Blog

*Note: This is the manuscript used for a 20-minute Cultural Engagement Assessment delivered during an on-campus seminar at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. For a more exhaustive treatment of the issues expounded in this manuscript, please see the recommended resources included at the conclusion.

Growing up in the buckle of the Bible belt, I was always led to believe that the United States of America was “founded as a Christian nation.” While this misconception was rectified during my study of American history in high school,[1] the past ten years since graduation have revealed to me that many people in the South embrace this faulty conviction (especially in rural parts of Texas). Nevertheless, despite the competing opinions that exist regarding Christianity’s relationship to the founding of the United States, it seems inconceivable to identify twenty-first century America as anything remotely close to Christian. The legislating of gay marriage,[2] the promotion of drag queens at children’s birthday parties,[3] the prevalence of increasing racial hostilities,[4] and the disintegration of the nuclear family[5] are but a few alarming testimonies of rampant debauchery in America. If ever there was a time that the United States could be identified as a Christian nation, it most certainly is not now.

What’s the solution to the culture war in America? How should Christians respond to a society that continues to undergo rapid moral deterioration? When evaluating the proposed remedies that have been offered to counteract America’s morally depraved milieu, one option must be rejected as biblically and theologically untenable: Theonomy. Although once largely secluded to a small sect of Presbyterianism,[6] Theonomy appears to have recently experienced a surge in popularity across multi-denominational lines.[7] Furthermore, significant ambiguity abounds regarding the definition of Theonomy, why properly understanding—and refuting—Theonomy should matter to Christians, and how the implementation of Theonomy can threaten religious liberty within a civilization. Therefore, against the backdrop of these concerns, the remainder of this address will seek to introduce Theonomy through a consideration of three salient questions. All subsequent feedback in this assessment of Theonomy will be presented from a Particular Baptist perspective.[8]

1. What is Theonomy?

From an etymological standpoint, the English term “Theonomy” comes from two Greek words: theos (God) and nomos (law). Thus, when considering this designation on its own terms, Theonomy is simply a reference to God’s law. Broadly speaking, every orthodox Christian is a “Theonomist” because every follower of Jesus Christ will hold God’s law in the highest esteem (Ps. 119:97; Rom. 7:22). However, when examining how the label “Theonomy” has been championed by self-identifying Theonomists over the past half century, it quickly becomes clear that there is far more to this term than initially meets the eye. Greg L. Bahnsen, a noted Christian apologist and arguably the most prominent representative of Theonomy, offers a standard explanation of how Theonomy should be understood as a comprehensive system.

[Theonomy] is objective and biblical in character. Its policy for Old Testament interpretation and for application of the laws found [in the Old Testament] is that the moral standards revealed by God are all beneficial and continue to be binding unless further revelation teaches otherwise (Deut. 4:2; 10:13; Ps. 119:160; Matt. 5:19; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). As a result, the Theonomist concludes that most of the judicial laws of the Old Testament, having not been modified or canceled by Scripture later, continue to be binding according to the principle which they teach or illustrate.[9]

In summation, Theonomy is an ethical system that posits the perpetuity of the Old Covenant moral and civil (or judicial) laws. As a reflection of God’s holy and immutable character (Mal. 3:6; James 1:17), Theonomists would see these ordinances given to theocratic Israel as the supreme and unchanging standard for how civil law should be enforced throughout the nations.[10] Making these clarifying distinctions are paramount to generating an accurate perception of how Theonomy has been historically codified, as opposed to recent Theonomic variations (e.g., “General Equity Theonomy”).[11] In the final analysis, discerning whether Theonomy is compatible with biblical ethics boils down to how Christians answer this question: “Does the Old Covenant Civil Law abide in the New Covenant exhaustively?”[12] As I will elaborate under the forthcoming headings, it is my contention that the most biblically, theologically, and confessionally Protestant answer to this question is a resounding no.

2. Why Should Clergy and Laity Care About Theonomy?

In short, clergy and laity should care about Theonomy because every Christian has been called by God to pursue a true knowledge of His Word, and to bring their lives into alignment with the instruction contained therein (Eph. 5:17; 2 Tim. 2:15). Ergo, if Theonomy is an accurate representation of what God’s Word teaches, then followers of Christ are obligated to wholeheartedly embrace it. Conversely, if Theonomy is not a consistent framework for understanding biblical ethics, then believers should ensure they do not espouse its paradigmatic distinctives. As I previously mentioned, my argument is that Theonomy—as represented by Bahnsen and those who are likeminded—is biblically untenable when surveyed from a robustly Protestant lens. On what basis do I believe this to be the case?

Historically, Protestants have understood the Old Testament Law—as described in portions of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy—to be divided into three distinct categories: moral commandments, civil commandments, and ceremonial commandments.[13] The moral commandments are primarily summarized in the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:1-17), and deal with how man is to relate to God and to neighbor (e.g., Matt. 22:36-40).[14] The civil commandments were specifically designed to dictate how the nation of Israel was to be governed by those who were entrusted with leadership responsibilities, as well as to provide practical instruction regarding how the Israelites should conduct themselves in legal and civil affairs (e.g., Lev. 25:29).[15] The ceremonial commandments provided the nation of Israel with a collection of ordinances to govern its religious expression (e.g., Lev. 22:20-25).[16] Insofar this three-fold division of the Old Covenant Law has been represented, Theonomists in the same vein as Bahnsen would begin to raise some objections. J. Ligon Duncan III is immensely helpful on this point:

[Theonomy] identifies the most significant distinction between Old Covenant laws as twofold: moral and ceremonial. Historically speaking, this means a functional denial (most commonly in the form of a reinterpretation) of the traditional Reformed threefold division of the law: moral, civil and ceremonial—and, alternatively, the espousal of a twofold division–moral and ceremonial (or restorative). Theologically, it involves an attempt to identify all non-ceremonial Old Covenant law with the moral law (summarized in the Ten Commandments) in such a way that they constitute a unity. Hence, if one           accepts this identification, and grants that the moral law remains authoritative in the New Covenant era, so also must one grant the enduring validity of all other non-ceremonial law.[17] 

Whereas Protestants have historically identified a three-fold division of the Old Covenant Law, Theonomists do not. Whereas Protestants have historically affirmed that only the moral commandments of God’s Law are universally and perpetually binding in the New Covenant epoch (Rom. 2:12-16; Heb. 8:6-13), Theonomists affirm that every non-ceremonial law is binding on Christians residing in the New Covenant.[18] As such, a significant theological chasm exists between those who are for, and against, Theonomy. Theonomists and non-Theonomists will have drastically different approaches to navigating the relationship between the Old and New Covenants, which will yield notable doctrinal and practical incongruities.[19] Consequently, accepting or rejecting Theonomy will directly impact the cogency of one’s biblical and theological beliefs.

So, why should clergy and laity care about Theonomy? Because the truth of God’s Word is at stake, and the God of truth is not glorified through error (John 14:6; 16:13; Titus 1:2). What’s more, as will be explored by way of conclusion, adherence to Theonomy warrants drastic implications for how Christians engage with secular culture.

3. How Does Theonomy Apply to a Christian’s Engagement With Culture?

As those residing in the New Covenant epoch of redemptive history, believers are called to “make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that [Jesus] commanded” (Matt. 28:19-20). This Great Commission mandate is at the heart of the Christian faith, which necessarily means that cultural engagement is integral to the life of God’s people in a fallen world (Ps. 96:2-6; Rom. 10:12-17). Moreover, if believers are to be faithful in seeking the advancement of the Kingdom, then they must first be equipped to know (1) what they believe; (2) why they believe what they believe; (3) how to graciously engage the culture with the core tenets of their faith (2 Tim. 2:24-26; 1 Pet. 3:15; Jude 1:3). Yet, a uniquely New Covenant approach to Christian cultural engagement will not be influenced by Theonomy.

In keeping with their desire to see Old Covenant civil law applied to the New Covenant, Theonomists must inevitably endorse the enforcement of capital punishment for the following behavior: murder (Lev. 24:17, 21); adultery (Lev. 20:10); homosexuality (Lev. 20:13); premarital sex (Deut. 22:21-22); kidnapping (Deut. 24:7); false prophecy (Deut. 18:20); blasphemy (Lev. 24:10-16); breaking the Sabbath (Ex. 31:14); disobedience to parents (Deut. 21:18-21).[20] Given the decadent state of Western society in the twenty first century, a uniform application of Theonomy would lead to the execution of millions. Such a thought leaves one to wonder how Theonomy could bring about the most effective fulfillment of the Great Commission if unbelievers are being federally executed for their sin. Thankfully, there is a more biblically and theologically viable approach to guide Christians in their engagement with secular culture.

In the New Covenant epoch of redemptive history, Christian cultural engagement is exclusively tied to bearing witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ through word and deed (Matt. 5:13-16; 2 Cor. 5:10-21). Living out a distinctively Christian ethic is not contingent upon the government implementing Old Covenant civil law, nor does the furthering of God’s kingdom entail infringing on the religious liberty of unbelievers. On this note, Andrew T. Walker’s incisive observations in Liberty For All: Defending Everyone’s Religious Freedom in a Pluralistic Age are worthy of contemplation.

For a Christian, religious liberty expresses confidence in the Gospel. The Gospel needs no accomplices. It is independent from artificial supports that would attempt to bolster its credibility. The Gospel needs not the bejeweled trappings of salesmanship or a sword-drawn threat. Those with ears to hear will hear (Matt. 11:15). Humanity is not under compulsion to accept the blessings of Christ. The rich young ruler’s rejection of Christ was not met with earthly punishment (Luke 18:18-30). As one commentator observes, “God as disclosed in Jesus Christ is neither arbitrary nor coercive. It is an essential characteristic of the Gospel that God Himself did not use force to win our allegiance.”[21]

In accordance with God’s infinitely wise and holy providence, He is flawlessly redeeming an elect people until the return of Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:3-14); even in the midst of a degenerating world, the salvation of God’s people will be accomplished to the praise of His glorious grace (Rom. 9:16-24). If Christians will only concern themselves with living quiet and respectable lives within secular society—bearing witness to the reality of their faith as God grants them opportunities to do so—they can rest assured to hear these most precious words at the time of their entrance into glory: “well done, good and faithful servant” (Matt. 25:21). Indeed, may the body of Christ be found faithful to that end. Theonomy is not the answer.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Recommended/Supplemental Resources on Theonomy (Not Referenced In Manuscript)

Articles:

Gordon, T. David. “Critique of Theonomy: A Taxonomy.” Westminster Theological Journal 56   (1994): 23-43.

Kline, Meredith G. “Comments on an Old-New Error: A Review of Greg Bahnsen, Theonomy in  Christian Ethics.” Westminster Theological Journal 41 (1978-79): 172-89.

Oss, Douglas A. “The Influence of Hermeneutical Frameworks in the Theonomy Debate.”  Westminster Theological Journal 51 (1989): 227-58.

Books:

Barker, William S., and W. Robert Godfrey, eds. Theonomy: A Reformed Critique. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990.

Gribben, Crawford. Survival and Resistance in Evangelical America: Christian Reconstruction in the Pacific Northwest. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2021.

Poythress, Vern S. The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1995.

---

[1] As persuasively argued in Gregg L. Frazer, The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders: Reason, Revelation, and Revolution (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2012), the founding fathers of America never intended to create a “Christian nation.” As such, it is historically improper to see the United States as being “founded as a Christian nation.”

[2] “Same-Sex Marriage Is Made Legal Nationwide with Obergefell v. Hodges Decision,” History.com (A&E Television Networks, June 23, 2020), https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/obergefell-v-hodges-ruling-same-sex-marriage-legalized-nationwide.

[3] Paige Matsen, “Drag Shows Aren’t a Threat to Kids, but LGBTQ Backlash Is,” The Charlotte Observer, September 22, 2022, https://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/article266109561.html.

[4] Justin Worland, “America’s Long Overdue Awakening on Systemic Racism,” Time Magazine, June 11, 2020, https://time.com/5851855/systemic-racism-america/.

[5] David Brooks, “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake,” The Atlantic (Atlantic Media Company, March 15, 2020), https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-nuclear-family-was-a-mistake/605536/.

[6] In his article, “American Culture Is Broken. Is Theonomy the Answer?,” The Gospel Coalition, March 31, 2021, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/theonomy/, Andrew T. Walker helpfully ties the initial roots of Theonomy to the 1970’s-1980’s, specifically to those within American Presbyterian contexts (e.g., R.J. Rushdoony and Greg L. Bahnsen).

[7] The rise of Theonomy in recent years has been evidenced by its appearance within prominent groups such as Alpha & Omega Ministries (i.e., Dr. James White), Apologia Studios (i.e., Jeff Durbin), and Christ Church (i.e., Douglas Wilson). Given the vast scope of these ministries in contemporary American Christianity, one can only speculate about the pervasiveness of their teachings on Theonomy.

[8] By “Particular Baptist perspective,” I mean a theological framework that is consistent with the doctrine espoused in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689). You can access a modernized version of that ancient creed here: Brian Malcolm, “The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith,” The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, June 2, 1970, https://www.the1689confession.com/.

[9] Greg L. Bahnsen, No Other Standard: Theonomy and Its Critics (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991), 32.

[10] Tom Hicks, “Why Is Theonomy Unbiblical?,” Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, February 16, 2022, https://cbtseminary.org/why-is-theonomy-unbiblical/.

[11] “General Equity Theonomy” is a designation that some have welcomed due to the contents of chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. However, despite the expression “general equity” being found in those confessionally Reformed documents, the notion of “General Equity Theonomy” is trivial at best. Virtually all Bible believing Christians can affirm the “general equity” of the entire Old Testament inasmuch as it profits believers in their spiritual pilgrimage (Rom. 15:4). For the benefit of the reader, consider the substance of chapter nineteen in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith:

“To them 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” (WCF 19.4).

“To them also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being of moral use” (2LBCF 19.4).

[12] In chapter two of Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Press, 2002), Greg L. Bahnsen embarks upon roughly 50 pages of exegeting Matthew 5:17-20. In doing so, Bahnsen arrives at the conclusion that the entirety of the Old Covenant civil law carries over into the New Covenant exhaustively. As a premier spokesperson for classical Theonomy, it is likely that Bahnsen’s commentary encapsulates much of how this system has been typified for decades. 

[13] A Presbyterian example of affirming the three-fold division of the Old Covenant Law is seen in Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George M. Giger, vol. 2 (Philipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1997), 145-7. Moreover, for a Baptist example of affirming the three-fold division of the Old Covenant Law, see “Of The Law Of God,” John Gill: Doctrinal Divinity (Christian Classics Ethereal Library), accessed October 11, 2022, https://ccel.org/ccel/gill/doctrinal/doctrinal.v.vi.html.

[14]  Samuel E. Waldron, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (Welwyn Garden City, UK: EP Books, 2016), 282.

[15] Waldron, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, 282.

[16] Waldron, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, 282.

[17] J. Ligon Duncan, “Moses’ Law for Modern Government: The Intellectual and Sociological Origins of the Christian Reconstructionist Movement,” rscottclark.org, July 1, 2019, https://rscottclark.org/2019/07/moses-law-for-modern-government-the-intellectual-and-sociological-origins-of-the-christian-reconstructionist-movement/.

[18] On page 68 of his work, In Defense of the Decalogue: A Critique of New Covenant Theology (Enumclaw, WA: Winepress Publishing, 2001), Richard C. Barcellos demonstrates how the perpetuity of the moral law (i.e., Ten Commandments) is grounded in natural law, not in the Old Covenant Law itself:

“The New Testament clearly abrogates the whole Old Covenant, including the Decalogue, as it functioned within the Old Covenant, and yet borrows from its documents as the basis for New Covenant ethics (1 Cor. 9:9-10; 14:34; 2 Cor 13:1; Eph 6:2-3; etc).”

Thus, although the totality of the Old Covenant Law has been abolished with the redemptive-historical inauguration of the New Covenant (Heb. 8:6-13), the moral statutes contained in the Decalogue—having been written on the conscience of all image bearing creatures (Rom. 2:12-16; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:9-10)—remain binding on all humanity from the Garden of Eden to the Last Day. As disclosed in the body of this manuscript, Theonomy does not properly account for this certitude.

[19] For a thorough treatment of the major incompatibilities between Theonomy and non-Theonomic systems, see Benjamin L. Merkle, Discontinuity to Continuity: A Survey of Dispensational and Covenantal Theologies (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), 201-12.

[20] Marc A. Clauson, “A History of the Idea of ‘God’s Law’ (Theonomy): Its Origins, Development and Place in Political and Legal Thought,” DigitalCommons@Cedarville, accessed October 11, 2022, https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/faculty_books/66, 14.

[21] Andrew T. Walker, Liberty For All: Defending Everyone’s Religious Freedom in a Pluralistic Age (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2021), 161.