• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Some Questions on Theonomy

General Mung Beans

Resident Conservative Christian
Aug 25, 2009
557
15
28
Anaheim, CA
✟15,996.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I hope you do not mind if I asked a few questions:

-In a theonomic society, could thoughts ever be punished? For instance if someone had blasphemous thoughts and admitted them later on should he or she be punished?
-In punishment, what would be the age of accountability and would mental illness be mitigating factors
-What do RC Sproul and John MacArthur think about theonomy

Thank you.
 

JasonLibertad

Historical Christianity
May 28, 2011
28
3
Moreno Valley, Ca
✟15,153.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I hope you do not mind if I asked a few questions:

-In a theonomic society, could thoughts ever be punished? For instance if someone had blasphemous thoughts and admitted them later on should he or she be punished?
-In punishment, what would be the age of accountability and would mental illness be mitigating factors
-What do RC Sproul and John MacArthur think about theonomy

Thank you.


Our whole lives are under Theonomy. Theos meaning God and nomos meaning law. The unregenerate think they live under autonomy but that is false and rebellious thinking. The whole reason for the blood of Christ is to save his elect from the judgement of God by paying the punishment for our sins against his theonomy. "There is none righteous, no not one".

We are accountable from birth as we are born enslaved to sin through Adam.
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟41,809.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I hope you do not mind if I asked a few questions:

-In a theonomic society, could thoughts ever be punished? For instance if someone had blasphemous thoughts and admitted them later on should he or she be punished?
-In punishment, what would be the age of accountability and would mental illness be mitigating factors
-What do RC Sproul and John MacArthur think about theonomy

Thank you.
Theonomy as its current theological position or as ... what it means? IOW, there's a viewpoint of "theonomy", and there's a viewpoint of "pronomianism".

Theonomy is not supported by either R.C. Sproul (Sr.) or John MacArthur, Jr.

Theonomy would dictate that punishment for thoughts requires a listed punishment for thoughts in God's Law.

Accountable ages need to be described in God's Law. In addition, mental illness would also be accounted for by statements in God's Law -- understanding that mental illness doesn't mitigate the protection that the people need from violence, illness or not. Like any law, God's Law can make these distinctions.

Finally -- though I'm answering, I'm answering not as an advocate. I'm pronomian -- I'm not theonomic. I believe God's Law describes God's equitable rule, yes, but in a specific case. So it's appropriate for examination in detail, to understand the Spirit behind its equities, and thus heed the Spirit of God.
 
Upvote 0

General Mung Beans

Resident Conservative Christian
Aug 25, 2009
557
15
28
Anaheim, CA
✟15,996.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Theonomy as its current theological position or as ... what it means? IOW, there's a viewpoint of "theonomy", and there's a viewpoint of "pronomianism".

Theonomy is not supported by either R.C. Sproul (Sr.) or John MacArthur, Jr.

Theonomy would dictate that punishment for thoughts requires a listed punishment for thoughts in God's Law.

Accountable ages need to be described in God's Law. In addition, mental illness would also be accounted for by statements in God's Law -- understanding that mental illness doesn't mitigate the protection that the people need from violence, illness or not. Like any law, God's Law can make these distinctions.

Finally -- though I'm answering, I'm answering not as an advocate. I'm pronomian -- I'm not theonomic. I believe God's Law describes God's equitable rule, yes, but in a specific case. So it's appropriate for examination in detail, to understand the Spirit behind its equities, and thus heed the Spirit of God.

Thank you for the answers. And this is what I meant by theonomy (from Wikipedia):
Theonomists support the applicability of Biblical principles to four spheres of government; self-government or self control, family government, church government, and state or civil government. Jay Rogers in Theofaq states that Theonomists believe "that civil government is only one sphere of government. In fact, it is not even the most important one. We advocate regeneration first and only then reconstruction. We do not advocate revolution."
Theonomists support public policy changes in accord with Biblical principles, but see those changes as coming about as a result of, and not the cause of, conversions to Christianity. Many seek a future earthly "Kingdom of God" in which much of the world is converted to Christianity. They cite the numerous scripture passages referring to God's collective judgment upon unrighteous nations and God's blessing upon those rulers and societies heeding His Word as evidence that the presence or absence of Christian values may profoundly influence the rise and fall of nations.
Although theonomic writers may not always agree on specific policy matters, goals often cited include:[6]

  • Elevation of the importance of Biblical case law in the judicial system.
  • Importance of civic rule by believers.
  • Recovery of a more public and formalized acknowledgment of the sovereignty of God over human government, as they argue was predominant in the American Founding Era.
Various theonomic authors have stated such goals as "the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics",[7] exclusion of non-Christians from voting and citizenship,[8] and the application of Biblical law by the state.[9] Under such a system of Biblical law, homosexual acts,[10] adultery, witchcraft, and blasphemy[11] would be punishable by death. Propagation of idolatry or "false religions" would be illegal[12] and could also be punished by the death penalty.[13][14]
 
Upvote 0

ReformedChapin

Chapin = Guatemalan
Apr 29, 2005
7,087
357
✟33,338.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
I hope you do not mind if I asked a few questions:

-In a theonomic society, could thoughts ever be punished? For instance if someone had blasphemous thoughts and admitted them later on should he or she be punished?
-In punishment, what would be the age of accountability and would mental illness be mitigating factors
-What do RC Sproul and John MacArthur think about theonomy

Thank you.
Theonomy means God's Law. And the primary focus of advocates of theonomy, me being one of them is applying the NT and OT applying codes as the standard for ethics and for civil government.

1)There is no punishment in the civil sense for thoughts, that's primarely the responsibility of the individual and God. Theonomist/Reconstructionist primary focus arguing on applying the equitible principle of the OT civil codes for goverment since the biblie clearly prescribes punishments for actions such as homosexuality and murder.
2) As far as accountability of mental illness this would have to vary within each case. Theonomist haven't figured out all the case scenerios, we would argue ( I would argue) that the application of the civil codes need further research and a proper biblical response can be developed with the help of scientist, law students but using the bible as the starting point not naturalism/humanism.
3) RC and MacArthur would both disagree with theonomy. Frankly the only that could possibly hold to it would be RC but I am not sure of his views of Covenant Theology. All theonomist tend to be pressupositionalists always using the bible as a starting point and RC ends up being a evidentialist. MacArthur could never be a theonomist since the sees the OT civil codes as only applicable to Isreal, he always sees a disctinction between jew and gentile because of his dispensationalism.
 
Upvote 0

ReformedChapin

Chapin = Guatemalan
Apr 29, 2005
7,087
357
✟33,338.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
Thank you for the answers. And this is what I meant by theonomy (from Wikipedia):
So what you posted so far seems like a fair assessment of theonomy. If you want to learn more I can tell you about some audio lectures on theonomy online free of charge.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

General Mung Beans

Resident Conservative Christian
Aug 25, 2009
557
15
28
Anaheim, CA
✟15,996.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
So what you posted so far seems like a fair assessment of theonomy. If you want to learn more I can tell you about some audio lectures on theonomy online free of charge.

Please do so.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟122,193.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
In addition to the links provided by ReformedChapin, here is a link to tons of free books by Gary North.

I would like to note that there are different senses of the term Theonomy. When Van Tillians use it in apologetics, we are referring to God as the ultimate authority and it's opposite autonomy in which man is the ultimate authority. If God is our ultimate authority, we submit to His Lordship, His governing of our lives. So there is a broad sense of the term, and a narrower sense.

Now I would imagine, not every Theonomist (myself included) is in favor of bringing back every O.T. law (there are hundreds) to govern society. There are a few laws that seem a bit harsh to me, one thing about it though, God's law definitely has "teeth" and "backbone". I would also like to note that although Christians are "under grace", there is always need for government over society as a whole, especially secular society. The problem though, especially today, there is no way we could "impose" such a system on an entire society. One would have to go somewhere where there is no government, and start a theonomist government.
 
Upvote 0

ReformedChapin

Chapin = Guatemalan
Apr 29, 2005
7,087
357
✟33,338.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
In addition to the links provided by ReformedChapin, here is a link to tons of free books by Gary North.

I would like to note that there are different senses of the term Theonomy. When Van Tillians use it in apologetics, we are referring to God as the ultimate authority and it's opposite autonomy in which man is the ultimate authority. If God is our ultimate authority, we submit to His Lordship, His governing of our lives. So there is a broad sense of the term, and a narrower sense.

Now I would imagine, not every Theonomist (myself included) is in favor of bringing back every O.T. law (there are hundreds) to govern society. There are a few laws that seem a bit harsh to me, one thing about it though, God's law definitely has "teeth" and "backbone". I would also like to note that although Christians are "under grace", there is always need for government over society as a whole, especially secular society. The problem though, especially today, there is no way we could "impose" such a system on an entire society. One would have to go somewhere where there is no government, and start a theonomist government.
No offence but the whole point of theonomy is stating that God's law is the standard so you cannot in any sense state it is harsh. Some of the laws might be void, this is where theonomist differ but you cannot state they are "harsh", "unfair" or whatever. If you say that you are saying that you have a standard that is above God's laws. I think making this kind of statement might confuse people who are not familar with the debate.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟122,193.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No offence but the whole point of theonomy is stating that God's law is the standard so you cannot in any sense state it is harsh. Some of the laws might be void, this is where theonomist differ but you cannot state they are "harsh", "unfair" or whatever. If you say that you are saying that you have a standard that is above God's laws. I think making this kind of statement might confuse people who are not familar with the debate.

Well, many O.T. laws would be considered "harsh" by today's standards (which isn't to say today's are an improvement, or that they are the standard we ought to measure by). It would be going a bit too far to think I meant "unfair", at least in my intention. Not saying I have a higher standard, just viewing Covenant Theology as a whole, through the lens of the Covenant of Grace. Hope this clears some muddy water.
 
Upvote 0

ReformedChapin

Chapin = Guatemalan
Apr 29, 2005
7,087
357
✟33,338.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
Well, many O.T. laws would be considered "harsh" by today's standards (which isn't to say today's are an improvement, or that they are the standard we ought to measure by). It would be going a bit too far to think I meant "unfair", at least in my intention. Not saying I have a higher standard, just viewing Covenant Theology as a whole, through the lens of the Covenant of Grace. Hope this clears some muddy water.
Brother I am not an expert theologian, but even now I am confused how the Covenant of Grace makes the OT Covenant of Works "harsher"? What exactly are you tryint to get at? My position is like Bansens that the entire equitable principle of the civil and moral law which is not tied with the ceremonial law should be applied and is just. For clarification I am not saying that the OT ceremonial law is unjust but is fulfilled in Christ therefore null and void in the NT dispensation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟122,193.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Brother I am not an expert theologian, but even now I am confused how the Covenant of Grace makes the OT Covenant of Works "harsher"? What exactly are you tryint to get at? My position is like Bansens that the entire civil law which is not tied with the ceremonial law should be applied and is just. For clarification I am not saying that the OT ceremonial law is unjust but is fulfilled in Christ therefore null and void.

I am sorry for the confusion, never intended it that way. I probably should have withheld the "harsh" comment....not the best choice of words. Looking at my first post, I should have not commented. I am not even close to being an expert on O.T. law and government. To try and clear things, I do not mean the Covenant of Grace makes the Covenant of Workers harsher, I mean just the opposite. There is a world of difference between an "eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek". I am with Bahnsen on most things, but I am in the learning/deciding stage as far as theonomy in the sense of Old Testament civil laws and application today is concerned.
 
Upvote 0