Kristafal's Musings

The following is taken from my Feathernotes app. It is an excerpt of my personal musings on Theonomy and its Objectors, and the fallout that occurred. An unfortunate but continual (and unsurprising) debate. Reformed Theological Seminary once employed the late Dr. Bahnsen during the years of 1975-79, after which he contract was let to expire. The document from which I am interacting is entitled, “What Really Happened at Reformed Theological Seminary” (April, 1979; hereafter RTS). The questions posed to Bahnsen may be found under the heading: The Faculty Discussion of Theonomy. The particular question of interest reflected on in this post is #27:

“Q. 27: Give your response to the following specific laws of the OT and how they could be observed today?” –What Really Happened at RTS, pages 24-28.

My Opening Thoughts:

Currently, I am reading through Greg Bahnsen’s testimony of what transpired at RTS in the late 1970’s when he was fired without cause regarding his views/teachings/writings on theonomy. In particular, the controversy surrounded his publishing of his book Theonomy in Christian Ethics; which was an updated form of his Masters’ Thesis at Westminster Theological Seminary. My interest in this area of thought has been ongoing since 2015 when I first enrolled in the graduate program at Luther Rice Seminary in Lithonia, GA. I was first introduced to the subject of theonomy in Greg L. Bahnsen’s book, By This Standard which I had purchased for an upcoming ethics class. I read it during my oldest son’s pee-wee football practices.

At the time I thought Bahsen’s arguments for God’s Law (theonomy) were cogent and very detailed. I was surprised to learn that other Christians were more often than not turned off by theonomic theory. The controversy that Bahnsen retells, including the conversations he had with his peers (other faculty matters) is not that surprising since I have enjoyed some of the same vitriol over the years regarding my own theonomic outlook. I find that many of the misunderstandings occur surrounding the subject matter because people don’t take time to read the many volumes that teach it. Of course, I also realize that tradition, theological leanings, and what Bahnsen terms a latent antinomianism is prevalent in many Christian circles here in the West. But, enough of my meandering…

Pertaining to the matters discussed below Bahnsen writes,

“The faculty [RTS] discussion of theonomy took place Monday afternoon, July 17, 1978. It lasted about four and a half hours. The faculty would not permit me to tape the questions and answers, and thus I could only take notes on the discussion. (However I made sure that each question was duly recorded in my notes before answering any of them.) This was surprising since each faculty critic came with prepared questions and usually with written notes, whereas I had to answer extemporaneously.” —What Really Happened at RTS, page 9.

As I read through the objections presented by the faculty during their interview of his book and views on the subject I notice a common attitude present. Often times when a person wants to argue against a position that you hold they will attempt to make the issue personal via emotive responses. This is often seen when a person’s opinions are expressed in the form of revealing a distressing or offensive element of that which you hold that they disagree with. Unbelievers use a similar ploy when trying to argue with you during times of witnessing. They perform, what I have come to call, linguistic leap frog. They ask a question to trap the one they have a problem with. When the problem begins to be addressed, they move to another issue. Like a frog they jump from one Lilly pad to another never settling, and thus, never allowing their opponent or their view to stick them to the true issue at hand.

You might wonder, “What is the true issue at hand?” That they dislike your position. They reject it off hand. And, regardless of what you tell them they refuse to hear you out. Reasoning and logical thought are thrown out the window. Preference is showed to the elevated opinion of the objector, regardless of whether or not their argument is cogent to the facts at hand.

This is precisely what occurred at RTS if Bahsen’s testimony of the facts is accurate. Questions about theonomy–that is, specifics about surrounding certain OT biblical regulations (i.e., case laws)–are asked, but when they are answered others immediately surface. The impression the reader gets is that the answer to the question is not what is important. Rather, the importance is in trying to show the offensive nature of the theonomic position. Mind you, Bahnsen has already told his audience–as he does the readers of his books:

“Theonomy is not dependent upon the specific exegesis and understanding of each law of the OT… [Rather,] Theonomy argues for the general thesis of the law’s validity, not for any particular understanding of the particulars of the OT commandments” (Q. 27, What Really Happened at RTS, p. 24).

Q. 27A: “Israel was to destroy all heathen places of worship in occupying the land.”

Bahnsen’s Reply: “This was not a standing law, but a positive law to Israel on that occasion. It does not justify our destroying pagan temples in the United States. However, Israel was to prohibit the external following of heathen religions–just as the Westminster Larger Catechism tells us at the second commandment that the sins forbidden include ‘the tolerating of a false religion.’ *Every government must forbid certain religions… Today many elements of the Christian religion are violated by the government; in a Christian state, heathen religions would be likewise jeopardized.”

My Response: A very salient point by Bahnsen. What he is saying is that certain laws (instructions/commands from the Lord) were bound to that time and period, specifically the conquest of Canaan. They do not apply in the same way since that particular positive law has been accomplished historically. There is an underlying principle that is timeless however. Christian men and women should not tolerate false religious beliefs/faiths/systems as seen in 2 Corinthians 10:3-6. Our duty is to tear down any objection raised against Christ. Does this mean that we are to walk into a mosque and interrupt their service or destroy the edifices of the building? No. But it does mean that a Christian controlled society has the right to prevent the building of such sites of false worship. And, it does mean that Christians have a right to protest the erection of such structures or to argue in public forums against those belief systems. The desire of the positive law given to the Israelites sent to inhabit the land was to eliminate the vestiges of false religion that had led the nations living within the land of Canaan away from worshiping the true Creator God. It was to protect the citizens and their children from being pulled down by or perverted by false teaching/false worship that would lead them away from God heading down a path towards destruction.

Q. 27 D: “What about the law governing determination of virginity by the ‘tokens of virginity.’ How can the punishment of a guilty bride be reconciled with the NT teaching on forgiveness and reconciliation?

Bahnsen’s Reply: “I have seen many interpretations of this passage, but am still unsure of its exact meaning. However, as Van Til has taught us, there should be no external judges of God’s word (such as tradition, culture, our personal-feelings on what is reasonable, etc.) Unless there are internal indications in the Bible that this law is not binding today, then we should not stand back and judge it according to our own feeling and tradition. If God commands it, then so be it. The question is not whether I like it, but whether God requires it. Whatever this law requires, it does not need to be ‘reconciled with the NT doctrine of forgiveness (*as though the wrathful God of the OT had been superseded by the loving God of the NT). The OT was replete with the teachings of forgiveness, love, reconciliation, etc. If the law was consistent with such OT teachings (*which obviously it was) then it is likewise consistent with the NT teachings on the same subject.”

My Response: There is often a false dichotomy presented when questioning the laws of God inscribed in the older covenant texts. The idea has permeated the minds of many Evangelical Christians that the OT is no longer applicable since the NT has come about. A false distinction between God’s law and His grace has arisen in the minds of believers. For if their understanding of OT texts does not reconcile with what they believe are the premiere truths of the NT, then the OT must be laid aside. Law is viewed as harsh and restrictive and grace is seen as agreeable and freeing. However, grace and law are not opposing standards but are, definitionally speaking, different categories of thought. They go hand-in-hand and work together rather than in opposition. Before salvation the law points out the sinful and helpless estate of man driving him or her to the work of Christ and the grace of God demonstrated via the Holy Spirit’s ministrations in applying His regenerative work on the individual in question. After salvation, the grace of God via changed mind (heart) enables the former covenant-breaker to be a covenant-keeper upholding (fulfilling, confirming) the law of God in faith through Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Marcionism is an ancient heresy that seems to rear its ugly head in such circumstances where the OT and its laws (stated, applied, and upheld–i.e., penalized) are seen as harsh and having no true place in the NT outlook. I wish that Christians would see this folly for what it truly is.

Q. 27 E: “Why were homosexuals punished in the OT, but not lesbians?”

Bahnsen’s Reply: “I do not believe that such was the case. The law is couched in language applying to the male form of this perversion, but it equally applied to females. (*This literary characteristic is typical of many OT laws.)”

My Response: Arguments from silence, which is what the questioner has just posed to Bahnsen do not prove anything because they don’t say anything. What typically happens in such cases is that the questioner who seeks to cite silence as an “Aha moment! of I gotcha!” has not proven their case, rather they’ve read their own biases into it. The prohibition here in the OT regarding “men lying with men as a man lies with a woman” lays the basis for denying that women can or should lie with women in a sexual manner. The common name of “lesbian” (common in our day) does not have to be cited, nor do women specifically to prove that homosexual unions are prohibited and condemned in OT laws (God’s Law); or stated another way, in God’s economy (the governance of His house dedicated to His name–i.e., Israel). What the modern person calls “Equal Rights” is here inferred in this law; applicable to both men and women.

Q. 27 F: “How can one possibly think that the levirite marriage should be kept today?”

Bahnsen’s Reply: “I don’t know. I do not believe that it is an abiding valid institution. The law regarding it was given to insure a family’s inheritance in the promise land. Since that land was typological of the coming kingdom of Christ (of which we have the inheritance down-payment already, with the Holy Spirit in our hearts), the laws regarding inheritance in Palestine expired with the land’s significance (that is, in the NT).”

Q. 27 G: “Deut. 13 calls for the annihilation of an entire town for apostacy. Yet it was never applied in Israel. How can it be binding today?”

Bahnsen’s Reply: “The fact that it was never obeyed in Israel says nothing whatsoever as to the moral obligation Israel had to obey it. The details of its current day application are not clear to me; again, this is something calling for study (*not a priori dismissal).”

My Thoughts: Are the laws of the OT harsh, barbaric, or outdated? Obviously, there are nuances to how certain case laws would be handled in our time. The underlying principles are what remain important and applicable. But such an answer is not acceptable to the mind with an a priori commitment to reject the notion as archaic and off-base. The questions are not geared towards understanding the position, but seem focused on pointing out the objections of the questioner’s and the ludicrous notion (in their minds) that Christians, let alone a nation of people in the civil realm, would be required to come to a consensus and obey those said Laws of God. This idea appears vividly in Q. 27 C) where the questioner asks Bahnsen,

Q. 27C: “Can an obedient nation today really expect to experience the blessings promised to Israel (cf. p. 445 [in Theonomy in Christian Ethics]).”

Bahnsen’s Reply: “Yes. The law of Moses is upheld as a model to the nations in Deuteronomy. Proverbs promises that righteousness exalts a nation.”

My Response: The fault in Theonomy is not found in any other source than the Law Giver’s rebellious creatures meant to be His name-bearers. The disdain comes from sinful hearts. The problem with theonomy is not God’s Law either in prescription or penalization, but in the rebellion that lurks in the hearts of all human beings. I am speaking of professing believers in Jesus Christ, not in sinners in the world who deny Him. As I’ve noted in another place I believe this rejection of a theonomic outlook is due to what the apostle Paul discusses in Romans 8:7-8:

"For the mind set that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (ESV).

“How can you expect people to abide by these laws? If Israel did not enforce them, then why should we?”, comes the questioning of the objector.

The uncomfortable nature of such laws is that it elevates the Word of God above the word of Man. God’s Word is declared with absolute authority, and like children are wont to do in a home, they question the laws and the Law-Giver. The only answer forthcoming besides Love being its full expression is: Because I said so. “Have you not heard? Have you not read? It is written… thus, says the Lord.” Just as creation was spoken into existence and the very elements of creation were immediately brought about and formed together without objection to the One who determined their being, so it is with the Law-Word of God. God speaks and the expectation of the creature formed in His image is to obey–that is faith, an exercise of true love, the expression of genuine humility.

–Musings on Theonomy and its Objectors (original date written: 12/24/25)