THE TRINITY REVIEW For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare [are] not fleshly but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ. And they will be ready to punish all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled. August 1992 Copyright 2003 John W. Robbins Post Office Box 68, Unicoi, Tennessee 37692 Email: [email protected] Website: www.trinityfoundation.org Telephone: 423.743.0199 Fax: 423.743.2005 Will the Real Greg Bahnsen Please Stand Up? John W. Robbins No Other Standard: Theonomy and Its Critics, Greg "nonsense" in his Institutes of Biblical Law (551). L. Bahnsen. Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Dr. Bahnsen, however, continues to advocate both Economics, 1991, 345 + xv pages, indexes, notes, views in this book, though the discussion of the $25.00. distinctive Theonomic Theorem is relegated to an appendix. This is Dr. Bahnsen’s third book on the subject of Theonomy, and it is intended as a reply to his As examples of his contradictory statements in this critics. It contains a Publisher’s Preface by Gary book, let me offer these: Espousing the Theonomic North, 15 chapters, 2 appendixes on Matthew 5 and view, Bahnsen declares, "Jesus bound us...to every Vern Poythress, and two indexes. The chapters are jot and tittle of the Old Testament legislation of arranged topically, rather than by critic, although God’s will, not allowing us to subtract even the the critics are sometimes accorded several pages of least commandment" (221). "Jesus warned against criticism. dismissing even the least Old Testament commandment,... Not a single law, word, or stroke can be violated with impunity..." (99). "Christ did Two Views of the Law not intend to have the slightest stroke of that law As I demonstrated in my review of Dr. Bahnsen’s altered" (121). "Matthew 5:17-19, for instance, earlier book, By This Standard ("Theonomic teaches the abiding validity of every Old Testament Schizophrenia," The Trinity Review, February precept..." (165). Espousing the Confessional view 1992), he sets forth two differing, two Bahnsen writes: "The underlying principles of the contradictory, views of God’s law, which I call the Old Testament civil law are the abiding moral Theonomic view and the Confessional view. The standards which should continue to guide civil Theonomic view asserts the "abiding validity of the magistrates in our day. That is why the Mosaic law law in exhaustive detail" (the phrase is Bahnsen’s), is a ‘model’ to be emulated, not a code to be simply and the Confessional view, expressed in Chapter 19 quoted or read into modern statute books" (160). of the Westminster Confession of Faith, asserts that "Since some of these [Old Testament] laws are some Old Testament laws have expired, others have obviously not to be observed today..."(93). been abrogated, and still others are valid today. Bahnsen’s present advocacy of the Theonomic view These two views are obviously contradictory. They is so muted and de-emphasized in this book, when cannot both be true. The father of compared to his earlier volumes, that Bahnsen Reconstructionism, Rousas Rushdoony, apparently seems to be quietly changing his mind. That is realized this and dismissed the Confessional view as completely understandable, for several reasons. Let 2 The Trinity Review August 1992 me name three. First, the two views are blatantly Bahnsen’s frequently repeated complaint against his contradictory, and one can continue to advocate critics in this book is that they are confused and both only by becoming willfully blind to the misunderstand Theonomy. Undoubtedly some of contradiction involved or by explicitly repudiating them do. But the Theonomists must bear their share logic. As Bahnsen has de-emphasized his of the blame for that confusion, for the Theonomists Theonomic view, however, he talks more and more themselves are confused. The contradictory about logic. Rather than explicitly repudiating logic, premises of the movement have split it into at least he lards this book with so many references to logic, two major and several minor groups, each of which to reasoning, fallacies, and consistency that it claims to be the true Theonomists. There are the becomes almost pedantic. He writes like a child Tylerites, the Rushdoonyites, the Bahnsenites, and eager to show off a new toy. I hope, however, that so on. They fight and bicker among themselves, he is doing more than playing with logic. splitting families and churches, and some of them would even deny the names Reconstructionist and A second reason why Bahnsen may be quietly Theonomist to the others. Their opinions on any abandoning Theonomy is more political in nature: specific issue vary widely. It is no wonder that some Bahnsen, by taking an ordination vow as a minister of Theonomy’s critics are confused. of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, is legally committed to the Confessional view, not the Bahnsen mentions a few of the disagreements Theonomic view. within the Recon camp: A third reason for his apparent abandonment of "The attempt to interpret and apply the Theonomy may be this: The initial plausibility of details of God’s commandments is a very Christian Reconstructionism and the support it has necessary task [but on pages 19-26 and 57- received were derived, not from the Theonomic 62 Bahnsen dismisses criticism of details Theorem, that is, the abiding validity of the law in as illegitimate--JR], but one which leaves exhaustive detail, but from the Confessional view. much room for controversy and Were the Theonomists logically consistent in disagreement. I myself do not agree at a expounding the Theonomic Theorem, all would number of points with the exegesis or easily recognize them as beyond the pale of reasoning attempted by many who have Christianity. If all the details of the Old Testament been identified as Theonomists. [Notice law are binding today, as the Theonomic Theorem Bahnsen’s reluctance to call them asserts, then the coming of Christ and the writing of Theonomists—JR.] A notorious example the New Testament are of no effect. If the details of is R. J. Rushdoony’s view that believers the law are binding (as the Theonomists say), and ought to observe the dietary laws today circumcision is required by the law (as the law [which observance is obviously required says), then we must all be circumcised. Theonomy by the Theonomic Theorem that the Old is the ideology of the Judaizers. The reason this has Testament law is binding in exhaustive not been more widely recognized is that the detail – JR], but they are not subject to Theonomists themselves refuse to draw some of the discipline (even by the church) for failing conclusions logically implied by their Theorem. To to observe the law’s Sabbath remain Christians, they have had to refuse to make regulations...[which discipline seems to be logical deductions from their false premises. As a implied by the Theonomic Theorem – JR]. consequence, some of them have attacked logic, A whole host of secondary, detailed rather than their false premises, as the source of the disagreements in interpretation or problem. application could be mentioned: e.g., Gary North’s endorsement of literal stoning as Confused Theonomists the method of execution today [which is required by the Theonomic Theorem – JR]...or David Chilton’s treatment of the 3 The Trinity Review August 1992 head tax as the province of the civil Historical Parallels with Neo- government.... Especially troublesome are certain hermeneutical abuses: for instance orthodoxy I cannot concur with the fanciful stream- of-consciousness connections, allegorical I have been watching the Recon movement for flights, and even numerology proposed by about 20 years. In the early days of the Journal of James Jordan...or the artificial imposition Christian Reconstruction I contributed a few essays of an imagined, blanket outline (with and book reviews to that publication. But when it imprecise, pre-established categories) on became clear to me where the movement was going Biblical materials suggested by Ray (e.g., Bahnsen published his first book on Sutton..." (20n.-21n.). Theonomy in 1977; James Jordan began publishing his irrational blathering, etc.), I stopped. Several Bahnsen’s last complaint about hermeneutical years later, when Gary North invited me to write a flights of fancy in Jordan and Sutton is right on the book for his Blueprint series, he found my views mark. Once one has curbed or abandoned logic, as unpublishable. Among other things, I refused to most Van Tilians have done, there is no reason to adhere to Sutton’s newly discovered five-point object to Jordan’s and Sutton’s views at all. The covenant structure. major tool of Biblical exegesis, which no seminarian learns today, is logic. Hermeneutical The Recon movement is, in some ways, reminiscent flights of fancy are to be expected from such of the neo-orthodox movement, which burst on the deliberately irrational teaching. (As an aside, it theological scene in the 1920s, and at first attracted should also be noted that Bahnsen’s rejection of the attention and support of some orthodox Sutton’s five-point covenant "outline" makes Christians. Neo-orthodoxy vigorously opposed the Bahnsen an antinomian, according to Gary North, theological liberalism of the churches. Some for that is how North defines "antinomian." Odd conservative Christians saw neo-orthodoxy as an how North continues to publish the books of ally in the defense of the faith. The theological, antinomian Theonomists.) social, and political optimism of theological liberalism had been dealt a serious blow by the first What no one has yet observed is the major reason World War; Hitler was to deliver a mortal blow 20 for the differences among the Theonomists: The years later.