We live in a time of renewed interest in the judicial use of the law of God and its application to the state. Whether it’s topics related to abortion, critical theorie’s takeover of public education, intersectionality’s precedence in the workforce, and the increasing estrangement of the LGBTQ+ agenda on all walks of society, Christians today are often wondering how to relate their faith into the various areas of their lives, especially politics. As a result, there has been a healthy interest in the application of God’s moral requirements to the socio-political sphere and with that, a renewed interest in theonomic ethics. With this renewed interest in theonomic ethics (also known as theonomy) has also arisen a new crop of criticisms. As Christians are again thinking about how their faith relates to politics, some are making the claim that there are no examples of explicit biblical instruction on how civil governments are to rule over their people. One such advocate of this claim, can be found by Dr. Sam Waldron of Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary. Waldron offers up a 5 part refutation of the theonomic position, aimed particularly at the views and arguments laid out by Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen, late professor of Apologetics & Ethics at Reformed Seminary, and one of the key theonomic theologicals.
Dr. Waldron must be applauded for his attempt at fair criticism of theonomy. He mentions some of the concerns of its advocates and strengths of its position. Waldron recognizes that “the Theonomic perspective seems unusually susceptible to misunderstanding.” Dr. Waldron understands that to deal with theonomy it must be dealt with exegetically. However, apart from his attempt to enlist Paul Fowler in a critique of Bahnsen’s exegesis of the word, confirm Matthew 5:17, Dr. Waldron fails miserably to make his case. This will be discussed in more detail later, however the otherwise lack of biblical support is astonishing considering he is a professor at a reformed and evangelical baptist seminary. Waldron spends most of his time advocating what he considers the “redemptive-historical approach” to the interpretation of the Bible and seemingly fails to show why his particular understanding of redemptive-historical hermeneutics is, in fact, the right methodology. Hermeneutics are concerned with how the narrative of scripture and application of scripture should be understood within a certain methodological context, and don’t refute a position being biblical or unbiblical per say. It should also be noted, that just because one doesn’t hold to one’s particular hermeneutical form, that shouldn’t be made the test for reformed orthodoxy. If this were the case, Waldron and the reformed baptists could as easily be stripped of their title of “reformed” due to their departure from the original Westminster Federalism.
We turn our attention now to Dr. Waldron’s attempt to refute Dr. Bahnsen exegetically, over the greek meaning of the word Bahnsen translates as confirm. Waldron’s argument is that the word fulfill is a much better translation. In his lecture titled Covenantal Discontinuity in Theonomy, Bahnsen grants that his translation of the greek word confirm is very much debated and that he is open to the word being translated as fulfill.[1] Bahnsen then goes on to state, big deal, because now we have to ask, in what sense did Matthew mean by the word fulfill? This is where Waldron is begging the question, and assumes that if Bahnsen is refuted in his translation, theonomy is refuted. Waldron fails to realize that his view is not at all confirmed by the translation of fulfill, and his enlisting of the word only demonstrates a case of circular reasoning, as there is no reason to assume that fulfill “create[s] the greatest presumption that the judicial law has expired.” In fact, everytime Waldron attempts to demonstrate various uses of the word fulfill, he fails to note how fulfill never abolishes the moral purposes and underpinnings of such commands, prophesies, or shadows.[2] Waldron, far from refuting Bahnsen, only adds support to Bahnsen’s take on the word fulfill.
Sam Waldron then enlists Dennis Johnson in his rebuttal of Dr. Bahnsen’s advocacy of the judicial codes as a standard for the nations, failing to note Bahnsen had answered Johnson without rebuttal in his response to Johnson’s essay (The Epistle to the Hebrews and Mosaic Punishments Today) titled, Westminster Seminary on Penology. This is Bahnsen’s answer:
“Quite clearly, one logically cannot have it both ways: assuming both continuity and discontinuity. And quite clearly, in the face of New Testament silence, one cannot refrain from using one operating, hermeneutical presumption or the other. These are objective, non-negotiable facts. Johnson’s first mistake, then, is to propose that we can skip the issue of which side bears the burden of proof and simply not accept either hermeneutical presumption. He writes, “such generalized appeals to ‘burden of proof’ or interpretations of the New Testament’s silences do not help us…” However, the option of not using one or the other is not available, and we simply fool ourselves if we pretend that we have adopted it.
Johnson’s second mistake is his confusing the (antecedent) operating hermeneutical rule with the (subsequent) results of specific interpretation. He says that the two general approaches to interpretation (presumed continuity, presumed discontinuity) “. . . do not help us understand the precise character of the continuity,and discontinuity in God’s revelation.” Precisely! They are only rules of operation, not preconceived conclusions. Arguing that, therefore, we do not need such rules would be like complaining that because the rules of baseball do not “really help us” know anything precise about which team will win the World Series, we don’t really need those baseball rules anyway!”[3]
Dennis Johnson is presupposing discontinuity with the silence of the New Testament. Such is not a covenantal presupposition as Bahnsen points out. Additionally, Johnson’s argument is to essentially to disregard hermeneutical rules due to the perceived silence, yet to disregard covenantal continuity is to substitute one hermeneutic for another. Bahnsen continues by pointing out Johnson’s appeal to “neutrality” is indeed a stance and in principle leads to some form of hermeneutical framework:
“Johnson’s third mistake is in thinking that what he himself proposes to the reader is neutral on the choice between operating assumptions. He concludes: “… we must rest our convictions on the statements, not the silences, of the New Testament.” Notice very well: the statements, not the silences. That is simply to say, where the New Testament is “silent” about an Old Testament precept, we may not assume its applicability. If the New Testament does not “state” the precise nature of some precept’s continuity, then we may not conclude for its continuity. Johnson expects New Testament restatement (or reinterpretation anyway), or else silence implies discontinuity. Johnson’s proposal is thus definitely a choice of one operating presumption (or way to handle New Testament silences) over the other -and it is, sadly, not the covenantal one.”[4]
Additionally, Ken Gentry had this to say about Dennis Johnson’s article:
“Johnson’s argument leaves the undeniable (though probably unintended) impression that the Old Testament saints knew nothing of God’s eternal sanctions. But those who died in sin in the Old Testament had to face eternal punishment (Psa. 49:14; Isa. 66:24; Dan. 12:2). So, how could the Mosaic sanctions serve as types of God’s eternal sanctions (which threat met the Old Testament saint, as well) and be applied in the Old Testament era, but not in the New Testament? The psychological element in the a fortiori contrast is between the natural tendency of man as a sinner to shrink back from the more immediately visible temporal judgment (capital sanctions) than the distant eternal judgment (eternal judgment). Yet just as surely as the Law condemns criminal conduct, Judgment Day will deal even more sorely with spiritual rebellion.
In addition, the threat of excommunication existed in the Old Testament – even on Johnson’s own analysis: “In addition [to commonly recognized capital offenses], those found guilty of certain acts must be ‘cut off from their people.’ In some in- stances this may possibly entail banishment, ‘shunning,’ or excommunication from the congregation of Israel” (p. 177n). Excommunication and capital punishment existed side-by-side in the Old Testament. The theonomist asks: Why not also in the New Testament? This is not a radical question. After all, most evangelicals affirm future eternal sanctions as well as capital punishment for murder: Still further, may we on the basis ofJohnson’s argument throw out the requirement of witnesses (Heb. 10:28) for excommunicatory sanctions?”[5]
When Dr. Waldron makes claims like, “Dennis Johnson’s conclusion about the New Testament data is certainly justified,”[6] it gives the impression that Waldron is unaware that Dennis Johnson has been answered on multiple accounts and the shortfalls that are found in his attempted critique. Good scholarship requires reading both sides of the debate, and from the looks of it, Waldron didn’t seem to bother with reading the theonomic response. What’s worse is that Sam Waldron thinks that Johnson’s essay has demonstrated that, “the Theonomic use of the Mosaic judicial law, it must be concluded, must be rejected. It ignores the clear teaching of the New Testament as to the obsolescence of the judicial law.” Such a statement is still found wanting, and ought to warn the reader of Dr. Waldron’s tendency to engage with and knock down strawman arguments. We have to wonder, on what basis is theonomy to be rejected? Where is the biblical, exegetical, and textual proof that theonomy is in error, let alone that it ignores the clear teaching of the New Testament? Such off the cuff statements serve only to display the ignorance that has characterized so many criticisms of the theonomic ethical position.
To his credit, Sam Waldron offers up what he thinks is a better, positive alternative to theonomy: “the traditional Reformed view is clearly a suitable framework within which to understand the New Testament references to the judicial law.” Dr. Waldron has a point here. Let’s see what those within the historic Reformed view had to say about theonomy and the use of the law of God in socio-political affairs.
“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. If God would have the moral law transmitted from the Jewish people to the Christian people; then he would also have the judicial laws transmitted form the Jewish Magistrate to the Christian Magistrate: there being the same reason of immutability in the punishments, which is in the offenses.” -George Gillespie, Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty
“As the king is under God’s law both in commanding and in exacting active obedience, so is he under the same regulating law of God, in punishing or demanding of us passive subjection, and as he may not command what he will, but what the King of kings warranted him to command, so may he not punish as he will, but by warrant also of the Supreme Judge of all the earth.” -Samuel Rutherford, Lex Rex
“Let not any put off this Scripture, saying, This is in the Old Testament but we find no such thing in the gospel, for we find the same thing almost the same words used in a prophecy of the times of the gospel (Zech. 13:3). [Of Zech. 13 he observed:] You must understand this by that in Deuteronomy. The meaning is not that his father or mother should presently run a knife into him, but that though they begat him, yet they should be the means to bring him to condign punishment, even the taking away of his life; those who were the instruments of his life, should now be the instruments of his death.” -Jeremiah Burroughs, Commentary on Deuteronomy
“For the blasphemous and seditious heretics, both Lutherans and others of the Reformed churches do agree that they may be punished capitally, that is for their blasphemy or sedition. But the Socinian stands out here also, and denies it, alleging that the punishment of false prophets in that was especiali jure by special law granted to the Israelites, and therefore you must not look (saith the Socinian) into the Old Testament for a rule of proceeding against false prophets and blasphemers: Nor (saith Calvin and Catharinus) can you find in the New Testament any example for the punishment of thieves, traitors, adulterers, witches, murders and the like, and yet they may be capitally punished: for the gospel destroys not the just laws of civil policy or commonwealths.” Richard Vines, The Continuance of Capital Sanctions
“Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for his Church.” He even scathingly criticizes those who would oppose his position: “Some scoundrel or other gains says this, and sets himself against the author of life and death. What insolence is this. . . . God has one pronounced what is His will, for we must abide by His inviolable decree.”
-John Calvin, Commentary on Deuteronomy
From the world renowned church historian Phillip Schaff on his discussion of Calvin and the Judicial Law in his eight volume History of the Christian Church:
“Calvin’s plea for the right and duty of the Christian magistrate to punish heresy by death, stands or falls with his theocratic theory and the binding authority of the Mosaic code. His arguments are chiefly drawn from the Jewish laws against idolatry and blasphemy, and from the examples of the pious kings of Israel.”
“But 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 the king must for every single crime impose those penalties which the Lord Himself has sanctioned.” -Martin Bucer, The Mosaic Legislation
If any thinks that the fore written law did bind the Jews only, let the same man consider that the election of a king and appointing of judges did neither appertain to the ceremonial law, neither yet was it merely judicial; but that it did flow from the moral law, as an ordinance having respect to the conservation of both the tables… [Consequently] it is evident, that the office of the king or supreme magistrate, has respect to the moral law, and to the conservation of both tables. -John Knox, Commentary on Deuteronomy
“The substance of God’s judicial laws is not taken away or abolished, but the ordering and imitation of them is placed in the arbitration of good Christian princes. Let him govern the people, committed to him of God, with good laws, made according to the Word of God in his hands, and look that nothing be taught contrary there unto. . . Therefore let him draw forth this sword of God against all malefactors, seditious persons, thieves, murderers, oppressors, blasphemers, perjured persons, and all those whom God has commanded him to punish or even to execute. -Heinrich Bullinger, On The Civil Magistrate
Even many critics of theonomy have understood the historicity of theonomy. Meredith Kline in his disdain for theonomy says this in his article, Comments on an Old/ New Error:
“At the same time it must be said that Chalcedon [theonomy] 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 theonomic aberration under their judicial scrutiny. (Meredith G. Kline in the Westminster Theological Journal 41:1 [Fall, 1978]: 173)
“Theonomy was until recently a little-used word. It is Greek for God’s law. Etymologically it refers to an idea which all Christians have always accepted — that the law of God is a wonderful revelation of himself and of his will to his Church and is to be prized by us all and obeyed. But the word is now being used to designate a new idea gaining ground in some circles, particularly those emphasizing Reformed doctrine, that the governments of the world today should be guided in their judicial decisions by al 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. Dr. Bahnsen’s book, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, is an extended explanation of and defense of this theory. Due to the radical nature of the theory, its important consequences, and significant following, the view deserves extensive treatment. 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.” (R. Laird Harris, In Presbuterion: Covenant Seminary Review, 5:1 [Spring, 1979]: 1
“Bahnsen accepts the doctrinal orthodoxy of the original text [of the Confession]. Whether or not this is in conflict with the intention of the American Presbyterian emendation [revision] of the Confession, it is certainly in keeping with the traditional Scottish Reformed understanding of it. The practical implications of theonomy may not be a denial of the teaching of the Westminster Confession. The words of Chapter XIX, iv can be understood to include the view that the Mosaic penalties may be applied by the Christian magistrate (if “general equity” dictates). We have already noted that such views were widespread among the Divines in relation to specific crimes. This is simply to recognize that there is common ground in practice between the Confession’s teaching and theonomy.” -Sinclair Ferguson, An Assembly of Theonomists? In Will S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey, Theonomy: An Informed Critique [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990, 323-324, 346-347.[7]
Perhaps, as a Baptist Dr. Waldron is unaware of the historic Reformed view. However since he considers himself a Reformed Covenantal Baptist, he ought to be well aware of the historic reformed view. Since Dr. Waldron claims subscription to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (hereafter LBCF), lets see what it says:
“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.”
The Founders Ministry, which is not theonomic, translates the confession into modern english: “To Israel he also gave various judicial laws, which ceased at the same time their nation ended. These laws no longer obligate anyone as part of that institution. Only their general principles of justice continue to have moral value.” What are those general principles of justice that continue to have moral value for civil governments? It is the underlying righteousness that is behind the Judicial portion of the Mosaic Law. We have to ask, was it righteous when God imposed the death penalty for some sins, or was it an arbitrary law that was only temporary? Could not have God had other laws that weren’t so harsh (like today’s laws common in the western world) if they were only temporary? If the judicial laws were only culturally conditioned, why could God have given Israel a different culture, and cultural attitude? Or is that beyond God’s control and sovereignty? We must conclude then that Dr. Waldron is neither informed of theonomy nor the historic reformed position. He has not dealt with a significant blow to Dr. Bahnsen with his critique of Bahnsen’s translation of the word confirm, and seems to have not followed the hermeneutical debates from the theonomic perspective. Waldron claims quite rightly that theonomy is one of the most maligned and misunderstood theological positions. What follows are some other areas in Waldron’s assessment that have misunderstood and maligned theonomy.
It must be said that Sam Waldron tends to understand some of the key doctrines of the Reconstructionist school of thought. He mentions Van Til’s Presuppositionalism (with its distinctive worldview emphasis and apologetical defense),[8] Calvin’s Predestinarianism, Theonomic ethics, Postmillennial Eschatology, and Westminster Covenant Theology. However, Waldron often conflates theonomy with Christian Reconstructionism.[9] Theonomy is a form of ethics that doesn’t require distinctives on eschatology, anthropology, and apologetic methodology. The major tenets of theonomy are that the underlying moral principles found in the judicial law are still binding and authoritative today for Christians, and that they are all particular applications of the moral law applied to the socio-political realm. Theonomy charges that God has laid down particular penalties for civil sins, has declared which civil have civil consequences, (i.e. crimes) and which ones are not. Theonomy teaches that all men and all nations are under covenant with God, and will be held responsible for how we kept covenant with God on the socio-political level. Will Waldron uphold the law of God in the political realm, or does he think other laws are better off then the ones provided for us in scripture?
It was disappointing to see Waldron quote quite favorably from Tommy Ice, and Dave Hunt, two dispensationalists who not only misrepresent theology, but openly malign it.[10] Since Waldron is purportedly aware of the tendencies of some of theonomies critics, one would expect him to choose someone more instep with the “historic reformed tradition” that he claims to be in the stream of [as do theonomists] and not someone outside the camp that clearly has an ax to grind. It was quite noticeable in his list of theonomists, he failed to list any of the major and current reformed, confessional theonomic baptists, like James White, Jeff Durbin, Joel Webbon, Chris Hume, and John Kuyper Liberty. All of which have had a considerable influence in the current theonomic retrieval. It is somewhat perplexing to see Waldron keep harping on “the reformed tradition,” as if it were some monolithic agreeable position that all those that are truly reformed hold to. The Reformation was quite broad, and from the Westminster Standards alone we find the heritage of Baptist, Congregationalist, Anglican, and Presbyterian theology. On what grounds does Waldron get to say what is and isn’t reformed from those who subscribe to the Confessional documents of the Reformation and Post-Reformation periods?
What was even more disappointing was seeing how Waldron answers some of the confusion regarding theonomy. Waldron admits that some of this is due to lack of diligence by those critiquing theonomy, but also goes on to charge theonomists with damageable rhetoric. He criticizes Rushdoony for being critical of Calvin and the Westminster Confession of Faith, but failing to note the context.[11] As Calvin became more self conscious about the Law of God in the life of the believer and in society, Calvin began by essentially downplaying the role of the law for the civil magistrate as found in his famous, The Institutes of the Christian Religion (which is the context of Rushdoony’s criticism). Later in life, John Calvin comes to hold what would be considered theonomy in his execution of Cervetius, as well as his sermons, and Commentary on Deuteronomy.[12] Likewise with the Westminster Confession, Rushdoony upheld and spoke highly of the original Westminster Confession of Faith, and felt the American revision of it was to downplay the law of God.[13] One may not agree or like Rushdoony’s phraseology, but the fact of the matter is, Rushdoony had a high regard for both the Confession and John Calvin. In fact, all it takes is to see Rushdoon’s numerous quotations of Calvin in his Institutes of Biblical Law to see how indebted Rushdoony was to Calvin’s theology.[14] If this were not the case, theonomists especially Rushdoony, would not see themselves as continuing the theology of the Westminster Standards and of John Calvin.
In fact, it is Dr. Waldron who tends to be confusing. Waldron in discussing the confusion that surrounds theonomy, mentions biblical theologian ““James B. Jordan [who] is known as a Theonomist, but in a letter to me, he states, “I do not consider myself a Theonomist.”” Well Dr. Waldron, which one is it? Is Jordan a theonomist as you claim, or should we take his word for it? Greg Bahnsen says this regarding James Jordan, [a former student of his] “let me remind everybody that James Jordan has publicly said he is not a Reconstructionist any longer. I’m glad he has done that because it saves us a lot of time in having to tell people his views are not Reconstructionist convictions.[15] Jordan has been good and honest enough to confess that, – that he is not within the circle of Reconstructionism.”[16] Bahnsen goes so far to say that James Jordan isn’t even a Reconstructionist, let alone a theonomist.[17] Waldon goes on to say that one cannot keep up with the sheer volume of theonomic literature, which is understandable as there is a lot of material out there, but yet he pinpoints the major and most prominent theological and ethical explanations of theonomy, by mentioning Rushdoony’s 3 volume Institutes, and Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics. Dr. Waldron at one point exclaims, “Christian Reconstructionism is spawning and much of it is composed of technical theological writings.” If that is the case, why wouldn’t any assessment focus on those technical aspects and make sure such positions are understood completely before engaging in theological, ethical, exegetical, and hermeneutic polemics?
Sam Waldron reminds his readers of why he is offering this critique, and he claims it is due to “the issue of Theonomy now, before it is faced in the crucible of the pastorate or other forms of church leadership. When one sees it creating division and disaster in the church or danger for the individual sheep, as it has in many cases, it is easy under the pressure of the pastorate to overreact theologically.” How are we to be sure Dr. Waldron isn’t overreacting theologically? Waldron says a sentence later: “If, however, we overreact to Theonomy, we may well throw out several babies with the bath water.”[18] He states, as “the major tenets of Theonomy make clear, there is much with which one can find agreement in their writings.” Earlier in his opening article, Waldron suggests, “the Theonomic perspective seems unusually susceptible to misunderstanding.”[19] Again in the same piece, Waldron reminds us, “that at a number of points those who embrace a “Theonomic” perspective are to be commended.”[20] If we are to take these statements of Dr. Waldron into account, how are we to conclude theonomy is “the crucible of the pastorate and of church leadership… and disaster in the church or danger for the individual sheep?” One can only surmise that it is in fact Dr. Waldron, who has become “susceptible to misunderstanding” theonomic ethics.
Dr. Waldron continues his confusion when he starts talking about two parts of theonomy that he wants to critique: theonomic ethics, and theonomic Postmillennialism. Considering I have never heard of theonomic Postmillennialism, nor have I seen that term exist amongst theonomists, (much like the often dobbed ‘Dominion Theology’) nor have I ever heard that described by any of those authors theonomic or not, who hold to, or have written on Postmillennialism. While it is true that most of the major theonomic advocates were also Postmillennial, I have in no way seen theonomy as a necessary prerequisite for Postmillennialism.[21] Nor is Postmillennialism necessary for theonomy. One can think of Ian Murray, R.C. Sproul, Tim Keller, Lorraine Boettner, Charles Hodge, or Benjamin B. Warfield, amongst the many Postmillennialists that were not theonomists.[22] It becomes evident that what Waldron has in mind here is the Reformed School of thought known as Christian Reconstructionism, and not theonomy proper. As a result, his critique of Postmillennialism has really nothing to do with his main mission: to refute theonomy.
Though many theonomists hold to Postmillennialism, and believe that it is the biblical view of eschatology, Waldron’s argument essentially is to remind us that Christ’s Kingdom is not of this world, and that Postmillennialists are often guilty of Triumphalism. While this could hypothetically be true, I have read no Postmillennialist author that advocates the kind of triumphalism that Waldron seems to be concerned about. One could just as easily criticize Waldron and Amillennialists for an attitude of defeatism that neglects Christian involvement in the world. Dr. Waldron is worried that Postmillennialism focuses too heavily on Earthly promises and not on spiritual promises. We are a Pilgrim people, and this world isn’t our home, we are reminded. Yet one must ask, then why is God planning to redeem the world with the eventual aim of bringing Heaven to Earth? We are a Pilgrim people to be sure, but we are called to settle in a foreign land, to build culture, and live out Godly principles as the Pilgrims of old. Pilgrim theology correctly understood supports the Postmillennial position. Perhaps more pressing for Waldron is the nature and attitude of the theocratic kingdom for Israel. Waldron wants to argue this theocracy is unique to Israel and that Christ’s Kingdom is merely spiritual. Waldron fails to understand that spiritual reign and Kingship of this world consequences. Jesus proclaimed that all authority on Heaven and Earth is to be given to him, that we are to pray that God’s will would be done, on Earth, as it is in Heaven. Paul says that Christ is currently reconciling all things to himself, in Heaven and on Earth, making peace through his blood on the cross.[23] If we are to believe what Paul wrote of Christ in 1 Cor. 15, that Christ will destroy every ruler, kingdom, authority, and power, putting all things in subjection under his feet. If that is the case, will that not lead to some form of manifestation on this Earth? If Satan is bound, the demons restricted, ought we not to expect the growth and manifestation of the gospel, especially if we are to be salt that doesn’t lose its flavor?
Dr. Waldron thinks that a major issue with theonomy and Postmillennialism is not accounting for the hermeneutical principle of the “already, not yet.”[24] The problem as Waldron sees it, ““is the perspective of the “not yet” that is regulative in relation to the subject of civil life. As to earthly, civil authority the Theocratic kingdom is not yet.”” Theonomists would actually agree with Waldron here. However, we would say, that we are called to work towards the not yet, trusting God will bless our work, and that even though it will not be perfect on this side of eternity, we are called to bring all things including socio-political ethics, under the reign and Lordship of Christ Jesus. To argue that because we will be a remnant, so we must not focus on transforming the world, is to neglect God’s command to disciple the nations, and that in all things, even down to what we eat or drink, ought to be done in obedience and service to the Lord Jesus. Christ expects us to increase the gift he entrusted us with. It isn’t to be buried in the ground, but to invest, to multiply, to create a profit. Waldron has failed to take into account that practical sanctification leads to Christian involvement and influence in society.
A common refrain from Amillennialists like Dr. Waldron, is to assume that since the Judicial Law is fulfilled in the Church, that there is now no applicational force that is required for societies in modern times. Yet that only serves to beg the question.[25] Theonomists readily admit that this is the case, but we would say that the church has a duty to train its members in the law of God. What happens when a Christian politician attending your church asks for wisdom in governing or creating/ passing laws for society? What laws are going to be most suitable for loving our neighbors? How do we know what laws would be just? Is there any standard for having laws that are not found in the scripture? Is there any neutrality in the ethical laws for society that are enforced and created in the political realm? Waldron also becomes confused in thinking that the state takes over the duty of the church by enforcing the laws of God. The state is not the church, has no jurisdiction over the church, and likewise, the church has no jurisdiction over the state. That has nothing to do with what standard that political rulers ought to be making their laws upon. The state is not forcing people to become Christians, but is rather upholding those laws it believes will ultimately benefit society, honor God, and protect people from false ideologies. I wonder how Dr. Waldron would address an issue like abortion. Should we not engage in fighting abortion since we have no jurisdiction in political affairs? I imagine Waldron would be for resisting abortion out of love for the unborn. Why can’t he extend these principles to all areas of the political arena?
Waldron finally turns his attention again to the “confessionalism” of the theonomists, and he admits that they have a wide variety to how tightly they hold to the Westminster and London Baptist Confession of Faiths. (I noticed Waldron ignored the 39 Articles, held by the Reformed & Evangelical Anglicans, perhaps because there is no debate that it’s theonomic due to the open advocacy of theocracy given to the King/ Queen of England?)[26] Waldron acknowledges that Bahnsen is a strict confessionalist, while noting Rushdoony had issues with some of the formulations of the Confession and even of some of John Calvin’s early writings. Rushdoony failed to acknowledge that Rushdoony was an OPC minister, subscribed to the Westminster Confessions of Faith and Catechisms, along with the 39 Articles of Religion.[27] Additionally he had a high view of the Chalcedonian Creed, as he named his ministry Chalcedon to represent what he thought best suited his ministry. Perhaps most disappointing is Waldron’s willingness to cherry pick Rushdoony’s wording, while failing to take into account the positive statements he had regarding them as well. Didn’t Waldron tell us we are to be fair and diligent in our review of theonomy and its proponents? Perhaps Waldron missed what Bahnsen has written in his “What is Theonomy,” introductory article, where he states, “George Gillespie, widely regarded as the most authoritative theologian at the Westminster Assembly, wrote: “the will of God concerning civil justice and punishments is no where so fully and clearly revealed as in the judicial law of Moses…. He who was punishable by death under the judicial law is punishable by death still” (“Wholesome Severity Reconciled…,” 1645).”[28] Such a claim by Waldron is frankly preposterous and shows unfamiliarity with introductory theonomic material.
Waldron takes issue that some theonomists have embraced Padeo-Communion. This is true, but most of this is by denominational influence. Bahnsen, Gentry, and those associated with Presbyterianism or Reformed Baptist Theology, have rejected this view. As regards to R.J. Rushdoony, James Jordan, and Ray Sutton, these men were a part of the Anglican church which allows for padeo-communion and is a prevalent teaching found within the church. It should be noted again, that Waldron admits Jordan is not a theonomist… so I am not sure why he still insisted enlisting Jordan will help his case. If anything it shows that padeo communion is not an issue limited to theonomy. As far as Gary North is concerned, he has erred in his understanding and advocacy that public stoning should still be required today. North may not have a fully formulated hermeneutic for understanding continuity and discontinuity, though before he passed away it ought to be said North changed his mind on public stoning, and embraced a more traditional reformed covenantal and theonomic hermeneutic, so I would not be surprised if he rejected padeo-communion as well.[29] However this is a faulty argument. If we were to discover some baptist theologians who advocated infant communion, would the baptist position on baptism be refuted because some held to a view that wasn’t the most accurate biblical and theological position?
Dr. Waldron concludes his final article by insisting theonomy cannot be true for it leads to a padeo-baptist theology. While some Presbyterian theonomists would probably agree with him, there is no logical conclusion that one cannot hold on to the ethics of theonomy and have to uphold padeo-baptism from an ethical standpoint. Theonomic baptist theologians like James White, John Kuyper Liberty, and Chris Hume certainly would disagree. Waldron seems to be alarmed by the growing increase in theonomic adherents in the baptist community and is even more worried by how it can be found in all corners of evangelicalism, whether in Presbyterian, Baptist, Anglican, Independent, Charismatic, or Dutch Reformed denominations. Could it be that the law of God actually has something to say to our culture and that those biblical truths are so obvious, that they transcend our denominational differences? From what we read of Waldron, any other alternative is found wanting.
Finally, has Waldron made a legitimate case against theonomic ethics? Sadly, the answer is no. We must ask Sam Waldron, ought we to nullify those commandments of God that he has not specifically revealed to be changed or altered? Do we have a better idea of Justice than God? Paul responded in anticipation to those who would say we are free from obedience to the law, “may it never be!” Who do we think we are to tell God how things should be? As Paul states, “should the creation tell the creator why have you made me this way?” Do we have the right to question why God has made the laws that he has, and if they are legitimate to follow today? Is that not the same attitude that Adam and Eve had? Rather, we are to have the attitude of David, saying “Oh Lord how I love your Law, may I meditate on them day and night!” The Biblical attitude is that the law of the Lord is good, it is a blessing to the nations, and that we are commissioned to discipline the nations as it is part of what Jesus taught. To genuinely love our neighbors, we ought to love and desire that the law of God will be made manifest to all people. Waldron has stated in the introduction to his series that theonomy is to be appreciated for its advocation of the law of God in society and that the theonomic reconstructionists understand that we cannot be neutral when it comes to the political arena. Unfortunately, Dr. Waldron doesn’t provide any alternative, beyond agreeing and disagreeing simultaneously. This brings us back to the age old question of, if not theonomy, then what? It seems once again, that “we have no alternative but between autonomy or theonomy.”[30]
[1] Greg L. Bahnsen, Covenant Discontinuity in Theonomy, Recorded Lecture, Covenant Media Foundation, 1993, 49 minute mark.
[2] Kenneth Gentry rebuts this more significantly in a similar criticism made by T. David Gordon, in his response to theonomic criticism in his book, Covenantal Theonomy, Covenant Media Press, 2005.
[3] Greg L. Bahnsen, Westminster Seminary on Penology, Theonomy: An Informed Response, Institute for Christian Economics, 1991, pg. 119.
[4] Greg L. Bahnsen, Westminster Seminary on Penology, Theonomy: An Informed Response, Institute for Christian Economics, 1991, pg. 120.
[5] Kenneth L. Gentry, Church Sanctions in the Epistle to the Hebews, Theonomy: An Informed Response, Institute for Christian Economics, 1991, pages 187-188.
[6]Sam Waldron, Theonomy, A Reformed Baptist Assessment, Part 1, Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, Revised & Republished, Fall 2022.
[7] The above quotations were taken from Kenneth Gentry’s Theonomy and the Westminster Standards, published March 4th 2014, found under Non-eschatology studies at www.postmillennialworldview.com/
[8] Theonomy is widely considered to be the ethical outworking of Van Til’s Apologetic. If neutrality is a myth, then ethical decisions are under the direction of God’s word or of man’s autonomy. Since man is in rebellion against God, we must go to God’s Word for how we should live. If all non-Christian ethical systems are a suppression of the truth due to sin, all can be rendered foolish, being reduced to absurdity. Many will bring up Natural Law in opposition to theonomy, but if we understand Natural Law as an extension of Natural Revelation, it exists, but it is not contrary to anything taught via Biblical Law, and in fact compliments and expands upon the law as laid forth in scripture.
[9] Waldron says in part 2 of his assessment: “Something must be said, however, about the basic sources of this movement (and of this assessment) and the major tenets of Theonomy or Christian Reconstruction.”
[10] See the theonomic responses from Greg Bahnsen & Kenneth Gentry, House Divided: The Breakup of Dispensational Theology, The Institute of Christian Economics, Tyler, TX, 1988.
Gary DeMar & Peter Leithart, The Reduction of Christianity: A Biblical Response to Dave Hunt, The Institute for Christian Economics, Tyler, TX, 1989.
[11] Rushdoony is constantly referencing the importance of the Westminster Confession. One such book is
- J. Rushdoony, By What Standard, The Philosophy of Cornelius Van Til, P & R Publishing, 1959, p. 254.
[12] John Calvin, Sermons on Deuteronomy, edited by James B. Jordan, The Institute for Christian Economics, Tyler, TX, 1988.
[13] See R.J. Rushdoony, The Foundations for Social Order: The Creeds & Councils of the Early Church, Ross Books Publishing, 1968
R.J. Rushdoony, Systematic Theology, volumes 1 & 2, Ross Books Publishing, 1994, various footnotes.
[14] See R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, Volumes 1 & 2, P&R Publishing, 1973, endnotes.
[15] Bahnsen says James Jordan isn’t a reconstructionist, for he denies theonomic ethics and as a result, its means to “reconstruct” society. This confusion on Jordan’s denial of theonomy shows the confusion some non theonomists have with those who advocate Postmillennialism, or a neo-Kuyperian world and life view.
[16] Greg L. Bahnsen, Interview with Calvinism Today, An Interview with Greg Bahnsen, vol iv. 1, Jan. 1994
[17] James Jordan was no doubt influenced by Theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism, and he still is a Van Tilian and Postmillennialist. He is best known as the leading advocate of what is now called the “Federal Vision,” which centers around ecclesiology and the recovery of covenantal renewal in the church. He has a unique style of biblical theology which is labeled “Interpretive Maximalism,” which aims to squeeze out all possible potential meanings in scripture and incorporate them into a broader redemptive narrative. Due to the heavy use of typology, and symbolism in Jordan’s system, he has long been at odds with theonomists (and non-theonomists alike).
[18] Sam Waldron, Theonomy, A Reformed Baptist Assessment, Part 3, Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, Revised & Republished, Fall 2022
[19] Sam Waldron, Theonomy, A Reformed Baptist Assessment, Preference, Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, Revised & Republished, Fall 2022
[20] Sam Waldron, Theonomy, A Reformed Baptist Assessment, Part 3, Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, Revised & Republished, Fall 2022
[21] In fact, Bahnsen emphasizes emphatically that theonomy does not logically demand Postmillennialism. See the third edition of Bahnsen’s, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, page 25, footnote 2.
[22] For a more extensive list, look at Keith Mathison’s, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope, by P&R Publishing, or Kenneth Gentry’s, He Shall Have Dominion, by the Institute of Christian Economics
[23] Colossians 1:20, Ephesians 1:10
[24] The “already, not yet” understanding is that why Christ is already Lord, the consummation of his Lordship is not yet.” There is of course, no disagreement with Postmillennialists, and this is in fact been taught and highly emphasized by reformed theonomist and postmillennialist, Kenneth L. Gentry. According to Gentry, he was taught this by Greg Bahnsen, the main theonomist of critique in Waldron’s series of online articles. Gentry mentions the “already not yet,” also known as “this age, and the age to come” here: https://postmillennialworldview.com/2022/11/15/more-on-this-age-and-the-age-to-come/
[25] This can be found in the writings of Geerhardus Vos, particularly in his famous Biblical Theology. However, there is nothing in Vos’ statement that nullifies theonomy. The fact that the judicial laws are fulfilled in the church doesn’t mean they don’t have applicatory value today. It means that the church is to teach and instruct its members in these laws rather than ancient Israel which has ceased as a political entity.
[26] This is important for Reformed standards such as the 39 articles and the Belgic Confession clearly have theonomic president, without debate. Since these and other documents like the Savoy Declaration, and Helvetic Confession are notoriously absent, shows Waldron has a very narrow view of whatever confessionalism is. Yet, even from the documents shown above, they are very much theonomic. For a detailed discussion, see Martin Foulner’s Theonomy and the Westminster Confession, Marpet Press, 1994.
[27] Rushdoony eventually left the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) for the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) due to the controversies regarding theonomy in the OPC. The ACNA has always allowed for more variation within Reformed Theology than the OPC.
[28] Greg L. Bahnsen, What is Theonomy, Penpoint Article, Southern California Center for Christian Studies, 1994. https://occidentalreformed.com/2011/03/what-is-theonomy-by-greg-bahnsen/
[29] I have no knowledge of Gary North promoting paedo-communion beyond what Sam Waldron has claimed. If this is the case though, it has no logical bearing on the truth of theonomy or not. There are theonomists that are also amillennial. Just because one or some hold views that may or may not be the most accurate biblical doctrine, does not mean we should reject a theological position, based on an error or two of some of its advocates. Especially if the position is not a heretical position and fits the realm of orthodoxy.
[30] Cornelius Van Til, Christian Theistic Ethics, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1947, p. 134.
0 Comments