Prefacing this whole post, which will be a follow-up to my review of Hall/McDurmon debate, I want to say that I have read as much of American Vision and Pulpit and Pen's blog posts in the aftermath as I could get my hands on (which, by the by, introduced me to two great men and two great blogs), and I have listened to all the episodes of the Pulpit and Pen Program addressing the Theonomy issue both pre-and post debate. Aside from this material, the booklet-length post-mortem/victory declaration made by JD Hall can be found here. I wanted to make some brief summary points regarding corrections to my prior post, expansions of my knowledge base, changes of mind (I do have them) and the summary hullabaloo (did you know Firefox spell-check has a correct spelling for that word?) that is the Theonomy debate in the modern Reformed community.
1) This is an important issue. But it is not a thing of first importance.
What was of first importance in the Apostolic witness was the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ in perfect substitution for the sins of His people.1 Insofar as I believe the men at American Vision and those at P and P (and those in their respective camps) to be Christ-followers in saving belief in His good news, the sowing of division among brothers on this issue is not good. Some of the tactics and language in the Hall/McDurmon interchange specifically and much more so this debate more generally have smacked of the same sort of hyperbole and grandstanding, particularly in the realm of eschatology, that has marked traditional dispensationalisms' criticisms of "replacement theology". I urge my Reformed brothers and sisters to be bigger than that.
2) I reiterate my prior statement that I agree with neither position.
Rather, it would be better said that I agree with neither *personality in the "great debate" (more on that in a minute). Hall's premillenialism, his commitment to the Reformed Baptist position on the newness of the New Covenant, and his somewhat cavalier dismissal of things he does agree on with Theonomists makes his approach not only unnecessarily acerbic in places, but also radically different from the angle I would arrive from. All of that being said:
3) I am not a Theonomist.
One may notice I have insisted on ubiquitous use of the capital T throughout this post, and the reason is that the most unpleasant thing, to me, coming out of American Vision in the last few months has not been intrinsic to, or even directly based in their position, but is instead tactical. As JD has highlighted repeatedly on the PP blog and show, the folks at AV, dat Postmil podcast and others have been seemingly willing to settle for "theonomic-ish" when some of those sharing their links, retweeting their posts and mouthing their jargon do not share the true distinctives of their position, beginning with the call for precise reapplication of the Sinaitic penology and inclusion of some or all of the civil code as part of the moral law. More alarmingly, I would say egregiously, Joel and co. seem ready and willing to take the dead captive in this maneuver, as will be illustrated by the recent back and forth on the aforementioned blogs regarding the legacy of AW Pink on the civil dimension of the law. I think it can be readily demonstrated to a non-dogmatized reader that Pink did not hold to the two above Theonomic positions, which makes him not a Theonomist, regardless of whether Joel is "totally willing to call him one", which I find an interesting (ironc?) phrasing.
It is on these two positions that I must side with JD and Pink, after relatively intense (but by no means completed or exhaustive) study of the issue since late March. Particularly illustrative was the series of debate essays in the "Counterpoints" series entitled "Five Views on Law and Gospel", which included an essay on the Theonomic position by the late, great Dr. Bahnsen himself, an essay which, relative to that on the "Traditional Reformed" position (which seemed admittedly scattered in places), honestly seemed to be focused more on open-ended questions than on answers. The typical understanding of the summation of the moral law in the Decalogue, and its recapitulation in (not replacement by) Jesus' "two great commandments" is greatly undermined by Bahnsen's position on the exact nature of the civil code, which he appears to have at least partially blended into the eternal and unchanging standard by such quotations (some of which can be found in JD's "Embers" booklet) as pg. 304 of Theonomy in Christian Ethics, wherein Dr. Bahnsen called the "subdivision" of the law into "moral and civil categories" (?) "latent antinomianism"(!).
This brings me to a larger point, and a partial retraction of comments made in March about the debate. I have said multiple times that this is a debate that may have been better never to have happened, or rather, to have (continuted to) happen in writing, not only because of the passions (some ungodly) inflamed by the event itself, but also because consistency and solid reasoning for a preexisting position were much more on evidence in the written material, particularly post-debate. Nowhere is this more evident than in JD's actual dragging out of page numbers and other specific references for the now-infamous "boogeyman quotes". I said previously that North and Rushdoony's work has to my mind frequently generated more heat than light and that on issues related to, but distinct from, their position on the law (ranging from racism to soteriology), I have had cause for alarm, or even grave concern. Nothing in recent further study has alleviated these concerns, but rather exacerbated them. Meanwhile, I awarded debate points, perhaps decisive ones, in what I still believe to have been a close contest (grandstanding by the participants aside), to Joel due to the "Bahnsen is a liar" portion of CX in which the notion of Bahnsen holding to the (highly Westminsterian) threefold division came into question. Regrettably, further study has informed me that Dr. Bahnsen presented as at least confusing on the issue, if not outright dangerously wrong.
The heart of the matter lies in the threefold division for me, not just because it is a matter of confessional importance (which I said in March it is), but because it is of Scriptural importance. How one derives a consistent, systematic position in which Paul and the other apostles teach that the civil magistrate is to exercise the civil code as written, at risk of incurring the divine wrath, from the New Testament, is beyond me. Certainly 1 Timothy, a book resoundingly about church discipline (we do in fact derive the Biblical qualifications for eldership therefrom) does not offer a governmental system, anymore than Romans 13 (which must be applicable to the authorities as the first century church experienced them) makes all governing authorities executors of the divine wrath only contingent on their application of the civil code with it's system of precise sanctioned activities and commensurate penalties. And here we come to another issue that I addressed more fully than the above in my prior post, but which bears repeating because it has grown as I have read: Theonomic inconsistency on penology. The puritan colonies, and other societies which Theonomists have held up as examples of law-keeping, have universally not held precisely to the punishments for various crimes in Bahnsen's "exhaustive detail", which brings us back to the concept of "theonomic-ish". It would not be enough merely to practice the death penalty for certain things, for example: unless stoning is carried out in every case that it is in the Levitcal code, the society in question is, at the least, swerving from the perfect justice of that code. After all, there is more at stake in penology than appearances. Community participation, number of witnesses, time and suffering involved in the punishment of the offender are all encapsulated in the prescribed penalties of the code. It would not be enough to merely say that "well the death penalty happened so justice was done". The Theonomist has painted himself into a small corner of his own making on the issue, whereas I believe the Massachusetts colonists in question were not adhering to Bahnsen or Rushdoony's exhaustive detail, but rather the Westminster Standards "general equity", which brings me back to the confessional issues previously addressed.
It is known to many students of Calvin's sermons on the law (some of which have in fact been republished in works by Gary North) and the Institutes that Calvin's insistence was on the bare fact that that which is prohibited in the Law and not explicitly abrogated by Christ be punished, not that the punishments be universal and specific, or, in my reading, even carried out by persons specifically motivated by Scriptural standards. Whether North would agree with this, I do not know, but obviously Calvin's position was repudiated by Joel in the debate. The Westminster Divines, consummate Calvinists if ever there were some, were certainly aware that penology was, to the mind of Calvin, a matter of differing covenant administration2, and this, to my mind, makes a compelling case for the non-theonomic reading of the Standards regarding the "general equity" of the civil code: punishment for crime but not rigorous application of Sinatic covenant administration courts and penalties.
In summation, I believe that the Theonomic (large T) position fails. It fails Scripturally. Importantly for Presbyterians, it fails confessionally. It failed in the mind of Calvin. This does not, as I said before, make JD Hall the keeper of the secret fire on covenant theology (as if you were worried I'd say that), but it is my position nonetheless. Feel free to comment here or PM on Facebook should you disagree.
4) The Law is good, if one uses it lawfully.
Far from affirming Joel's position on that text, the reason I have spilled lethargy-inducing volumes of digital ink on this topic is that I think this debate is not merely academic for three reasons. A) Theonomists confuse laypersons into believing they are in a camp they are not in through misrepresentation. As seen recently in the case of Pink and others, and in the skirting of the general equity clause by Bahnsen, there is a subtle undercurrent in Theonomy that divides Christians into Theonomists and antinomians. This is simply not the case, and it threatens to imply that adherents to the very position of Calvin are heretics (and antinomianism in its full-fledged sense is heresy). The term "civil judaizing" is a regrettable one. It brought as much lightless heat as any of the screeds of North, as it seemed to equate Reformed, solas-affirming men like Bahnsen and Joel with the accursed ones of Galatians. But the idea behind the term stands insofar as the more inflammatory remarks by Theonomists to their kin imply that deniers of the continuance of the civil code are soteriologically deficient, or at least involved in a matter of sin, much as the Judaizers implied the same of Apostolic Christians who invited Gentiles to the free grace of Christ without the encumbrances of the ceremonial law. To use the law lawfully in the New Covenant should mean to avoid even the appearance of asking believers to "submit again to a yoke of slavery".3 B) On a related note, the most well-known advocates of the position (North, Rushdoony, Marinov) have sown dissension among brothers over what, as I said at the beginning, should not be a matter of primary gospel importance. C) Theonomy is a very real issue for confessional Presbyterianism. I hold Dr. Bahnsen, God rest his soul, in high regard, but there is a reason Theonomists have lost positions and prestige over this issue. Laypersons need to know that not only does the one covenant, multiple administrations hermaneutic not require the Theonomic position, but that the position is contrary to the historic faith of the Standards. For men and women who care about such things, and go to churches that do, this is a matter of historical consistency and potentially church membership.
As I said before, dialogue on the issue is welcome, and I am not done learning. Someday I will make it through By This Standard, and maybe even take a crack at Theonomy in Christian Ethics. Unfortunately, I have a lot on my plate right now, especially with Shaw's exposition of the Standards and Schaff's History of the Church in the on-deck circle. This is not, nor will it ever be, my pet issue. I hope this can be illustrative to at least one person, and if not, it's been good to get back in the swing of things. Stay tuned for my forthcoming book review of Gary D. Long's book on NCT, which will at least be in the same ballpark as this issue. Thanks for reading.
In Christ,
~JS.
1. 1 Cor. 15:3 and following.
2. For this specific language on the part of Calvin, see Institutes II.11. Credit to JD in Embers for the reference.
3. Gal. 5:1
No comments:
Post a Comment