It should be fairly obvious at this point in this series that I do not agree with Theonomic Rule for the church. I do hope, however, that in an attempt to paint a broad, brush stroke to an incredibly nuanced position, that I have treated things fairly and not gone too broadly for the topic.
At this point, I will simply offer some closing points to the topic that I believe are relevant to the discussion:
I firmly believe that those who hold to this position do so out of a desire to honor the Lord and obey the scriptures. However, if I am quite frank – I believe they have convoluted much of a proper ecclesiology in lieu of the desire to operate in the same fashion as Israel. If the church is the “New Israel”, then theonomy is a logical conclusion to reach. However, logical conclusions and deductions do not necessarily indicate correct understanding of the text. If the church is truly a new creation, the old is not thrown out – but this again, does not indicate that it operates in the same framework.
Furthermore, though they would hold that the civil laws are a perfect guideline to inform ethical guidelines for godly living today, the subjectivity to the application of these principles meets the same end that many theonomists tend to despise. In other words, the letter of the law is not applicable in some cases; we no longer have parapets on our roofs simply because we do not have guests or neighbors meet us on our roofs. Do we then de-ice our sidewalks; have one wear a seatbelt; or some other moral equivalency? Often, an application can undermine some theonomic principles. How then might this apply to some civil sanctions given to Israel that are bound within the framework of their global location? Yet many theonomists would even refute a moral equivalency; this further serves to illustrate that these principles don’t flesh out as well as many would like.
Another important thing to note would be how Bahnsen and others would remark of the former shadow of ceremonial laws; simply because we are not observing them does not indicate that they are any less holy, righteous, and good. If then we are truly dead to the law and not bound to observe it, this also does not dictate that the moral and civil laws are any less holy, righteous, and good.
Far too often we see cases made that misrepresent theonomic views: theonomists are like Jihad; theonomy wants to crush all those in opposition by enforcing theocratic rule; theonomists believe they are saved or merit favor through observance of the law; theonomy is evil because the commands given to Israel were evil (this is not one you will hear someone say – but what else do they convey when they state something along the lines of the punishment of death for certain sins [i.e. – homosexuality] being too harsh? If there is particular disdain one has for how the Lord operated in a theocratic state, your problem is with something that the scriptures declare, “Holy, righteous, and good.” – not the theonomist). Now I do not think homosexuals ought to face the death penalty because I do not believe this is sanctioned by the NT – but this should give us a vivid understanding of the heinous nature of this particular sin – and that we often take sin far less seriously than God.
On the other side of the coin, theonomists often paint a false caricature of their opponents: Those who disagree are latent antinomians, having no regard for the moral demands placed upon believers – or will inevitably find themselves in that position. They must also have no framework of telling what is acceptable before the Lord. They do not believe that all spheres of life ought to be influenced by the Word of God. They do not believe that the scriptures are sufficient to address a society and in particular, the government. They believe that Romans 13 establishes a precedent that means that Christians lie over and take abuse, don’t speak out against evil, and obey civil authorities even to a potentially sinful point. Those who disagree must then do what is right in their own eyes in matters of public, familial, and corporate worship. The “law of love” is subjective to each man, and it cannot possibly inform any man how to live in obedience to the scriptures. By rooting exegesis in the author’s intention and history, they leave out any relevance to the church (Bahnsen even made this remark in No Other Standard to illustrate a logical fallacy of Dispensationalists – only to assume a logical fallacy himself).
Surely, there are people in both camps who fit the bill for the aforementioned caricatures, but if they are truly saved and in Christ – will they display such ludicrous behavior and blatant disregard for the imperative commands of God? If they are legitimate children, they will receive the harsh rod of discipline and be urged to repentance.
The Law reveals sin, the gracious nature of the Lord in the provision of Christ, and informs us on moral issues – however, this does not indicate that we are to observe it. Indeed, there is a remarkable amount of continuity between what we see revealed in the law and the imperatival commands of the NT. However, how we define the term “law” will have much to do with what we understand the apostle Paul to be speaking of. If “law” means different things at different times, context must substantiate this. If “law” is used to represent the whole of the law, then we are no longer under it. Based on critical scholarship, I view the latter as true.
At the end of the day – the Law is good. We must be able to ask what we make of it at this point for the NT believer. I believe that the tutelage of the tutor has been far surpassed (as would Bahnsen) – but in that, we differ on the authority of the law. I believe we are no longer bound in any sense to the law; we are held to an even greater measure of moral culpability based on the revelation given to us and by the gift and ministry of the Paraclete.
Who can stand before the Lord in any case and proclaim his innocence and ignorance if even nature is sufficient enough to condemn? How then, can the Christian, having so great a gift as we do in our current age, eschew responsibility and accountability? They can’t; they only deceive themselves into thinking they can.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In