Theonomy and pacifism are rearing their heads as the United States continues its efforts to build a coalition of nations to destroy the Islamic State. Two weeks ago I offered some recommendations for Christians in how we should be responding to the threat of IS and the impending war. While my position has found consensus with most Christians I’ve encountered, it has also been met with heated opposition by a few.
Over the last year or two I’ve been collecting future reads for when I would begin my study on the Law of God. I’ve desired to solidify my understanding of the Christian’s relationship to the Law of God under the New Covenant. Part of this desire has been driven by the rising theonomical influence in reformed circles, and wanting to have a firm grasp on the Law to counter the aberrant arguments from my theonomist friends. I’ve learned, however, that discussions about theonomy on social media is a near futile task for a number of reasons, not least of which is the lack of charity and grace demonstrated in these discussions, with very rare exception. But at root, we have fundamental, hermeneutical disagreements that lead to differences in our views of the Law of God and the biblical covenants, so a surface topic like theonomy is nearly impossibly fruitful.
I used to consider theonomy to be a benign theory, merely living in the postmillennial mind like a fantasy in hopes for a future Utopian society preceding the Lord’s return. But my concern now is the influence theonomy is having on Christians, pointing them back to the Mosaic Law instead of pointing to Jesus Christ and the Law of Christ under the New Covenant. Organizations like American Vision have made theonomical postmillennialism trendy, but I hope it will soon pass like all fads tend to do.
As our nation plants its war footing and the world’s volatility for war increases, the topic of war isn’t going away any time in the near future. How Christians respond to war is important, so now is an opportune time for me to enter into a study of the Law of God. Some of the questions I expect to be answered will include:
What is the standard for government?
What is the standard for justice?
Can a standard for war be found in the Bible?
What is the Christian’s relationship to the Mosaic Law?
What are the different uses/applications of the law in the New Testament?
What are the differences in how the law is defined in the New Testament?
Books for consideration will be the following in case you also have a desire to study this area:
The Law of Christ by Charles Leiter
40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law by Thomas Schreiner
Politics – According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture by Wayne Grudem
Five Views on Law and Gospel by Walter Kaiser, Douglas Moo, Greg Bahnsen, Stanley Gundry, Wayne Strickland, and Willem VanGemeren
Theonomy in Christian Ethics by Greg Bahnsen
Theonomy: A Reformed Critique by William Barker, Robert Godfrey
The Continuing Relevance of Divine Law by Fred Zaspel
Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought by David VanDrunen
Living in God’s Two Kingdoms by David VanDrunen
Here are some audio resources for consideration:
The Sermon Series: Theonomy a Reformed Baptist Assessment by Dr. Sam Waldron (Reformed Baptist)
The Relationship of Church and State by Dr. Sam Waldron
Unbelievers, the Law, and Conscience by Pastor Gary Hendrix
Still Written in Stone? The Christian’s Relationship to the Mosaic Law by Dr. Richard Mayhue (Senior VP and Dean of The Master’s Seminary)
History and Theology of Calvinism #21: The Theonomy Movement by Dr. Curt Daniel (reformed theologian)
A Critique of Theonomy by Dr. David Coffin (Presbyterian)
An Assessment of Theonomy by Pastor Jim Savastio (Reformed Baptist)
The Christian and the Civil Magistrate by Pastor Jim Savastio
Theonomy and the Westminster Assembly by Rev. David Silversides (Presbyterian)
Christian Submission to Human Government by Pastor Andy Dunkerton
The Christian’s Responsibility in a Pagan Society Part 1 by Dr. John MacArthur
The Christian’s Responsibility in a Pagan Society Part 2 by Dr. John MacArthur
As I enter into this study, I plan to share my thoughts along the way and quote from various authors. As an intro, I’ll quote from Leiter’s The Law of Christ in his response to pacifism on pages 310-311:
Whereas Theonomy wants to make the Law of Moses the “law of the land,” pacifism wants to apply the Sermon on the Mount in a similar fashion. Neither position is biblical. As noted above, the Law of Moses was given to the theocracy (not all nations) in order to accomplish a particular purpose during a particular time. The Sermon on the Mount, on the other hand, is given to the church (not civil magistrates) and is intended to guide Christ’s regenerate sheep in their journey through the labyrinth of this world, where (according to the Sermon itself) they will face persecution and abuse “on account of” Him. Christ’s command to “turn the other cheek” was thus intended for Christians, not for civil government, which is specifically “established by God” to maintain order and justice as a “minister of God” through the use of “the sword.”
Thus, I don’t believe a biblical argument can be made for the United States government to strive to be a peacemaker regarding the Islamic State, unless of course one would like to argue destroying IS would bring peace to the U.S. and other nations afflicted by this antichrist group of barbaric terrorists. Neither can the United States “turn the other cheek” when it comes to al Qaeda or IS or HAMAS or Hezbollah or any other terrorist network. To apply this text to governments who bear responsibility in wielding the sword to preserve justice and peace, is to not only abuse the text but also exposes a warped view of biblical justice in a sinful world.
I see both pacifists and theonomists demanding a “just war theory” for the impending war against Islamism. Pacifism wants to see the U.S. government show IS love and compassion, while theonomy demands the Mosaic Law to be the absolute standard for Gentile nations. I have seen one person assert that the U.S. should refuse to help Iraq defeat IS because he opposes sending “our children” and “treasure” to help Iraq protect its citizens. This is an example of how one’s rigid application of an aberrant theology blinds one to a biblical application of mercy, justice, and love for neighbor. Such thinking is what compelled me to post the following on facebook last week:
Dear American Christian, if your theology posits war is only justified if the enemy is enslaving, raping, and murdering Americans on American soil, something’s not right in your theology, or your heart.
Ultimately, there is no absolute standard for government apart from the theocracy of Israel under the Old Covenant. So there is also no absolute standard for war for Gentile governments either. While governments would do well to search the Old and New Testaments so to determine how best to lead and govern their people according to just law and love for neighbor, prescribing the Mosaic Law to Gentile nations in such a way that it binds them reveals a very poor interpretation and application of Scripture.
We won’t find any rules of engagement for nations to declare war in the Bible. But what can be done is studying the Scriptures to determine how governments can govern and promote peace while executing justice for lawbreakers. Christians of political esteem are in a position to influence the government to do what is right, and that should be our hope and aim while we proclaim the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and seek to do good to and for our neighbor.
Next time, we’ll be taking a brief look at theonomy from Thomas Schreiner’s 40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law.
Current Articles in This Series
Sam Waldron on Civil Authorities
The Law of Nature Is the Law of God
God Rules Over All Civil Magistrates
Christian Submission vs Belligerent Discontentment Before Civil Authorities
airō 
Marcus Pittman
September 9, 2014
‘Ultimately, there is no absolute standard for government apart from the theocracy of Israel under the Old Covenant.’
So by what standard is ISIS immoral?
Justin Edwards
September 9, 2014
Marcus, your question demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the Law of God and a fundamental misunderstanding of “our” view of the Law of God. The resources provided in this article will help you understand that IS is immoral because of its abuses against image bearers of God.
Rich
September 23, 2014
That is a great question!!
Thomas S. Barnes
September 9, 2014
I have a couple of questions for you:
“Ultimately, there is no absolute standard for government apart from the theocracy of Israel under the Old Covenant.’ – If that is true, then how would a nation know when it is violating the Image of God (as you state above) and when it is carrying out justice?
Also, if there is no standard then how do you plan to answer your first question .. “What is the standard for government?” ?
In your understanding will the “MK” be a theocracy?
Justin Edwards
September 9, 2014
Hi Tommy, the moral norms found in the Old and New Testament should guide governments in establishing just governments. These moral norms reflect the moral chsracter of God and are written to the heart of every man.
Yes, I do believe the only theocracy that will be established in the future will be Christ’s earthly reign during the MK. See Psalm 2.
Shane Dodson
September 9, 2014
“Hi Tommy, the moral norms found in the Old and New Testament should guide governments in establishing just governments. These moral norms reflect the moral chsracter of God and are written to the heart of every man.”
….and that would be theonomy.
Justin Edwards
September 9, 2014
Shane, my friend, that is not theonomy and your vagueness is unhelpful. We both know your understanding of theonomy is instituting the civil elements of the Torah as the biblical standard for Gentile nations. This, of course, means you believe there should be civil penalties for immoral behavior like idolatry, adultery, homosexuality, and disobedient children, etc. And we both know you believe the death penalty would be the punishment. So neither is my response to Tommy or your suggestion of it that it is theonomical is accurate. Having said this, my response to you on fb applies here as well…let me know if you read and listen to those items, and I’ll be happy to then approve your future comments. Grace and peace.
Shane Dodson
September 9, 2014
“That is not theonomy”
Actually, it is. Ask any theonomist.
“We both know…you believe the death penalty would be the punishment.”
Well…you may THINK you know this, but you would be wrong.
The Torah allows for the offenders to be shown mercy and escape punishment, except of course, for premeditated murder (Numbers 35:31). So…NO…I don’t think the punishment for those crimes should always be capital punishment.
Justin…you don’t appear to understand theonomy to an extent that you can effectively critique it. I would suggest taking a break from your blog and “hit the books,” as it were.
You refuse to approve my comments until I try to better understand your position?
To that I say…physician, heal thyself.
Blessings!
– Shane
Justin Edwards
September 10, 2014
Shane, thanks for reading and listening to those resources. You should now be able to better understand my position and hopefully we can have a more meaningful conversation on the topic.
I have not read any of you guys to say that theonomy is merely applying the moral norms or principles as patterns for Gentile governments. If that were the case we would not be having this discussion, and there would not be controversy in reformed circles. Theonomy asserts the civil and moral elements of the Mosaic Covenant are still in force today, whereas most reformed Christians believe the civil and ceremonial are fulfilled in Christ, and others believe all of the Mosaic Law are fulfilled in Christ including the moral elements.
You are also being “chameleon-like” when you say I am wrong in my observation of theonomist argumentation. I have even seen you say that homosexuals et al should be punished by the death penalty because “God says so”. Even here, you say I don’t think the punishment for those crimes *should always* be capital punishment, which is to say you believe that sometimes there should be capital punishment for these offenses. As I just interviewed with Tony for this Saturday’s Cross Encounters Radio, we both wonder on what basis would you argue governments could show mercy to homosexual, idolatrous, and adulterous offenders.
Anyway, if you desire to have a charitable, honest, and fruitful discussion, condescending comments like the above as well as Jon’s on my writing are not helpful. You’re only showing what seems to be a historical pattern for most theonomists in these discussions – arrogance.
Shane Dodson
September 10, 2014
“I have not read any of you guys to say that theonomy is merely applying moral norms or principles as patterns for Gentile government.”
Then you’re not reading us very closely.
“I have even seen you say that homosexuals et al should be punished by the death penalty because “God says so.”
That is not entirely accurate, Justin. You might want to go back to that Facebook thread. I will concede that I spoke rather quickly and didn’t provide the clarity that I should have. For that I apologize. I DID say–when you accused theonomists of simply wanting to “stone all homosexuals and adulterers” I responded with what you (and every Christian) would agree with: God DID say as much in Scripture.
However, the issue is a bit more complex than that. The only crime that calls for the death penalty without appeal is premeditated murder. There are other crimes (and understanding the difference between “crimes” and “sins” is vital here, but would need an entire other thread to discuss) that call for the death penalty, but a way of escape is provided.
Suffice to say, there is a difference of opinion within the theonomic camp about this, and your sweeping generalization was sloppy. I didn’t help, however, with my inadequate response. So again…please forgive me for that.
I think you’re being ungracious, however, in now accusing me of being “chamelon-like.”
“We both wonder on what basis would you argue governments could show mercy to homosexual, idolatrous and adulterous offenders.”
Good news on this front, brother. You don’t have to “wonder.” You can arrange an open back-and-forth live discussion with a theonomist and have these questions answered.
Will you? Will Tony? Or will you continue to attack and critique and accuse?
I pray it’s the former.
Justin Edwards
September 10, 2014
Shane, stay tuned for the next article, which I expect to provide a platform for the civil penalty discussion.
Thomas S. Barnes
September 9, 2014
OK, Well I look forward to engaging you on the topic over the course of your study/series. I still want to have our convo .. maybe after this study is complete and I get a chance to look at some of your resources. I have been somewhat distracted the last few days, but will try and read/listen to those on my 2 wk trip to the midwest. Blessings!
Justin Edwards
September 9, 2014
Thank you, my “rare exception” theonomist friend. 😉
Thomas S. Barnes
September 9, 2014
Haha – well, I am grateful that I come across humbly on the topic to you. It is my hope. Glory to Christ.
One more note on the study materials. It looks like all your studies will be conducted from works of modern authors. I think there is no better voice to represent theonomy than Bahnsen, but as you study this important & difficult topic will you be appealing to more historical works?
There seems to be this notion that Theonomy is “new”, the term might be, but the doctrine is not. A couple authors that jump into my mind is Samuel Rutherford & George Gillespie (Both on the Westminster Assembly). I am sure there are many more to choose from.
Justin Edwards
September 9, 2014
I expect to be exposed to additional resources as I study, especially the reformed critique from William Barker. Thank you for the two you shared.
Michael A. Coughlin
September 9, 2014
Thanks for addressing this important issue which strikes at the heart of many people’s errant behavior in our day. My prediction – this is the next Strange Fire.
Justin Edwards
September 9, 2014
Now that would be epic! Seems like ShepCon 2016 would be ideal with that important election on yhe horizon.
Michael A. Coughlin
September 9, 2014
I already inquired. They said when it becomes as widespread of a problem as the charismatic stuff they’ll have a conference.
I personally believe the two doctrines go hand in hand, at least if you take the whole theonomic postmillenial view to its logical conclusions – but most people don’t do that, I suppose.
We all have a blind spot somewhere. Grace must abound.
Thomas S. Barnes
September 9, 2014
Hi Michael,
I assume, if I am reading correctly that you are saying that the charismatic movement & theonomy go hand in hand. I assume you are saying this based on some “dominionist” theology. That is an extreme broad brush and is comparable to me lumping ALL dispensationals in the same camp.
I am postmill, theonomic and a cessationist.
I would like to see you to connect they two and carry out the perceived logical conclusion.
Thanks!
P.S. I can’t emphasize this enough when understanding a specific theological construct.. do not form opinions on the specific doctrine based on what you read on facebook (or social media). Everyone on facebook is a theologian and everyone is saying something different 🙂
Michael A. Coughlin
September 9, 2014
Thomas – I would be happy to discuss details of this further privately. You can contact me here and then we can email or even have a phone call http://michaelcoughlin.net/blog/index.php/contact-me/
I will be pretty busy actually for several days, though, so it will be next week before I can chat. If you don’t mind, pray for my teaching over the next few days and conference planning.
Thanks for the good advice about Facebook and getting theology from social media.
For clarification on this blog:
I didn’t write what I wrote based on my understanding of “dominionist” theology.
I would rather say that the hermeneutical method which allows you to arrive at the postmillenial theonomic view of scripture cannot prohibit the Charismatic from adding to or contradicting scripture the way they do. Postmillers just do it more subtlely and by using more existing scripture than the off the wall prophet/tongue speaker which seem to be prevalent in the non-cessationist camps.
I think it is clear you’re views are different from Justin’s and my own, so finding the right starting point for discussion is important, and I’m willing to do that. I’ve never actually met a postmiller who could and would…which appears the be the spirit behind this comment: https://airocross.com/2014/09/09/the-law-of-god-theonomy-and-pacifism/#comment-9612
Blessings to you. You appear from your picture to be a loving father and from this thread to be a gentle and respectful follower of the same Lord as I follow. 🙂
Hopefully, those facts will bring us closer than this other difference can split us apart.
Thomas S. Barnes
September 9, 2014
Well, like you I am going to be tied up for a few weeks. Leaving in a few days for a conference in Nebraska and then onto some other states to visit friends. Maybe in a few weeks when I return we can chat. Yes, I am a father of 4 (6 – 16yrs) and a husband to my wonderful bride of 17 yrs. 🙂
Just one last comment and then we can continue this offline in a few weeks. What theonomic and/or postmillineal works have you read?
Many blessings to you in Christ.
Justin Edwards
September 9, 2014
Maybe the three of us can do a google hangout…I’d be up for some fellowship and iron sharpening.
Thomas S. Barnes
September 10, 2014
Sounds great to me brother! 🙂
Brian Ottinger
September 9, 2014
awesome dude. I have Leiter’s book. I love it. It seems like one of those books I will continue to reference for years to come. I like the direction you are going, and I thank you for sharing!
Love you bro-
Let me know when we can do a breakfast again.
Justin Edwards
September 9, 2014
Love you too, Brian…miss you man, anytime is good for me…just let me know when you wanna stop by. Also, looking forward to seeing you at 9marks!
lawman104
September 10, 2014
Thank you, Justin.
Jordan
September 10, 2014
Justin,
I’d like to point out that though you lament the lack of grace in these discussions by saying:
“…not least of which is the lack of charity and grace demonstrated in these discussions, with very rare exception”
Yet you also say (emphasis mine):
“But my concern now is the influence theonomy is having on Christians, POINTING THEM BACK TO THE MOSAIC LAW INSTEAD OF POINT TO JESUS CHRIST and the Law of Christ under the New Covenant. ”
Theonomists believe the ENTIRE SCRIPTURES (emphasis, not yelling) point to Christ. They point to Christ for salvation, not keeping law. If this is not what you meant to imply, then your lack of clarity here is uncharitable at best, intentionally muddying the waters at worst. Theonomists believe in salvation by grace alone through faith. I would recommend you include an update to your original post clarifying your comments here.
Justin Edwards
September 10, 2014
Hi Jordan, thanks for the comment. It is not my intention at any time to intentionally misrepresent anyone’s view. My concern is not that theonomists are pointing back to the Mosaic Law for justification, rather they are turning back the clock of redemptive history and seek to apply capital punishment for certain kinds of “moral law” breakers. The next article should open up a discussion on those aspects, and I hope clarity can be provided on both sides where there is any misunderstanding. I will make a diligent effort to be as fair and charitable as possible. Thanks again.
Thomas S. Barnes
September 10, 2014
Well, it looks like this discussion will be lively ;). One thing I want to point out Justin is that there has been arrogance on both sides, so to position you statements as though the theonomist’s are the only ones being arrogant would be dishonest.
I look forward to this discussion, I really do. Since you are requiring Shane understand your position I wonder what resources/books you have read to aquaint yourself with theonomy?
Now, as I have pondered this discussion I am puzzled by this. you say that there is no absolute standard for governments .. “Ultimately, there is no absolute standard for government apart from the theocracy of Israel under the Old Covenant.” and that “…the moral norms found in the Old and New Testament should guide governments in establishing just governments.”. You say this and then say theonomy is unbiblical. I would say in order for you to say that anything is unbiblical there would have to be an absolute to standard to judge by. Also, if you hold to the position I have quoted you saying, then if a government appealed to the Old testament and wanted to apply all the case laws then that would be absolutely legitimate in your view.
Justin Edwards
September 10, 2014
Hi Tommy, I agree with you that there can be a lack of charity on both sides, and I know I am not perfect in that regard. I will say, it was interesting to learn that Rushdoony employed extreme rhetoric that seems to be a pattern for modern day theonomists, though this is a broad generalization.
My experience with theonomy has largely been with personal interaction with theonomists, and reading a few articles written by theonomists. As you see in the list in my article, I plan to read some scholarly material to include Bahnsen.
When I say there is no absolute standard for governments, I mean to say there is no necessary mandate for Gentile nations to form their governments after the Mosaic Law. This is not to say there are no principles or guidelines to follow to form governments to fulfill their Romans 13 mandate, but it is to say there is no mandate to employ the civil elements of the Mosaic Law exactly as required by the Law. I think the next article will help explain this idea better.
Thomas S. Barnes
September 10, 2014
“I will say, it was interesting to learn that Rushdoony employed extreme rhetoric that seems to be a pattern for modern day theonomists, though this is a broad generalization.” – You are absolutely correct on this and I have some views that many others may not agree with.
OK, look forward to the next article.
hmkjr
September 12, 2014
Looking forward to this. Thanks!
Curtis
September 12, 2014
As a Reformed Baptist who subscribes to the 1689 Baptist Confession, wouldn’t you reference Chapter 19 on the Law of God as a basis for government? As a Baptist, we probably wouldn’t apply the first table of the 10 commandments, but I would think the second table would still be applicable to governance today. Or am I missing something?
Justin Edwards
September 12, 2014
Hi Curtis, I believe the Decalogue is also that law which God has written to the heart of every man. In it is expressed the holy and moral character of God, which He has also revealed in the heart. Governments would do well to form their governments so to promote peace and rule justly (according to the law of love), and they could even find guidelines in the civil aspects of the Mosaic Law, but it does not follow that Gentile governments must pattern their governments exactly as theocratic Israel. 19.4 of the LBCF even addresses this by saying: “to them He also gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being of moral use.” I’ll address this idea more in the next article. Thanks for the comment!
brandonadams
October 9, 2014
Curtis (and all theonomists on this thread), take a look at my recent post on LBCF 19.4 http://reformedlibertarian.com/articles/theology/1-cor-513-is-the-general-equity-of-deut-2221/
I’d love to hear your thoughts
Rich
September 23, 2014
I am somewhat new to this debate and am finding some of my previously held assumptions challenged (which is a good thing).
Previously held assumption:
– Mosaic law (including all three aspects) was for Old Testament Jews only.
Challenge:
– This assumption has been challenged by verses stating that God expected Gentiles nations such as the Canaanites and Ninehvites to conform to His law as well. In other words, the basis given in Scripture for their destruction was that they did not obey His law. So, now I am thinking that God holds all nations accountable to His law.
Previously held assumption:
– Every moral instruction that the Christian needed was repeated by Christ in the New Testament. If Jesus didn’t do it, or teach it, then it’s not important for the Christian.
Challenge:
– This assumption has been challenged by the realization that Jesus said nothing about sexual sins such as bestiality. You will never convince me that Jesus supports bestiality and so we have to refer to the Old Testament for prohibitions against bestiality.
Previously held assumption:
– Old Testament consequences are too severe for spiritual and sexual crimes.
Challenge:
– It’s what Scripture says, so am I placing my own judgment above Scripture? That’s very unsettling.
So, I am looking forward to studying these issues so I can make up my own mind. Thanks for the debate. And I appreciate those of you who are trying to keep it civil.
Justin Edwards
September 23, 2014
Hi Rich, thanks for commenting. While the types of questions you asked will be addressed in future articles, I can briefly address each one here:
1) Re: Canaanites, Ninehvites, Egyptians, Sodomites, etc. – these Gentiles were obligated to obey God’s law, but they existed before the nation of Israel existed, and thus existed before the law of the nation of Israel existed, namely the Torah. So how is it they were obligated to obey God’s Law before the Mosaic Law existed? What Law, then, were they obligated to obey?
2) Was all sex outside the sanctity of marriage immoral before the Torah existed? If so, by what standard?
3) In the Torah, it is clear the Lord made His Mosaic Covenant with Israel, and to no other nation. Every law in the Torah was tied into Israel being a nation set apart from the rest of the nations, a nation God consecrated to Himself. All laws were, “do this and be blessed, don’t do them and be punished”. Any crime committed, such as adultery, required execution. Not punishing the criminal by death was not an option. It was a theocracy, the only biblical theocracy that has ever existed and the only one until Christ returns to set up His earthly reign.
I hope to post the next article in the next couple days.