mental workout to theonomy

Sermon • Submitted 2 years ago • Presented 2 years ago

0 ratings

· 8 views

Notes

Transcript

Rebuttal of Theonomy

Theonomy has become the “hot topic” of today`s conversation within the reformed crowd. I believe that this doctrine is very dangerous for Christians, it only fits within one specific view of eschatology, and also only fits with in a Presbyterian view of the covenants. The danger is seen within the way that the Mosaic law is applied for a people it was never meant for.

What is “theonomy”. The word it self comes from Theos (God) and Nomos (Law), so simply said it means: God`s Law. In this straight forward defintion, all Christians by this definition are theonomist due to Hebrews 8:10

Hebrews 8:10 NASB95

10 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel After those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds, And I will write them on their hearts. And I will be their God, And they shall be My people.

However, it is because of how the advocates of theonomy define God`s “law”, that I believe every Christian ought to reject theonomy as the definition of many of its adherents goes far beyond that of what the root meaning of it is.

So how does the theonomic crowd define theonomy? Let us look to the leading teacher of theonomy to get our definition. Greg Bahnsen says “The position which has come to be labeled “theonomy” today thus holds that 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. Our obligation to keep God’s commands 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.” He also says this “Theonomy thus teaches that we should presume that Old Testament laws continue to be morally binding in the New Testament unless they are rescinded or modified by further revelation.”

Utilizing the above definition I will shorten this up in my own words. “All laws in all of scripture, including their penal code, remains for today as the sole and supreme standard or law for all civil magistrates and for all people.” Greg Bahnsen argues this as a Presbyterian because of how he sees the Old Testaments Covenants as covenants of Grace in different administrations. He teaches about this by stating: “The law revealed by Moses and subsequent Old Testament authors was given within a covenantal administration of God’s grace which included not only moral instruction, but gloriously and mercifully “promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come” (Westminster Confession of Faith VII.5).”

This is also clearly seen to be taught within Greg Bahnsen`s view of Eschatology which is none apologetic Post-mill. He says ““The Word of God is a seamless garment, and men who deny its law deny its eschatology also, and are deprived of God's power. It is not surprising, therefore, that this is an era of impotence for the church.” ― Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics

I believe that because of this, none of the other eschatological views can hold to the same theonomic view that Bahnsen holds to. Theonomy is clearly entwined with both Post-mill and Presbyterianism. It is Presbyterian because of how it flows from the view of Covenant of Grace in a different administration and also because of the view of the law taking over the world.

This whole view is presupposed in Bahnsen`s teaching of Matt 5:17-19

Matthew 5:17–19 NASB95

17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

“There have been a variety of suggested senses for "fulfill" in this passage. Does it indicate that Jesus puts an end to,45 replaces,46 supplements (adds to),47 intends to actively obey,48 enforce,49 or confirms and restores the law?” (Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, 54-55)

Bahnsen also states:

“Christ ... states that the law will remain valid at least as long as the physical universe lasts, that is, until the end of the age or world. ... [W]hen we do take into account the actual ending of heaven and earth we see that Scripture teaches it to be at the return of Christ .... At least until that point the details of the law will remain. ... Παρέλθῃ is used twice in this verse: first of the physical universe, and second of the smallest details of God's law.” (ibid, 78-80)

It is clear to see that Bahnsen teaches that according to Matt 5 Jesus isn't saying that He is the end of the Law in the sense of fulfillment like that of the sacrifice offerings but instead that he actually is establishing or reinforcing the entire law of the Old Testament.

Now before we address the issue of what I think is a clear misunderstanding of God`s Mosaic law, we must take notice of a clear inconsistency of Bahnsen seen in this text> Bahnsen along with many other Post-mill people are usually partial preterist. The majority of partial preterist view Matt24:35

Matthew 24:35 NASB95

35 “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

regarding “heaven and earth will passing away” as a reference to 70AD. They would rightly argue that the Jews saw the physical standing temple as “heaven and earth”. Now this I believe is best reconciled within a modified idealist approach but regardless, is his view of partial preterism is the same as most, there is a inconsistency. If Bahnsen says, or other partial preterist say that the heavens and earth that are destroy in Matt 24 is a reference to the physical temple, one must also be consistent and argue that that is the same meaning of Matt 5 “heavens and earth”. This means that according to the Partial preterist interpretation, at the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, the law then can pass since that has been fulfilled.

Another interpretation that I would favor in light of Gal. 3:19

Galatians 3:19 NASB95

19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.

The Law, which is reference as being the Mosaic law that Bahnsen insists is still the binding rule of righteousness, is spoke of as being “until Christ”. Now also note how Jesus refers to Himself in the early ministry that is recorded for us in John 2:19

John 2:19 NASB95

19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

Jesus is referred to as the temple or sanctuary. The Jews completely missed the mark on this text as they think physical temple. What if, in Matt 5, Jesus is not referring to the inconsistency that Bahnsen applying about the physical universe, nor is Jesus referring to the physical temple that partial preterist insists as the Jews got wrong about the words of Jesus. What if Jesus as actually referring to the better temple, that is the temple that tabernacled with us, that died on Calvary and was raised again on the third day. Now this by no means is not a thorough study of Matt 5 or Matt 24 regarding the “heavens and earth passing away” but instead to offer something that could prove to be more consistent with scripture and more in line with the words of Christ.

If this interpretation proves to be correct, then the law would be only till Christ, who was the true temple that died, thus fulfilling every letter of the law, and then was raise again bring about the new heavens and the new earth in the new Covenant of His blood. This is the inauguration of the age that we are in, and already and not yet view. At the second coming of Christ that would be the consummation of the new heavens and new earth where now believers are resurrected with glorified bodies experiencing in much greater detail what the new heavens and the new earth in their fullness offers as they glorify the Christ. But regardless of you r conclusion of that text of Matt 5, one thing ought to be rejected, and that is the Law consisting and remaining today for a people that it was never intended for.

Now what I would like to do is explore the 1689 LBCF and see how they define law and the purpose of it. Chapter 19 paragraph 1:

God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart, and a particular precept of not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil;1 by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience;2 promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.3 1 Gen. 1:27; Eccles. 7:29 2 Rom. 10:5 3 Gal. 3:10,12

Notice in here that Adam had a law of universal obedience written on his heart. This is what I will be appealing to as “Transcendent Law”. I believe that this law along with a relationship with God and the communicable attributes is what makes up the “Imago Dei”

also notice how the creed clearly spells out “a particular precept”. This is positive law and a showing the covenant of works that was then instituted. This must be seen as a law that hung upon the Transcendent law of universal obedience. However, it was not universal, but rather hung upon the universal. By definition transcendent is something that does not depend on something else for it to be true or exist. The particular precept had morality because of the Transcendence of God and His law, but was not in itself by nature transcendent. We will be referencing back to this often as we continue.

Paragraph 2

The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall,4 and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables, the four first containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.5

4 Rom. 2:14–15 5 Deut. 10:4

Notice in this paragraph how the creed argues that the Law written first on Adam`s heart is the perfect rule even for today. This is because of the definition of transcendent. This law is no longer in the heart of man in an unconverted state due to the corruption that took pace in the garden. After this man was then conceived in the image of Adam. The Law that then is written on the heart is only for new covenant members that have a restoration through Christ of the Imago Dei. Hebrews 8:10

Hebrews 8:10 NASB95

Paragraph 3

Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;6 and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties,7 all which ceremonial laws being appointed only to the time of reformation, are, by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and only law-giver, who was furnished with power from the Father for that end abrogated and taken away.8

6 Heb. 10:1; Col. 2:17 7 1 Cor. 5:7 8 Col. 2:14,16–17; Eph. 2:14,16

Here the creed calls what I am referring to as transcendent as “moral law”. This term is just fine, and i use it today, however I think many people have looked past this term and what it meant back then for the founders of the 1689. Notice in paragraph 3, it argues the moral law is different than the ceremonial laws. why? were not those Laws just and right? the answer is yes! would that justice carry over to today? no! even Bahnsen would argue this as those laws are fulfilled in Christ, and that they were shadows and types. The answer to why they do not carry justice any longer today is because their intended purpose was fulfilled when Christ came. This is going to be my continual argument for the purpose of the entire Mosiac law. Also notice in here that the 1689 argue that these laws, that are not the Transcendent law, were only given to Israel as a ethnic people.

Paragraph 4

To them also he 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.9

9 1 Cor. 9:8–10

This should be simple enough… If you consider yourself to be a reformed Baptist that holds to the 1689, you can not by definition be a consistent theonomist. The judicial law, though the Jews would have seen both the ceremonial and the judicial all as one in the same, is helpful for us and the reformed to distinguish. I believe that there is good argument for doing such according to the bible. We will not be discussing that in this study however. What does it mean “general equity”? it means that the general principle of the law, can be used in a moral way today for all people rather then a specific people. It should be noted that Bahnsen says that the law should be followed exhaustively, general equity by nature denies this. “abiding validity of the law of God in exhaustive detail” (Bahnsen, 1974)