[10] (and by many of their critics they called, ‘Radical Two Kingdoms’ theology), are very hostile towards any kind of Theonomic and even theonomic views as the foundation of a Christian society, and foundationally they also very anti-Christendom, anti-Belgic Confession article 36, and also anti-theocratic, as they specifically define and reject these terms.

In CETE some of the hostile critique come for this ‘(radical) two kingdom’ movement, may I also say ‘extreme’ group of reformed believers, who on the one side correctly sees many misuses and problems of ‘Christendom, theocracy, BC art. 36, etc.’, but now wants to throw out the baby (Christ’s Kingship over all of live according to His Spirit and Word, God’s revealed Word as the standard for all magistrates, civil governments, etc.) out with the filthy bathwater?[11]

So essential part of the discussion of the nature of the Kingdom and by what standard should we live in the Kingdom, is what both Theonomy and (Radical) Two Kingdoms movements bring to our 21st world questions of our Kingdom calling and according to what standard should we then live in all areas of life, and, not only at home and church, but also in a world out there who is getting more and more hostile to God, the Word, the church, etc.

Is the (radical) Two kingdoms view the biblical and ‘best one’ for today, or perhaps the theonomical-theocratic view, both of which strongly advocate grounds for their views from Scripture, the Reformed confessions and church history, and, as with Augustine who are claimed by both Rome and the Protestants, the same happens with Calvin for both Theonomist and non- and anti-Theonomists?[12]

Or is it not one of these options, maybe something in-between as many other reformed brothers will plead, correctly or incorrectly? It is important to know that many reformed theologians and scholars in the USA do not ‘side’ with either movement, they are critical of both movements on differente levels and issues.[13]

My own view of the Kingdom (which I believe is also in essence the reformed theocratic-theonomic view)

Yes, the Kingdom of God has already come in Christ, is essentially the Lord’s redemptive rule in and through Jesus Christ, the Supreme King (Ps. 2, 110), it is essentially a spiritual Kingdom by the power of the Holy Spirit and therefore not ‘from this’ world, did not originate from man of this world (John 18:36), it is all about the Saviour King of the Kingdom (Matt.28: 18), about the Triune God (Rom. 11:33-36).  ‘We’, the church or believers do not ‘bring in’ the Kingdom of God, not politically or otherwise, it has been done by God Himself already through His Word and Spirit.

This, the citizens of the Kingdom may and should not differ about, but what is the fruit and consequences thereof (of the absolute sovereign mediatorial rule of King Christ) for every field of life and thought, personally, family, church, society, etc.? What are the full implications of Christ becoming flesh, and His bodily resurrection (HC Sunday 1), yes, above all for eternity, but also what about the here and now of the Kingdom?

The implications and results of sin and rebellion was everywhere, what is the implications and results of grace now, for eternity and yes, also for this life (Gen. 3; Romans 5)?

Was Herman Bavinck (Ragusa: 2016) right or wrong when he in essence said, grace does not destroy but redeems nature, yes, yes, not everyone head for head, not everything in detail, by no ways perfect in this life, but as each area of life and thought were infected by sin, now each area of life and thought must be ‘infected’ by the gospel, by the Word of God, by King Christ through His Spirit and Word? Was Bavinck wrong in calling the Bible:

“… ‘the book of the Kingdom of God’, not a book for this or that century or only about the individual, but about all nations, for all mankind, not for one time but for all times. This is an Kingdom book. And just as the Kingdom of God does not develop itself next to and above but in and through world history, so also Scripture must not be subtracted, considered in itself and isolated from everything, but it must be with our whole life, with the life of humanity is connected and employed to explain it. In short, Scripture is a book from the past, but also for the present and future… It comes to the family and society, to church and school. It is in one word: the speech of God to mankind.”[14]

THEREFORE, the whole debate is much bigger than just belonging or siding with any kind of so-called ‘extreme’ reformed group, whether ‘Theonomic Postmillennialism’ or ‘Radical Two Kingdoms Amillennialism’, or siding with your favorite theologian or camp in the USA.

This kingdom-ethical issue that CETE touches on is part of the much bigger discussion about what is the Kingdom, how does it relate to all of life, what is our calling in and towards this world, and the difference in that views are much more than being ‘pro or anti-Theonomic’, because there is many good reformed brothers on both sides we can learn a lot from.[15]

My plea as a Reformed believer from South Africa

“These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.” (Ac 17:11)

Therefore, my plea for South African reformed believers is to carefully read all original sources, both sides of these debates, distinguish also between the different lines and groups in these important debates, focus above all on the two main topics, what is our kingdom calling, and, by what Standard should we then live out or calling on each area of life and thought?

Do not get drawn into the sad personal sectarian battles and attack among these reformed brothers, unfortunately many from both sides, that divides brothers and churches in the USA, and it seem has blown over to the SA now?  Focus on the important topics itself, try to walk the extra mile with the other reformed brother that has a different view and are really convince his view is from ‘Scripture and the confessions’, and see what we as reformed folks in SA can learn from all these reformed groups on these two crucial topics:

What is the Kingdom and how does it apply to all areas of life, and

By what Standard should we then live in all areas of life?

With reference to John Frame’s article (Machen’s Warrior Children) revealing some of the problems of our reformed brothers and churches in the USA, I have written on my blog the following under the title, RS Clark, Calvin and Theonomy[16], which can now also be applied to the CETE article of. dr. Diedericks:

“The biggest lesson for me in these kind of debates that I been following for 30 years, and especially now with Clark’s actions in not allowing my comments (on his blog), is not whether one is pro- or non- or anti-theonomic as such, but that we should, no matter what camp we in, read and listen to both sides of views, debates, etc., especially if many on those debates are with fellow reformed brothers within the reformed camp.

Yes, we must beware of false doctrines, heresies, guard the true churches (BC art. 29), etc., but I do not believe pro or anti-reformed theonomic ethics (which I believe is another, not the only reformed ethic for God’s law for today, which should be considered within reformed and presbyterian churches, together with other reformed views on this topic, that will be more or less non-theonomic/theocratic) is a area to die for on a reformed hill, I do not believe one should be seen as ‘within or without the reformed camp’ because of being pro- or anti theonomic (with theonomic here I mean specifically Rushdoony or Bahnsen’s kind/version of theonomy, and not theonomy in general through history, which I believe all reformed should be theonomic in general: pro-law in the traditional 3 uses of the law distinction sense, as is stated in our reformed confessions).”

What I mentioned there, is also my goal with this 4 part reply to CETE: the hope that reformed believers will return to ad fontes, back to the sources for all they agree and disagree with. By all means, read and study all critiques of theonomic postmillennialism, but like the Bible teaches, listen and study carefully both sides of a issue, debate, controversy, etc., especially if the debate and disagreement is with fellow biblical reformed confessional brothers.[17]

CETE is unfortunately very clear that it does not want to learn anything at all from the  theonomic reformed ethics by using,

a) the labelling-and-write-them-off method to discredit other reformed brothers labelling them as ‘extreme, cult-like fanaticism, anti-state, rebels, fanaticism, cause so much trouble in the local church, cause division, lack of love’ and,

b) by downright misrepresenting theonomy’s views on many points, giving half-truth or unclear information, for example that they ‘anti-state, rejecting the sovereignty of the state, want the Church to force Christocracy on world, want to take over the work of the Holy Spirit’s work, denying the Spirit’s work in the history, they wholly future orientated, etc.”.[18]

Now, what sane reformed reader, even more so those that do not read the sources or both side of a debate, will even touch any reformed theonomic brothers works and want fellowship with them after that mouthful labels were burned onto them? Is that how we deal with each other, and yes, because of this kind of labelling there has been strong reactions by some theonomic authors also, which one cannot commend, but can understand. This is a very unfortunate stance of the CETE article which does not help serve the two broader very important points of the Kingdom calling and by what standard we must live.

See this very helpful article and my comments about the ‘art of labelling’: Fundamentalisme – naam of brandmerk?, prof. dr. A. Th. van Deursen[19]

In part 2 I will answer some of the critique given in CETE from the sources itself mentioned in the ‘References’ at the end of the article.

[PDF edition of this article could be download here.]

_______________________

Footnotes

[1] Emphases added.

[2] Dr. Diedericks is from Department of Education and Biblical Studies, Faculty of Education, Akademie Reformatoriese Opleiding en Studies, Pretoria, South Africa.

[3] https://indieskriflig.org.za/index.php/skriflig/article/view/2753/7209

[4] https://indieskriflig.org.za/index.php/skriflig/issue/view/231

[5] Dr. John Frame’s very important article on conflict in the American conservative Reformed circles: “I have enumerated areas of conflict occurring in American conservative Reformed circles from 1936 to the present. Under some of those headings I have mentioned subdivisions, sub controversies. Most of these controversies have led to divisions in churches and denominations, harsh words exchanged between Christians. People have been told that they are not Reformed, even that they have denied the Gospel. Since Jesus presents love as what distinguishes his disciples from the world (John 13:34-35), this bitter fighting is anomalous in a Christian fellowship. Reformed believers need to ask what has driven these battles. To what extent has this controversy been the fruit of the Spirit, and to what extent has it been a work of the flesh?” Read the full article here: https://frame-poythress.org/machens-warrior-children/

[6] See my own appreciation and critique of Christian Reconstructionism, Theonomy, etc., especially focusing on Rushdoony, here, delivered at a ‘Christ and Culture’ seminar in 2000: https://proregno.com/2010/02/01/verbondseminaar-2000-christus-en-kultuur/

[7] See Floor, L. Die Evangelie van die Koninkryk, https://www.christelikemedia.org/sites/default/files/Floor_L_-_Die_Evangelie_van_die_Koninkryk.pdf  See this specific chapter, Die Koninkryk van God en die Aardse Ryke, https://proregno.com/2017/05/11/die-koninkryk-van-god-en-die-aardse-ryke-prof-l-floor/

[8] Walker, A.T., 2021, American Culture Is Broken. Is Theonomy the Answer? https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/theonomy/  Reply to Walker’s article: Meador, J., 2021, Let’s talk about Theonomy. https://blogs.mereorthodoxy.com/jake/lets-talk-theonomy/ See also: Kline, T. 2021, What Theonomy Gets Wrong About the Law. https://mereorthodoxy.com/theonomy-gets-wrong-law/  Hume, C., 2021. The Bondage of the Civil Law? https://reformedhope.com/2017/06/28/the-bondage-of-the-civil-law/ Aitken, J. 2006. The Current Trends in the Theonomy Debate. https://chalcedon.edu/magazine/the-current-trends-in-the-theonomy-debate

[9] Reformed theologians like John Frame, Vern Poythress and others are not part of the Theonomic school, appreciate Theonomy’s contribution to ‘reformed ethics and eschatology’ discussions, but also gives their helpful critique on this movement. See Frame (1976, 2012), and Poythress (1995).

[10] See dr. Simon Jooste, (2013), Recovering the Calvin of ‘Two Kingdom’s? : A Historical-Theological Inquiry in the light of Church-State discourse in South-Africa. https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/80065  Bradford Littlejohn, W. 20217, The Two Kingdoms: a guide for the perplexed. https://davenantinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/The-Two-Kingdoms-Preview.pdf

[11] See footnote 13 for some American context of this debate, whether one agrees or disagrees with the author’s evaluation of the debate.  Michael N. Jacobs (2020) writes “To conclude, the Two Kingdoms perspective is clear: Christians should not attempt to transform the broader culture into the redemptive kingdom. Christians receive Christ’s kingdom; they do not build it. However, while the parameters outlined by D. G. Hart and Michael Horton highlight biblically unwarranted forms of cultural engagement, they do not provide much guidance for how appropriate Christian engagement with the common kingdom should occur.”

[12] See Jooste (2013). From a theonomic reformed, see Strevel, C.B. (2002) Theonomic Precedent in the Theology of John Calvin; De Mar, G. 2017,  Theonomy: an extension of Calvinism’s judicial theology. 

[13] See Mcilhenny, R.C. 2012. Kingdoms Apart: Engaging the Two Kingdoms Perspective, and Frame, J. 2011. The Escondido Theology: A Reformed Response to Two Kingdom Theology. N.T. Batzig writes: “The important thing to remember, as you seek to wade through these waters, is that the Two Kingdoms theology being promoted today is largely a response to the Theonomic movement/Christian Reconstructionism and the Christian America/God and Country influence. It is an overreaction to deviant theological movements. But, it is a reaction that is fundamentally good and necessary. Theonomy is an aberrant theology that is not upheld by Scripture, a healthy biblical theology, or the Westminster Confession of Faith. … While proponents of Theonomy misrepresent Van Til in regard to the role of civil law for modern governments, they are correct to follow Van Til in regard to the Bible being authoritative for all of life. Since rulers are the Imago Dei, they are bound to enact righteous laws. The only way they can accurately discern those laws is by means of God’s special revelation–His written word.” https://feedingonchrist.org/theonomy-two-kingdom-and-a-middle-road/  There are many other reformed theologians and schools of thought that does not associate them with either ‘(radical’) two kingdoms theology or the theonomy movement, such a Ligonier Ministries, Mid-America Reformed Seminary, PRCA, PRTS, Reformed Theological Seminary, etc.

[14] Bavinck in his foreword in ‘Kennis en Leven’ and also in his foreword to Matthew Henry’s Commentary, https://sources.neocalvinism.org/bavinck/  See also this sources under the title ‘Christus en Kultuur by Bavinck: die Calvinistiese vs die Lutherse en anabaptistiese sienings’ here, which also critique the (modern) Two Kingdoms view from a non-theonomic reformed perspective:   https://proregno.com/2020/08/12/christus-en-kultuur-die-calvinistiese-vs-die-luthers-en-anabaptistiese-sienings-deur-herman-bavinck/ Other non-reformed critique from Ligonier Ministries: Matheson, K.A., 2010, 2K or Not 2K? That is the Question: A Review of David VanDrunen’s Living in God’s Two Kingdoms. https://www.ligonier.org/posts/2k-or-not-2k-question-review-david-vandrunens-living-gods-two-kingdoms; More articles on Bavinck: https://proregno.com/category/bavinck/

[15] See Simon Jooste’s article, for thoughts from a Two Kingdom perspective, and how it relates to SA’s history and future calling as reformed churches, From Orange to Pink: A History of Politics and Religion in South Africa’s Cape Town. https://modernreformation.org/resource-library/articles/from-orange-to-pink-a-history-of-politics-and-religion-in-south-africas-cape-town/

[16] https://proregno.com/2020/01/17/rs-clark-calvin-and-theonomy/

[17] Yes, many Christians, also non-reformed believers accept theonomy or some kind of theonomy, same with postmillennialism. But we talk here about the leading thinkers that should be studied, which I believe are: Bahnsen, Rushdoony, Gentry, North, De Mar. Of them all, I agree most with Greg L. Bahnsen.

[18] Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 43 112. WHAT DOES THE NINTH COMMANDMENT REQUIRE? That I bear false witness against no one, twist no one’s words, be no backbiter or slanderer, join in condemning no one unheard or rashly; but that on pain of God’s heavy wrath, I avoid all lying and deceit as the very works of the devil; and that in matters of judgment and justice and in all other affairs, I love, speak honestly, and confess the truth; also, insofar as I can, defend and promote my neighbor’s good name. https://confessionalism.wordpress.com/heidelberg-catechism/

[19] https://proregno.com/2017/08/15/fundamentalisme-naam-of-brandmerk/

________________________

References

Allen, M., 2018, Grounded in heaven: Recentering Christian hope and life on God, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.

Bahnsen, G.L., 1991, No other standard: Theonomy and its critics, Inst for Christian Economics, Tyler, TX.

Bahnsen, G.L., 2002, Theonomy in Christian ethics, 3rd edn., Covenant Media Press, Nacogdoches, TX.

Beale, G.K., 2011, A New Testament biblical theology: The unfolding of the Old Testament in the New, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI.

Beed, C. & Beed, C., 2017, ‘Biblical interpretation of Gary North’s theonomy’, Journal of Biblical Integration in Business 20(2), 10–19.

Burack, F., 2017, ‘Book Review: Ingersoll, J., 2015. Building God’s kingdom: Inside the world of Christian reconstruction’, Oxford University Press, USA, Critical Research on Religion 6(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050303217732136

Carter, P., 2021, Why I am not a Theonomist, Semper Reformanda, viewed 13 June 2021, from https://semperreformanda.ca/2021/02/16/why-i-am-not-a-theonomist/.

De Mar, G., 2017, Theonomy: an extension of Calvinism’s judicial theology. https://americanvision.org/14290/theonomy-an-extension-of-calvinisms-judicial-theology/

Diedericks, M., 2021, ‘Critical evaluation of Theonomist eschatology’, In die Skriflig 55(1), a2753. https://doi.org/10.4102/ids.v55i1.2753

Frame, J., 1976, ‘The institutes of biblical law: A review article’, Westminster Theological Journal 38(2), 195–217. https://frame-poythress.org/review-of-bahnsens-theonomy-in-christian-ethics/

Frame, J., 2003. “Machen’s Warrior Child”, in Sung Wook Chung, ed., Alister E. McGrath and Evangelical Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker.  https://frame-poythress.org/machens-warrior-children/

Frame, J. 2011. The Escondido Theology: A Reformed Response to Two Kingdom Theology. Whitefield Media Productions.  See a discussion of this book here: https://calvinistinternational.com/2012/09/21/the-escondido-theology-a-reformed-response-to-two-kingdom-theology/

Frame, J. Penultimate Thoughts on Theonomy. https://frame-poythress.org/penultimate-thoughts-on-theonomy/

Gaffin, R.B., 1990, ‘Theonomy and eschatology: Reflections on postmillennialism’, in W.S. Barker & W.R. Godfrey (eds.), Theonomy, A reformed critique, pp. 197–224, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.

Gaffin, R.B., 2006, ‘By faith, not by sight’: Paul and the order of salvation, Paternoster.

Gentry, K.L., 1993, God’s law in the modern world: The continuing relevance of Old Testament law, P&R, Phillipsburg, NJ.

Hall, J.D., 2015, Embers of a dying fire: My thoughts on the great theonomy debate, Audio version narrated by Landan Chapmen.

Ice, T.D., 1988, An evaluation of Theonomic Neopostmillennialism, Faculty Publications & Presentations, Austin, TX.

Ice, T.D., 2017, ‘Christian reconstructionism’, in T.J. Demy & P.R. Shockley (eds.), Evangelical America: An encyclopedia of contemporary American religious culture, ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, CA.

Ingersoll, J., 2015, Building God’s kingdom: Inside the world of Christian reconstruction, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Jacobs, M. N. 2020. The Resurgence of Two Kingdoms Doctrine: A Survey of the Literature, in:Themelios, vol 45 – Issue 2. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-resurgence-of-two-kingdoms-doctrine-a-survey-of-the-literature/

Jooste, Simon. 2013. Recovering the Calvin of ‘Two Kingdom’s? : A Historical-Theological Inquiry in the light of Church-State discourse in South-Africa. https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/80065

Jooste, Simon. 2021. From Orange to Pink: A History of Politics and Religion in South Africa’s Cape Town. https://modernreformation.org/resource-library/articles/from-orange-to-pink-a-history-of-politics-and-religion-in-south-africas-cape-town/

Kline, M.A., 1977, ‘Review of Greg L. Bahnsen: Theonomy in Christian ethics’, The Craig Press xvii, 619–630.

Kloosterman, N.D., 1994, ‘Theonomy and Christian reconstruction’, in International Theological Congress at Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands, June 2–24, viewed 21 July 2021, from https://www.academia.edu/362582/Theonomy_and_Christian_Reconstruction.

Le Cornu, S., 2000. Die Kultuurbeskouing van RJ Rudhdoony. https://proregno.com/2010/02/01/verbondseminaar-2000-christus-en-kultuur/

McCrorie, B., 2006, Theonomy and the regulative principle of worship, viewed 12 June 2021, from https://bowingdown.wordpress.com/2006/10/17/theonomy-and-the-regulative-principle-of-worship/.

MciIlhenny, R.C. 2012. Kingdoms Apart: Engaging the Two Kingdoms Perspective. P&R Publishing. See a discussion of the book here: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/kingdoms-apart-engaging-the-two-kingdoms-perspective/

McVicar, M.J., 2015, Christian reconstruction: R.J. Rushdoony and American Religious Conservatism, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.

North, G., 1976, ‘Common grace, eschatology, and biblical law’, Journal of Christian Reconstruction 3, Winter 1976, 77, 13–47.

North, G., 1987, Dominion and common grace: The biblical basis of progress, Dominion Press, Fort Worth.

North, G., 1988, Unholy spirits: Occultism and New Age humanism, Dominion Press, Waterbury Center, Vermont, VT.

North, G., 1991, Christian reconstruction: What it is, what it isn’t, pp. 80–82, Inst for Christian Economics.

Pipa, J.A., 2020, Worship reader, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Greenville.

Poythress, V.S., 1995. The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses. P&R Publishing. https://frame-poythress.org/ebooks/the-shadow-of-christ-in-the-law-of-moses/

Ragusa, D., 2016, As Far as Curse is Found: Nature and Grace in Herman Bavinck. https://reformedforum.org/far-curse-found-nature-grace-herman-bavinck/

Ray, M., 2016, Theonomy: Whose in charge – Its God’s church, iUniverse, Bloomington, IN.

Rushdoony, R.J., 1973, The institutes of biblical law, The Craig Press, Nutley, NJ.

Strevel, C.B., Theonomic Precedent in the Theology of John Calvin, in: The Standard Bearer – A Festschrift for Greg. L. Bahnsen (Texas: Covenant Media Press), p. 319-368. https://proregno.com/2020/07/15/theonomic-precedent-in-the-theology-of-john-calvin/

Venema, C.P., 2000, The promise of the future, The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh.

Vos, G., 1979, Pauline eschatology, P&R, Phillipsburg, NJ.

Wenham, G., 2006, ‘Law in the Old Testament’, in J.W. Rogerson & J.M. Lieu (eds.), The Oxford handbook of biblical studies, pp. 351–362, Oxford University Press, Oxford.