1992 issue 2 - book review: no other standard: theonomy and its critics - counsel of chalcedon

8/12/2019 1992 Issue 2 - Book Review: No Other Standard: Theonomy and Its Critics - Counsel of Chalcedon

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1992-issue-2-book-review-no-other-standard-theonomy-and-its-critics-counsel 1/5

No ther Standard

Theonomy and ts Critics

by GregL. Bahnsen,

Ph.D.;

published

by The Institute for Christian

Economics,

Tyler,

Texas; xvplus 45

, pages; $ 9.95.

Reviewed

by

Rev.

W.

Gary

Crampton, Th.D.

sandysoil of pragmaticand

relativistic

theories (Mt. 7:26,27). Bahnsen's

position, of

course

, is no

novel thesis.

Itisonewhichh<ls beensanctionedby

numerous

Reformed

theologians for

centuries. Calvin,

for

example,

roundly

endorsed the basic premise set

forth

bypresentdayreconstructionists.The

Wesuninster

divines,

as clearly

seen

in the

Confession

of Faith, were

likewise

advocates

of theonomic

ethics

(cf. chapters XIX and XXIII). This

first

defines

the position Imown as

theonomy, giving us the

distinctives

to

which its advocates

adhere. The author then goes on

to

address

the various criticisms which

havebeen

lodged

against the

system

asdefined.Sadly,muchofthecriticism

is 'spurious, misleading and

misconceived (e.g.,

that theonomy

advocates population control and

capital punishment

for

drunkards ).

It is

all

too

often

fabricated,

set forth

inuncareful, vitriolic assertions

I t has been said of Jonathan

Edwards, that once he had

finished

debatingwithhis opponents,notonly

had he annihilated their

arguments,

but he had

also

dusted

off

the spot

where they had

once

stood.

This is the covenant

fter reading No Other

(e.g., that theonomy is a

moderndayPhariseeisrn .

andit Judaizes theNew .

Testament). Bahnsen

disposes

of

these

quickly .

Standard one

gets

this

same impression of

Greg Bahnsen.

In this

book,

as

the subtitle

suggests, the author

interacts with critics

of the theonomic

world

view.

(Theonomy

is

the

belief that the moraJ

standards

Qaws)

of the

Old

Testament are

authoritative

today,

along

with New Testament

teaching,

Bahnsen,

No

Other

Standard

pg.3). And with

careful, logicalprecision,heteduces

the opposing theories

to

the

level

of

absurdity, _and then dusts

off

the

spot where they were previously

standing.

u r t h e r ~

he does so in an

irenic spirit, with hUmility and

courtesy, which are all too

frequently

missing in reconstuctionist circles.

According

to

Dr. Bahnsen, the

theonomist bows before God's Word

as thesolefoundation upon whichall

of life is to be based (Mt. 7:24,25; 2

Tim. 3:16,17). The opposing world

views,on the otherhand,buildonthe

latter fact, which

is

admitted

even

by

major adversaries

of

theonomy (e.g.,

Meridith Kline), hardly speaks

well of

the

(so called)

Reformedserninariesof

our day that

have

black balled Dr.

Bahnsen

(as

well as other theonomic

teachers)

and

his biblical

and

fully

confessional world view .

No Other Standard is divided into

15

chapters, followed by two

Appendices. After he h ls introduced

the debate in chapter one, Bahnsen

8 f TIl COUNSEL

o

Chalcedon f February, 1992

Next the author '

deals

with the

logical

and theological

fallades foundinsome

of his

critics.

Here he

points out the obvious,

i.e., that the infallible,

inerrant Word of

God

is

never

to

be tested by extra-

biblical

standards,

by appealing

to subjectivism, andlor

by

arguing from silence.' Rather,

Christian

theology is

to be governed

by the Reformationalprincipleof sola

Scriptura, i.e., by Scripture alone.

Bahnsen then considers the

Dispensationalist critics, both full-

fledged and latent alike

(i.e.,

not only

those within the Dispensationalist

camp,

but

also those who

would

radically separate the Ten

Commandments and the

explicatory

case laws, as

well

as

those

who would

overdo the uniqueness of old .

Testament

Israel

as a theocracy).

Dispensationalism in virtually any



form, of course, cannot

(logically)

adopt a theonomic ethic and world

view, because the two positions are

logically incompatible

in

their

hermeneutic (p. 76) (Hermeneutics

is tile study of principles of Bible

interpretation). Dispensationalism

necessarily

emphasizes

the

discontinuity (non-continuation)

between theOldandNewCovenants,

virtually abolishing the

law of Moses in its

these laws have been abolishedby the

work of Christ or the coming of the

Holy Spirit (p. 99).

Further, theonomy, as a system

(Le.,

not necessarily certain errant

theonomists), fully recognizes the

distinctiveness ofIsrael as a theocratic

nation. Bahnsen writes: Plenty of

thingswereuniqueaboutlsrael.

.

[e.g.,]

private and public, found between

Israel

and

the nations. Here Dr.

Bahnsen approvingly quotes

Christopher Wright: Though

we

cannot address secular society

in

the

terms God addressed Israel, nor

presuppose a covenant relationship,

it is nevertheless valid to argue that

what God required ofIsrael as a fully

humansociety,isconsistentwithwhat

He requires of all men. It

entirety. Theonomists,

on he other hand, being

Covenantal and Re-

formed, while fully

aware of the obvious

discontinuities, empha

size the continuities of

the Covenants.

We

sfwu[J

presume th t

o

is therefore possible to

use Israel as a paradigm

for social ethical

objectives in our own

society (p. 130).

As far as those who

would excessively

dichotomize (separate)

the Ten Command

ments and the case laws

rJestament

standing faws

continue

to

be moraf{y

binding

in

the g{fw rJestament, unfess

they are

rescinded or

11Wdlfiei

Oncehaving cleared

the

air

of these fallacies,

Dr. Bahnsen

con

centrates on theonomic

etllics as applied in the

political arena. Here, as

elsewhere, states the

author,

the basic

covenantal henne-

are concerned,

Dr.

y further

revefation.

Bahnsen would reply

that whereas the New

Testament does most

certainly teach the

13ah.l1SW,

JI/jJ

OtherS

tal rfanf

p

12

neutical principle must

apply:

We

should

presume that Old

Testamentstandinglaws

continue to be morally

binding in the New

ceremonial laws of the Old Testament

reached their climax in Christ, (Gal.

2:3; 3:23-4:7; 5:2,6; Col. 2:16,17), it

nowhere does so

for

the judiciaVcase

laws. In fact, the New Testament

frequently appeals to the use of these

caselaws, applying the generalequity

foundtherein(Mt.15:4; IS:16; 1

Cor.

9:9; 1 Tim. 5:1S). The New

Testament, says Bahnsen, cites tile

judicial laws of he Old Testament too

often,

and

without apology or

disclaimer,

to

accept at

face

value tile

bald claim of theonomic

Clitics

that

Israel alone received the 'ceremonial

law' for her salvation. Too,

Theonomy nowhere asserts an

eqUivalency between Israel's king and

all other civil magistrates (pp.

115,l1S).

Yet, the Bible clearly teaches that

all the nations, having received God's

law by means of general revelation

(Rom.

1:1S-21; 2:14,15), are held

accountable to tllat law

(Dt.

4:5-S;

Lev.1S:24-30;

Gen. 19

-Sodomand

Gommorah). Thus,

there is a

continuity of etllical standards, botll

Testament, unless they are rescinded

or

modified by further revelation

(p.

12).

First, Bahnsen

responds

to

cliticisms having to do with the

separation of church and state. Here

some critics charge the author with

seeing no difference between the

church-state relationsllip in the Old

and New Testaments. This, however,

is

merely another caricature of

Ins

position. For example, in his

By

This

Standard, Bahnsen writes: Of course

there were many unique aspects to

February 1992 I TH COUNSEL of Chalcedon

I

9



the situation enjoyed

by

the Old

Testament

Israelites

. In

many

ways

theirsocialarrangementwasnotwhat

ours

is today. And the

extraordinary

character

of Old

TestamentIsrael

may

well havepertained to some aspect of

the relation between

religious

cult

and dvil

rule

in

the Old

Testament

pp

.

288,289).

Yet, Israel was clearly not a

fusion

of church and state, as

maintained by other

Rather,

it is once the

Kingdom has

come

,

in Christ's

first

advent, that

all

dvil

magistrates are to seek to enforc

e

the

King's law

in their

lands. After all,

Christ is the true King

,

whose wrath is

kindled when earthly

kings seek

to

overthrow His law and opt

for their

own

d Psalm

2

).

The real issue here, however, is

Theonomy's point...that God does

theonomy claim that the civil

magistrate today should rule by

conscience,

as

govemed by natural

law

and

common

grace. But$cripture

would

teach

us

that

the

so called

natural

law which is given to

all

men,

which

is

impressed upon the

conscience,

by

God

's

common

grace,

is

nothing other than

God's

law . Not

only were the

oracles given

to

Israel

bymeans

of

special revelation (Rom.

3:2), but they were also

made known to

all

men

critics who seek to

radically bifurcate the

Old andNewTestament

ages. For

instance, the

king of

Israel

(who

was

to

be

from

the

line

of

Judah) was never to

involve himself in the

dutiesof thepriests(who

were to·be from the

line

ofLevi), nor

vice-versa.

King Uzziah

is

a case in

point

(cf.

2

Orr.

26:16-

21).

67heonomys

point is th t

od

does

not have a double

standqrd

of

justice

in society.

.

Rape is wrong

J

whetherin Israe/J Nineveh,

orNew

York. And punishing r pists

too

leniently

r

too harshly is wrong

by means

of

general

revelation

(Rom 1:

18-

32; 2:12-15) . The

problem,however, with

relying on

God

's

oracles

given

in

general

revelation

alone, apart

from the

spectacles

(Calvin) of special

revelation, is

sin. The

sin-obscurednaturallaw

simplywillnot do. That

for

magistrates

J

whether in

Is

'

Neither

do

theonomists deny that

redeemed Israel was

typologicalofthechurch

of

Christ (which

rae

J

NinevehJor New York. If God

has

not revealed objective stan-

dards

of

justice

for

crime

and

punishment

J

then magistrates

cannot

genuinely

he

avengers

of

Ged's wrath

against

evildoers.'

is why Paul asserts that

God

's dvillaw

is to

be

used

as

a restraining

influence on

sin

1 Tun

1 : 8 ~ 1 O .

Bahnsen,

o

Other Standard,

p.140

(N .

B.:

according

to

Paul

[1 Tim. 4:2]

and

John 11Jn. 3:18-22], the

consdenceoffallenmanissearedand

untrustworthy without special

revelation. The Jiminy Cricket

theology - let your conscience

be

your guide - of some non

theonomists,

is

altogether

negated by

theNewTestamentrevelation-WGC)

accordingto othercritics

militates against a theonomic ethic) .

But

this fact

hardly

eliminates

the

Old Testament interest in having

righteousnesspervadealldepartments

of life, nor

does

it

necessarily alter

God's

standard of

righteousness (p

.

142).

Andfinally,

theonomy, asasystern,

doesnotteachthatthedvilmagistrate's

enforcement of the Old Testament

judidallaws

brings

in the Kingdom

(another slanderous accusation).

not have a double standard of justice

in sodety. Rape

iswrong, whether

in

Israel, Nineveh, or New York.

And

punishing rapists too leniently or

too

harshly is wrong

for magistrates,

whether

in

Israel, Nineveh, or

New

York (p.

140)

. Is

this

not obvious

enough for the critics?

Other critics seek

to restrict

theuse

Second,

Bahnsen addresses the

of

the law

of

GodintheNewTestament

criticismsregardingtheOldTestament

era by

relegating

it

to

those

crimes

law and its

use

in modem civil which

are

not religious

in nature.

government. Various critics of That

is

, only the second table of

the

1

' HE COUNSEL

of

Chalcedon February, 1992



law is binding on present

day

dvil

governments. ButwheredoestheNew

Testament

give

us such a spedal

category?

Arenotall

crimes

religious

in the sense that they are primarily

against

God? Is

not the second table

Qfthelawpredicatedon the

first table?

And, for instance, was not Herod, in

his

capadty

as

dvil

magistrate,

struck

dead

by God for not upholding the

first

table ofHis

law

(Acts

12:

21-23)?

Further , there is

additional confUsion

manifested here with

regard

to the roles

of

the

church and state.

According

to the

Bible,

the

former

uses

theWord

of God in dealing with

sin,

whereas thelatteruses

the Word of God in

dealing with

crime.

The

Church is

a

ministry of

grace aiming at the

salvationofsinners;while

the state is a

ministry

of

justice aiming at the

restraintandpunishrnent

of lawless

behavior

. The job of

the

civil magistrate is not redemptive in

import;rather,asGod'sminister(Rom .

13:4,6), it is for

the pUnishment

of

evildoers and the praise of

those

who

do right (lPet. 2:14). This,ofcourse,

likewise

shows

a false notion of

the

secular/sacred dichotomy, which is

so terriblyprevalentin Christian

circles

today.

It

is interesting,

as

Dr.

Bahnsen

pointsout, thattheauthorofHebrews,

in2:1-3 andlO:28ff.,uses ana fortiori

(from the lesser to the greater)

argument to

show that apostasy (a so

called

religious

"crime) has not been

revoked in the gospel age. Says consistent), as well

as

Christianity.

Bahnsen,

''Hebrews

argues that we Accordingto Bahnsen,suchpluralisrn

need to

give

'greaterheed' today,forif

is

neither faithful to Scripture, nor

even

the

(lesser) law

demanded just

even

logically

cogen

t

(p.

192). First,

recompenseforoffenses, the Cgreater) Psalm 2:10,11

teaches that

all

dvil

gospel

will

all the

more do

so - there magistrates

are

to serve the God of

will

be no escape from

God's

wrath

SCrip

ture. Second, to adopt the

(2:1-3) .50

the

Old Testament dvil prindpled pluralism position is to

penalties

are not being set

aside

but subtract civil commandments,

rather established by this line of without warrant, from Scripture in

th01.1ght

- established

as

the premised

foundation for the justice and

inevitability

of

eternal punishment

for apostates

[10:28££

.1.

It

is

precisely

because

those

(lesser) civil sanctions

are

valid

and just that

one

must

see

that the

(greater) eternal

sanctions

will be valid

and just. The eternal is

not put in

place

of

the civil;

it s argued

on the basis of the civil

(p. 179)

.

Then time are the "principled

pluralists. They maintain that the

state ought

to

honor and protect

all of

the "

religious

perspectives of the

nurnerousreligious

groups, e

.g.,

Islam,

Judaism, and Satanism if they are

violation of Deuter

onomy4:2.

And

third, if

pluralism were accep

table,

it would · ead t

i r r e conc i l b l e

contradictions

in

the

various world views.

Wherever the world

viewsdiffer,forexample,

over crimes or punish

ments for crimes (e.g.,

the penaltyfor murder),

equal honor

nd

protection

c nnot

possibly be given by

the

civil magistrate to both

views.

Did not Jesus say,

"he that

is

not

for Meis

againstMe (Mt. 12:30)? Religious

Ethical neutrality is a myth. The

fact

that some modem societies

(e.g., the U.SA.) have adopted a

plur listic

st nce in civil

government does not please God.

Thequestionisnotwhatispresendy

the case, the question

is

what

"ought"to be the case. God'sWord

alone

is

the authority that validates

alltheologicalandetbicalprinciples.

The Bible is to be our guide in

personal and public morality. There

isnootherstandard. Thereissimply

no way that pluralism c n be

biblically defended.

February, 1992 l TH COUNSEL

of

Chalcedon l 11



And third, Bahnsen speaks

to the

issuewhich

brings

thegreatestconcem

among theonomic critics: the penal

sanctions (civilpunishments).

(As the

authorhimselfsays:

"Here's the

Rub"

[p

o

211 .

Those who deny

the

basic

biblical principles

of

theonomy

(Le.,

God's law

as

the standard for

every

area

of

life, every

institution,

etc.),

of

course, are

appalled

at

the

thought of

the binding nature of

he biblical

penal

sanctions.

Herein,

at

least, they are

consistent in their (erroneous)

thinklng.

Otherscholars,however,whohave

taken sides with theonomy in

practically

every

otherway,

hesitate at

this

point

Here they are

inconsistent.

IfJehovah is

Lord over

all nations and

kings, andallare underHis law,

as

has

already been shown

(Lev. 18:24-30;

Ps. 2; Is. 24:5;

Rom

3:19),

where

is

theprobleminasserting thatHispenal

codesare

likewiseparadigmatic

(to be

used

as

models) for all

kings and.

nations? Is

this

not simple

biblical

logic? Wherein God has

given

man

civil laws by which to live

n

society,

doesHegivemantherighttoarbitrarily

determine howto punish theviolators

of these laws? Of

course not And for

some

critics to claim

that

the

Old

Testarnent penalsanctionswereoverly

harsh,

and thusarenottobecontinued

in our age,

does

not speakwell of

the

God of

Israel.

After all, these penal

sanctions beihg

ridiculed

as

"harsh"

are God's sanctions.

And in

the

New Testament

age

in

which

welive,

should wenotpresume

continuity rather

than

discontinuity

with regard to these

Old

Testament

laws

of

penology

(the study of

civil

punishment)? When Jesus, in

Matthew 15:4 openly

endorses the

penology of

the

Old

Covenant, and

then

commissions us

to

"observe

all

whichIcomtnandedyou (Mt.

28:20),

whatare we to think? Too, the author

of

Hebrews (10:28) teaches us

that

anyone who

had

violated the law

of

Moses was to

die "without mercy on

the testimony of two or three

witnesses,"

withoutso much

as

a hint

thatsuchpenologyhasbeenabrogated

in

the

New Covenant. Further, to

relegate the

penal

sanctions

of

Israel

only

to

the church in the New

Testament

age,

as some critics would

have

us do, is

onc.e

again to confuse

sins

arid

crimes and

the

church-state

relationship

- a problem which

the

author

has dealt with earlier.

Dr.

Bahnsen

then concludes

the

major

section

of

his

book by

asking

his

critics to carefully

consider what

has been said in No Other Standard

No criticism gives us

any

reason to

abandon

the basic principles set forth

in abiblically based

theonomic

ethic.

In

fact, the opposite is the case. If not

.God's law, then what? What other

standard would a hristian

prefer

to

havesocietygovemedby?Whatother

standard

carries

God's

direction

and

sanction?

Nonel

The two Appendices are jewels.

Appendix

A

deals with the exegetical

details of Matthew 5:17-19. Here

Bahnsen

methodically reveals

the

faultyinterpretationsofpaul B.Fowler

(a Refonned theologian)

and

Gary

Long (a

Dispensationalist).Appendix

B,

on

the

other hand,

addresses

a

recent book

by

Vern

Poythress:

The

Shadow of Christ in the Law of

Moses

Although

Poythress

seems to be in

"fundamental

agreement"

with

the

theonornic

camp, says

Bahnsen,

it

s

a

"weakened version of

theonomy"

to

2

TIlE COUNSEL of Chalcedon February, 1992

be

sure.

In

the present

reviewer's

opinion, Poythress'smulti-symbolism,

multi-perspectiva ism approach to

hermeneutics leaves him

hermeneutic-less.

Onthisfoundation,

olle can make the Bible say practically

ar/ry'thing he

wants

it to

say.

As

publisher

Gary

North has

said,

Bahnsen's

opponents can run, but

they cannot hide.

"One

by one,

Bahnsen takes

his

critics'

arguments

apart, showing that

they

have

either

misrepresented his position or

misrepresented

the

Bible. Lineby ine,

point by point,

he

shows that they

have

not understood his arguments

and have also not understood the

vulnerability

of

their own logicaland

theologicalpositions. Thespotwhere

the critics

were previously standing

has been (irenic

ally)

"dusted off."

TypicallyBahnsen

,

No

OtherStandard

is very

much worth reading.a

1992 issue 2 - book review: no other standard: theonomy and its critics - counsel of chalcedon

Documents