Monday, February 26, 2007


As we close our critique of theonomy, let me say that, I of course do not claim to have the last word on the matter. Could I be wrong? Absolutely--I could be wrong. I also know that as human beings, we influence each other more easily than we even know. So, if I am wrong, may the Lord open my eyes to see that I am wrong. So where do I stand on this issue?


I believe in God's Law, and I think the best book demonstrating a theology of the state, and even more, is Vern Poythress' The Shadow of Christ In the Law of Moses. To be fair, Bahnsen responds to this in his book No Other Standard, in which he claims that Poythress is kind of a theonomist, but one with a severely weak view of theonomy. That may be, but the concerns remain that we avoid a flat type of hermeneutic.

Finally, I would refer the reader to not only the above book, but also to the brief article found at by G.I. Williamson entitled "Some Thoughts On Theonomy", as well as John Frame's excellent article in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, called "The One, The Many, And Theonomy". Frame (in his usual style) speaks of the benefits and problems of both theonomy and intrusion ethics.*

Until next time brothers and sisters, this is the unconvinced of theonomy non-theonomist Josh Brisby, signing off. :0)

*Intrusion ethics is the popular view of Meredith Kline, which sees the Mosaic Covenant as a temporary intrusion into history of eschatological judgment. Since, Kline argues, it was a temporary intrusion, we should not model today's state after it.


Anonymous said...

I never saw you deal with Paul's rebuttal to your part 2 entry on Theonomy. Why not?

Josh Brisby said...


To be honest, I didn't deal with what brother Paul wrote because he and I had discussed it on the phone, and, honestly, he is a way better debater than me. :0) In fact, I don't even debate him anymore, I just listen. :0)

But I still remain unconvinced of theonomy. :0)