Monday, February 23, 2009

Pondering the Simple

Well, I've still got a lot to learn on this topic of theonomy, but thanks to an old friend who recently sent me an E-mail, I want to point out a short observation.

My friend asked if I was now 100% sure about theonomy. I responded by saying that I continue to lean toward the theonomic position because of all the "simplest" reasons. The simple flow and logical conclusions of Covenant theology, the foundation of Reformed thought, always points to a theonomic perspective in my own thinking no matter how many dazzling arguments either side presents to far.

For example, if you ask any Reformed Christian, be they a theonomist or a non-theonomist, "whose law do you strive to pattern your life by?", and both will answer, "God's law". So, in this respect, both the non-theonomist and the theonomist, are, …theonomists. Both agree that the standard for their lives is the will of God as is established by His law.

However, when asked the same question to both these camps about the non-Christian, the non-theonomist insists that non-Christians are not to be held accountable to the law of God. And the theonomist, in simplest terms says, "but God holds the non-Christian accountable to His law, so why wouldn't you?"

And that's where all the mental gymnastics begin.

To me it seems that the above scenario only begs another question: Who on this earth, since the beginning of time and throughout all of scripture, has had the most contempt for God's law, and who is it, on the other hand, that has had an extreme love for God's law?

The answer is obvious, and, ...simple, right?

And this begs my final question here: Who would naturally have the strongest and most obvious motive, and, be the most likely by any stretch of the imagination, to say that the unbeliever is not accountable to the law of God? The unbeliever, or the believer?

Again, the answer is obvious and simple.

It would appear to me, that it is the unbeliever who would be the non-theonomic Christian's biggest ally and most ardent supporter.

Should I bend over backwards formulating convincing arguments that both relieve the Church of any responsibility to hold unbelievers accountable to God's standards, and thus, cement the resolve and rebellion of the unbeliever, and in turn, effectively rendering God's law inconsequential to the entire course of human history?

...oh wait, I guess that was my final simple question.

No comments: