The Hotel Artist

I'm sorry, but I just had to post this, my "favorite movie", somewhere on my blog. I tried to link to it from my bio page, but I can't figure out how to do that. What does this have to do with theonomy?

Well, this video was done by three of my own kids. Susan and Mitchel are the "actors" in the film, and "Mary" is the camera man. I actually laugh during every few seconds of this "movie". It makes me laugh and thank God at the same time for such delight in my own children. They display both talent and a sense of humor. What else could a theonomist want?

I Like to Hear Myself Talk!

You know, in light of some of the superficial and yet voluminous stuff I've been posting today, somebody's bound to think eventually, that I'm just some arrogant and conceited fool who likes to hear himself talk! And worse yet, that I don't know what the he** I'm talking about. Well please, let me clarify my motives for why it is that I write, and thus, restating my reasons for starting this blog in the first place.

Writing, discussing, debating, conversation, etcetera, all help me formulate my thoughts. Sometimes my thoughts get so conflicted if left unattended or un-expressed that I just get confused and so refuse to carry my thoughts any further and abandon anymore consideration of what I was originally thinking about! I never come to any conclusions about anything that way. So, thank God for computers, I have an online "filing cabinet" for my thoughts. Making my file cabinet public, as in this blog format, also holds me accountable just because, you know, somebody else just might be looking at what I'm thinking about. This way, my thoughts not only have to make sense to me, but I've got to at least try to make them understandable for somebody else.

So, primarily, I write to organize my thoughts. Secondarily, since I am predisposed to the theonomic position, and this blog is dedicated to organizing my thoughts on that position, I also write to eventually convince others that this is the "correct" position to take. After all, if it isn't, then my thoughts should obviously be directed elsewhere. Hence the "Theonomic Assault" theme that I've chosen for this blog. I am attempting to assault any other position that might be based on anything other than the word of God to see if and how those contrary positions will hold up. I am still trying to work this out in my thinking, and therefore, in my writing.

So, if you notice one day that all of a sudden I'm posting a lot of "stuff", don't feel guilty if you don't have the time or the interest to read it, I'm primarily, more than likely, just thinking out loud for my own benefit. So in the sense I've just explained, yes, I do like to hear myself talk, but only so that I can tell if what I'm thinking about makes any sense. Make sense?

Oh, and happy Valentine's Day.

Theonomic Attitude

Anything else is just, a "bad attitude".

I have been borrowing from this phrase, "Law-Attitude", ever since I noticed it in the title of one of Greg Bahnsen's books, (or essay), "The Theonomic Antithesis to Other Law-Attitudes" PDF. I have not read the book yet, but the title really intrigues me as it communicates to me what I think is really at the root of whether or not one is willing to call himself a theonomist. It goes beyond academics, hermeneutics, epistemology, or any other scholarly pursuit. Those things are all great tools for establishing responsible arguments to hold any certain position, including theonomy, but when all is said and done, we are either going to submit to the standard of God or we are not. It is more of a heart attitude. It is the way we grasp the reality of what we have control over and what we do not. Does our attitude permit us to constantly give the microphone over to God? Or is their a constant battle in our minds between what is practical and pragmatic, over and against what God has revealed in His word?

Another way to look at it is, what are we invested in? If we have invested a lot of time and energy with our thoughts trying to explain away our responsibility as New Testament believers to God's law, especially as it deals with politics and civil government, then our concern is no longer so much the protection of the truth, but in the protection of our investment. This is now an attitude bent on protecting oneself instead of the truth of God. In other words, a "selfish" attitude. Or, in light of this post, a "bad" attitude.

This is not to accuse anyone who is not a theonomist as having a bad or selfish attitude, as I realize there are many who are opposed to theonomy based on honest conclusions and pure, unselfish motives. But I'm talking about those who perhaps have not studied the issue at all, and have based their conclusions on nothing other than practicalities. "God's law is just not practical in our modern society." Stuff like that. These people are not honestly seeking the truth, they are seeking to protect their own way of life…their investment. However, this attitude can extend over into those who have started studying this topic and have become quite knowledgeable. They find it easier to resist their findings then to correctly submit themselves to God's authority and will bend over backwards writing thesis after thesis trying to explain why God's law is not applicable to anyone but the Christian. In my opinion, these learned scholars are developing a refined and educated "bad attitude".

But who am I to talk? I'm sure I have lots of bad attitudes myself, and I certainly can't compete in many of the mental gymnastics that I see going on in the ivory towers of Christendom…yet. But until I can get there, like a Greg Bahnsen or a Gary North, I am content to check my attitude at every step of the way with a view to let the authority of Jesus Christ be exactly what and exactly where He wants it to be, regardless of what is being expressed from the minds of men, be they Christian authorities or civil authorities.

Definitions of Theonomy

I guess the proper way to start a foundation of debate is to define the terms. Since the subject is theonomy, I'll start with its definition from various perspectives.

In The Sense of Human Ethics
Source
"The term "Theonomy" has been used to describe various views which see the God revealed in the Bible as the sole source of human ethics. Using the word in this sense, Cornelius Van Til argued that there "is no alternative but that of theonomy or autonomy" (Christian Theistic Ethics p. 134). Among Reformed Christians, John Calvin, the Continental Reformers, the Westminster Divines and other Puritans, and Christian Reconstructionists, have developed similar ethical perspectives."

In The Sense of Christian Reconstructionism
Same Source
"Since the mid-1970's theonomy has been most often used in Protestant circles to specifically label the ethical perspective of Christian Reconstructionism, a perspective that claims to be a faithful revival of the historic Protestant view of the Old Testament law as espoused by many European Reformers and Puritans, see also Biblical law in Christianity. Some in the modern Reformed churches are critical of this understanding, while other Calvinists affirm Theonomy."

As Defined by Greg Bahnsen
Same Source
"The place or function of God's law in the moral philosophy of the Christian."

By This Standard; The Authority of God's Law Today PDF
By Greg Bahnsen

As Defined Defensively by Greg Bahnsen
The Theonomic Antithesis to Other Law-Attitudes PDF
"Theonomic ethics, to put it simply, represents a commitment to the necessity, sufficiency, and unity of Scripture. For an adequate and genuinely Christian ethic, we must have God's word, only God's word, and all of God's word. Nearly every critic of theonomic ethics will be found denying, in some way, one or more of these premises."

No Other Standard; Theonomy and Its Critics PDF
By Greg Bahnsen

About the Theonomic Assault Project

The Theonomic Assault Project is my humble attempt to expose the fallacy of any other law 'attitude' or system when compared to God's word, the Bible.

Though this wonderful project has already been accomplished and is being accomplished by many saints who are much better qualified than I, this page is simply an echo of their work and a tool to help my own feeble mind better understand the glory and the superiority of God's wisdom to that of the wisdom of men and of human convention, be it secular or ecclesiastical.

There are good Christian scholars and faithful saints who oppose the premise on this page, and I make no claims to any scholarly prowess or wisdom with which to contradict their work or to refute what I perceive is their error; this again, is a page of collaboration against their false paradigm.

God bless all of you who read, or participate in comment, and remember who is Lord. It is not you and it is not me. It is our Lord Jesus Christ. We are simply His humble servants who only seek His truth; and hopefully, not, our own agendas.

Thanks,
Sermonwriter