MartinA. Foulner, "TheOlWmy and the Westminster Confession.' 64pp. Edinburgh: Marpet PreSs, 1997. $4.50. US distributor: Institute for Christian Economics, P.O. Box 8000, T}der, TX 75711 (903) 597-595l.

Review of a must-have book

Here is the book I have longed for - the book 1 myself long yearned to compile. Martin Foulner provides for us a remarkable compendium of statements from the Westminster divines (and others) shOwing without doubt that they were theonornic in their political and social ethic. Page after page, quote after quote, the evidence mounts: Like it or not, the theologians who wrote the Westminster Standards - including WCF 19:4 - held strong convictions about the continuing applicability of Mosaic Law in the modern world. This book single-handedly stops the debate over the historical and confessional nature of theonomy. Thank you, Mr. Foulner.

"Theonomy and the Westminster ConfeSsion" grew out of a 1996 overture to the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland. That overture called upon the church to declare theono]ny a heresy. The charges against theonomy were paraded · in Scottish newspap~rs with such outrageous headlines as: "In Scotland a deacon wants to stone . 'bad' kids to death" (Sunday

. Mail, November 17, 1996, p.15). Below the title was a picture of Dr. Greg Bahnsen (though it

never mentioned he had never stoned one child). The overture paSsed, despite refusing to interact with theonomists within the denomination.

After the resolution passed another newspaper The Scotsman (May 12, 1997) published the following headline: "Warning on ReligiOUS Extremists: Fundamentalists have infiltrated Scotland, says report to Free Church: The fears about theonomy were typical: emotional frenzy parading as dispassionate contemplation

(quite a taskO.

Foulner notes in his Preface: "r have made no attempt to argue for the theonornic position on theological or Scriptural grounds. It is the sole purpose of this work to show that the teachings of this movement are not new, but were widely held among Reformed theolOgians; particularly the Puritans at the Westminster Assembly.' Consequently. the reader interested in the history of this debate will find Foulner's work an extremely helpful contribution. Unfortunately, for those who detest theonomy. theoIiornists wrote the Confession! And as Meredith Kline noted twenty years ago: The American revisions of the

14 :J: THE COUNSEL of Cbalcedon :J: August. 1997

Confession did not remove what he called "the Chalcedon error" from the Standards.

One of the most remarkable aspects of the ami-theonomy crusade in American Presbyterian circles (particularly within my own PCA) is the scltizophrenic nature of the attack. Almost invariably the opponents of theonomy are "loose subscriptionists" regarding the Confession. This allows them . to be charismatic, function as if congregationalists, deny six day creation, and so forth while they

pretend they are faithful to Presbyterian principles. Yet when it comes to criticism of theonomy, they switch principles and become "strict subscriptionists." They then argue that the WCF 19:4 clearly disallows theonomy. The

transformation is a sight to behold. It is as remarkable as it is complete. Unfortunately, it is only temporary: as soon as the theonomy debate is over. loose subscription becomes the name of the game. They experience deja vu and amnesia at the same time.

This famous section of the Confession reads: "To them [Israel] also. as a body politic. He gave sundry judicial laws. which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require: Not realizing that this is the theonomic principle, anti­theonomists rejoice over this statement. But what theonornist would say we literally have to

build a parapet around the roof of our house? Or are obliged to stone to death convicted capital criminals? Yet we hold the underlying principle - the equity within _. still prevails. But back to Foulner's remarkable work.

Foulner preserves all the original spellings, punctuation, and emphases as found in his sources. This makes for difficult reading, but it provides us with the unadulterated source material we need. Theonomic statements are published from such Westminster signatories as: George Gillespie (who sounds like Greg Bahnsen on Matthew 5: 17), Samuel Rutherford (whose name adorns John Whitehead's anti-theonomic Christian civil advocacy group), Jeremiah Burroughs, Herbert Palmer, William Reyner, Richard Vines, Thomas Hodges, and Philip Nye, Over 25% of the quotations are taken from Gillespie and Rutherford. Foulner called me not long after I ordered the book. He told me he had many more quotations to add to the next edition. I can't wait.

Many other theolOgians from the Puritan era are brought forward showing they hold theonomic sympathies. Men such as: David Dickson, James Fergusson,James Durham, George Hutcheson,John Brown ofWamphray, Nathaniel Hardy, Thomas Gilbert, Alexander Shields, and many more. Even the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and the Scottish Parliament are shown to be theonomic (164Os)! Of

course, many outside of the Presbyterian debate have long recognized that Reformed theology has long had theonomic tendencies. For example, Michael Dennis Gabbert's doctoral dissertation in Church History from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary ably shows that Calvin, Cromwell, and the Massachusetts Civil Bay Colony were theonomic: "An Historical Evaluation of Christian Reconstructionism Based on the Inherent Inviability of Selected Theocratic Models" (1991). The tide clearly indicates his lack of ·sympathy for the Reconstructionist model: his is not a sympathetic defense of theonomy!

I especially enj oyed the various discussions by the divines on the "equity" of God;s Law. These are tremendously important for fleshing out their theonomic commitments in light ofWCF 19:4 (see pages 21, 25n, 29,40-41,45,54,57,59).Also helpful are the clarification of the judicial, moral, ceremonial distinctions within the law. The divisions are not what so many think. But you will have to call ICE and order Foulner's book to see what I meanl IN addition, the several statements arguing for a New Testament confirmation of the Law are real eye-openers.

& aware, however, that modem theonomic sympathies themselves will recoil at some of the positions of the Wesuninster divines: they out theonomize us! Perhaps we are too Americanized.

This book is a real "must have" for Presbyterian theonomists. It ought to be owned, read, and used by all those who love God's Law, Presbyterianism, and the ministry of the Word.

Ecclesiastical and PastOTal Advice

At this juncture I would like . to add some exhortational material for the Presbyterian theonomist. I know why many have a distaste for theonomy: I have seen theonomic screwballs· roll through town, into our church's front door, and out the back. Good riddance! But these folks are extremists; theonomy should not be judged by their actions or positions. The theonomic ethic should be evaluated on the basis of the biblical and confessional argument. The material below contains portions of a Jetter I wrote to a fellow theonomist who was being attacked in an ecclesiastical setting. Perhaps the readership will find something helpful herein. Please excuse the ad hoc nature of the material.

Maintaining a Gracious Spirit

Let me say that I am praying for you. I very much pray that you will be given a gracious spirit and, when necessary, the wisdom to say "I don't know. The Old Testament is big; ethics is a deep study." Admit you don't have all the answer's I certainly don't. And even Greg Bahnsen who was the leading theonomic advocate, admitted such.

I am in no way interested in the hard-headed approach of a

August, 1997 :t: THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon '" 15

few theonomists (and I emphaSize the feWness of their number). All sides to ecclesiastical debate have their belligerent advocates. I hope that you will continue (as you have in ' the past) with Christian grace standing your ground in humility, and if necessary appeal any decisions against you to. the general assembly. Don't buck the system; be a strong Presbyty~, . willing to stand humbly but firmly for what is just and right, both fundamentally in terms of doctrine and procedurally in ' terms of the Presbyterian system.

My experience with anti- . theonornic complainants is that the perception of a theonomist is the one who is: .

1) Obstinate (he is looking for a debate and stirting up controversy and contention at all times);

2) Narrow-minded (he has a one-track mind and only wants to deal with theonomic questions relative to political arid cultural ~sues in his preaching and teaching); and

3) Heretical, or at least strange (in calling for wearing clothing with unmixed fibers, wanting to stone to death "innocent children,;' and so forth) .

, If these do define "theonomy" in some people's minds, then, I am not a "theonomist"! In fact, I tell outsiders who inquire whether or not I am a "theonomist": "I am not a 'theonomist.' Rather I am a 'Calvinist' who holds to a theonomic ethic." By this I am attempting to emphasize that my

core theology is Calvinism; my Calvinism defines my theological orientation. I am attempting to indicate that my theonomic ' interests are extensions of my Calvinism into the field of ethics: God is the sovereign who determines ethics by His revelation. The word "theonomy," though a good term, is now so associated with ' emotional perceptions thatit is more ora red-flag to some than a calm descriptor. I do not want to '

be considered a one-dimensional . hobby horse-rider. Most of

. theonomy's problems are public­relations oriented (though not all of the problems are thus). Most of these public-relations' problems are in the minds of the opponents, though not all of them are . . 1 urge you to press home your disavowal of such a contentious spirit.

Theonomy and the ConfeSSion of Faith

(I) Presbyterian ecclesiastics effectively play into our hands ' ' when they ask that we read Meredith Kline's teview of Theonomy in Christian Ethics, Kline admits that the original Westminster Confession actually taught theonomy and that the American revised version continues many of those strands,

Kline notes: "Ecclesiastical courts operating u;nder the Westminster Confession of Faith are going to have their problems, therdore, if they should be of a mind to bring the Chalcedon aberration under their judicial scrutiny" (p.173). The very enemy of theonomy that your presbytery assigned for you to read admits that Confessional

16 '" THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon '" AugilSt, 1997

theology is theonornic! You ' could not have asked for more help! See also pages 174 and 189.

On page 189 Kline states:

"If, providentially, anything good is to come of the Chalcedon disturbance, perhaps, paradOxically, it will come from the v'ery embarrassment given to churches committed to the Westmlnster standards by the relationship that can be traced, as noted above, between the Chaicedonposition and certain ideas expressed in the Wesuninster Confession. Perhaps the shock of seeing where thoSe ideas lead in Chalcedon's vigorous development of them may make the church face up to the problem posed by the relevant formulations and reconsider the ConfeSsion's position on these points .... "

Iritere$tingly, Presbyterian Church in America teaching elder and 'New Testament scholar .R. tairdHarris had critiqued theonomy in Covenant settiinary's Presbyterian Covenant SenUnary Review (Spring 1979), p.l: In his second paragraph henoted of theonomy: "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."

(2) .one of the'leading . Westrriinster divines was George

Gillespie. He not only voted for the Westminster Confession of Faith, he helped write it. In William H. Hetherington's History of tne Westminster Assembly of Divines (1856) we read of Gillespie that he "beqJ.me one of the most prominent members of that August assembly, although the youngest man and minister of the whole" (p.400) "He took an equally active and influential part in the framing of the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms, which embodied the doctrinal decisions of the Assembly" (p.40l). He speaks of Gillespie's 'special eminence" in the production of Assembly papers (p.40i).

In Gillespie'S Wholesome Severity Reconciled witn Christiqn Liberty he writes:

" (2) Christ's words (Matt. 5: 17), Think not tnat I am come to destroy t1te Law or tne Prophets, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill, are comprehensive of the judicial law , it being a part of the law of Moses. Now he could not fulfill the judicial law , except either by his practice, or by teaching others still to observe it; not by his own practice, for he would not condemn the adulteress On. 8: 11), nor divide the inheritance (Luke 12:13-14). Therefore it must be by his doctrine for our observing it.

" (3) If Christ in his sennon (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.

• (4) 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 from the Jewish Magistrate to the Christian Magistrate: there being the same reason of immutability in the punishments, which is in the offenses" (in Christopher Coldwell, ed., Anthology of Presbyterian 1St Reformed Literature, pp. 182-183).

Do Gillespie's statements sound as if modem theonomists would be disbarred from courts operating under a Confession he helped write?

(3) In addition, the most important reformed published response to theonomy is Will Barker and Robert Godfrey, Theonomy: An Informed Critique (Zondervan, 1990). Though is disagrees with theonomy, it does not condemn it as heretical; it even allows that a very theonomic-type of ethic is in the Confession. Note the following excerpts.

In Theonomy: An Informed Critique church historian Sinclair Ferguson writes: "Essentially, Bahnsen accepts the doctrinal orthodoxy of the original text lof the Confession). Whether or not this is in conflict with the intention of the American Presbyterian emendation of the Confession, it is certainly in keeping with the traditional Scottish Reformed understanding of it" (pp. 323-

324). "It cannot be doubted that mainstream Puritanism did believe that the death penalty was applicable to crimes other than murder. In several instances, therefore, its practical outworking and that of theonomy are one." (p. 324). His strongest position statement is: "We have already noted that many seventeenth-century Puritans favored a closer apprOximation to the Mosaic judicial statutes and appealed to Old Testament texts to confirm their views. But we have also stressed that this position is not necessarily identical with that of theonomy" (p.339). "Not necessarily"?

Ferguson goes on to say: "No single position on every aspect of the doctrine of the law was held by the Divines at Westminster. 'They represented a variety of hues within a conservative spectrum, on many doctrines, and specifically on the doctrine of the law of God. Hence their protracted and difficult discussions. Here, as elsewhere, part of their genius lay in their ability to state doctrines clearly, yet not so narrowly as to exclude brethren among themselves who likewise were committed to generic Calvinism. Their response to Parliament's demand for proof-texts, the known theological diversity among the commissioners, and indications in the minutes that they themselves were prepared to express things in an accommodating fashion all suggest that Chapter XIX is a fine example of their Reformed inclusivism. It would have

August, 1997 'I' THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 'I' 17

satiSfied those Divines, like Gillespie, who wished that more attention would be given to the Mosaic penology; it satiSfied others who did not believe that . the Mosaic penology as such was necessarily binding, in all of its details, though the MOsaic prospectionsgenerally speaking were" (pp. 345-46).

Ferguson: "It should be noted that in many iitStances the practicalitnpucations of theonomy may not necessarily be a denial of the teaching of the Wesmiinster Confession. The words of Chapter XIX: IV, can be understood. to include the view that the Mosaic penalties tnay be ' applied by the Christian . magistrate (if "general equity" so dictates). We have already noted that such views were widespread among the Divines in relation to sPecific crimes. But this is Simply to recognize that there may be. cO=CJn groUlldin practice between the COnfession's teaching and theon6my" (pp. 346-47).

Ferguson: "rn: 'light of thiS, and the considerations \1.bove, I conclude that the ' Confession does not expound, nor does it . prescribe, a .iheonomic viewpoint. It maybe that so;me members of the Assembly were prepared to stretch 1;heineaning of 'general equity' ~s far as contemporary theonomists do ... The strongest position a , . theonomist could adopt on the basis of the Confession would be that it did not a priori reject the appuC\1.tion of th.e Mosaic jUdi'cilu punishment for crimes considered seriaum. But theoretic3l theonomy as such is"

not the teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith" (p. 348).

Tremper Longman in Theonamy: An Informed Critique: "The above criticisms should not be taken as a complete rejection of theonomy's insight into ,the law and its penalties ... We tan be grateful to theonomy for forcing the church to take these issues . seriously' (p.54).

In' the introductory note to the Conclusion of Theoitomy: An Infonned Critique, Will Barker (a PCA church historian and former General Assembly moderator) and Roben Godfrey write: "Although this volume is a critique of theonomy, several of the chapters have concluded on a positive note of appreciation for what the theonomists have contributed to our

.. uildetsl;3Itding of God's law" ' (1'.385). ~ .

D, Clair Davis. a PCA church .historian·and a non-theonomist, ' Writing in Theonomy: An Informed Critique: ''Theonomy can be of great service precisely within the context of the constitution of the American republic" (p. 392). On page 393 he writes: "Only creeds ... can define the priorities anq, direction of a denomination. If that is correct, and if no church has adopted explicit creedsfor or against theonomy, then by definition no one cart regard himself du'eatened by . those who do .not concur with his evaluation of the movement.:' "It is easy to argue that the Westmln:ster Confession's commitment to the general .equity of aid Testament law provides ample justifbition for .

18 '" THE COUNSEL of Chalcedo~'" AugUst, 1997

theonomic clarification of that equity" (p, 394).

He !\lrther notes: "What is the purpose of a' theological examination of a ministeriai candidate in a presbytery? There is not one, but two: to determine the candidate'S doctrinal ' orthodoxy and also to determine his the010gical competence, his ability to sho~ that he can think theologically. Presbyteries may . not always be clear about when they are servip.g which purpose. They"may always inquire nito questions, that require insight into theofiOmic issues, as a way of testing competence. But they may not require a particular application of the general equity of Old Testament law as a criterion of doctrinal orthodoxy within the system of doctrine. Thus must be the case, for both pro- andanti"theonomists. If that diStinction proveS too difficult to maintain, probablY it is the path Of Wisdom to forego examination in these areas" (p . . 395):

(4) Ronald Nash, a reformed theologian at Reforined , Theological Serhinary, Orlando, writes in Great Divides that: "For one thing, the people called theonomists don't appear to be dangerous. Effons to show that they are dangerous do more, I suspect, to dishonor the people raising the charges" (p. 176).

(5) Furthermore, I teCOIilIPend that you ask them if the presbytery is committed to a strict subScription. to the Confessi(m. If they do not, I do not see how they can complain too vigorously against your position (though they might still

deny it and worry about personality and procedural implications of certain select theonomists). If they do not hold thernselves closely to the Confession (Le., on the matter of the Sabbath, six day creation, etc.), how can they hold you thus? You might want to look through General Assembly minutes for the past several years to see if Review of Presbytery Minutes has ever noted your presbytery'S breach of the Confession.

The peA General Assembly and . Theonomy

(l) The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America has dealt with theonomy on several occasions and on each occasion has allowed adherence to theonomy (abbreviation: M7GA means Minutes of the Seventh General Assembly").

M7GA, "Report on Theonomy," p. 194-195: The last paragraph of text: "Our suggestion is that the General Assembly consider this, subject a matter of liberty at this time ... Since varying views have been held by Reformed people in the past on this subject, no particular view of the application of the judicial law for today should be made a basis for orthodoxy or excluded as a . heresy."

M9GA, "Review and Control of Presbyteries Repon," Section IV: Minutes recommend for approval with exception," Entry 7 (p. 145): "Evangel-June 10, 1980, p. 5., Items 19A.4.C&D - examinations of candidates

on theology were postponed for 'issue of Theonomy'. This is contrary to the Sixth General Assembly instructions .. : Entry 9 (p. 146): "Gulf Coast Presbytery ... Theonomy made an ' issue and test of orthodoxy in

equity" principle. No particular view of how best to apply this phrase is allowed by the

, Presbyterian Church in America lI$ its constitutional documents and judicial, procedures currently stand.

examining candidate for transfer M20GA (p. 235) dissent to of licensure contrary ,to Seventh 91-3, which allowed a session to General Assembly deny a congregational member's pronouncement." nomination to the eldership.

M10GA, Case 1: Complaint This dissent contained over a of Stephen M. Lee, et al., against 100 names of General Assembly Gl.1lf Coast Presbytery: "[The commissioner's regarding Gunter presbytery] failed to sustain the case (p. 235). And in that case theolOgical examination of the General Assembly refused to Raymond Bradford Fell because deal with the doctrine of of his panicular view of the theonomy, merely allowing a application of God's Law for local session to determine its today, that view being what is own requirements. commonly referred to as

Kennedy Smartt, an avid 'theonomy.' Reasons for the complaint: 1. The action of the opposer of theonomy, writes in Gulf Coast Presbytery is contrary his I Am Reminded (p. 200): to (a) the guidelines of the Some men "treated the Florida

case like the issue was Seventh General Assembly ... , and (b) the repon of the Ninth theonomy, which it was not."

General Assembly admonishing Note that a good number of Gulf Coast Presbytery for making PCA elders are theonomic. The an issue of 'theonomy in the General Assembly of the licensure examination of Presbyterian Church in America Raymond Bradford Fell." has never condemned theonomy [Sustained, p. 55.] note: Rev. or individual theonomists as Brad Fell is still a PCA pastor in heretical or unacceptable. There good standing with the 'are close to 100 ministers (at Presbyterian Church in America. least) in good standing in the

MllGA, Recommendation 29 Addendum: "Since there are differences of opinion with regard to the application and 'general equity' of the various penal sanction, this declaration shall not be used by the coutts of the Church to bind the conscience of elders in the PCA" (p. 97). Note: This General Assembly statement allows views of the application of the "general

Presbyterian Church in America who are theonomic in orientation, many of whom regularly serve on committees and agencies of the Presbyterian Church in America. (to be continued)

August, 1997 '" THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon '" 19