| Theonomy: A Reformed Critique |  | Creators: William S. Barker, W. Robert Godfrey
Publisher: Academic Books/Zondervan Pub.
Buy Used: $26.95
as of 3/10/2010 21:13 EST details
New (3) Used (17) from $26.95
Seller: tabletalkbooks
Rating:  3 reviews
Media: Paperback
Pages: 413
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.9
Dimensions (in): 8 x 5.3 x 1.1
ISBN: 0310521718
Dewey Decimal Number: 230.046
EAN: 9780310521716
ASIN: 0310521718
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Similar Items:
| |
| Customer Reviews:
 Great Refutation of Theonomy December 21, 2005
John Chrysostom (Istanbul, Turkey)
16 out of 20 found this review helpful
Contrary to the other reviewer, the various authors DID read Rushdoony, North, Bahnsen et al. I was at Westminster Seminary when this book was being written and had conversations with some profs as they were preparing their contributions. Theonomy is many things. Some people think it is simply taking God's word & law seriously. In that case, pretty much anyone can be called a Theonomist. On the other hand, others use the banner of "Theonomy" to promote all sorts of hyper conservative sectarian absurdities. By the way, Theonomists often claim C. VanTil as a "Theonomist". I was Dr VanTil's personal secretary later in life, and he several times asserted he was NOT a Theonomist. Although he did appreciate Greg Bahnson as one of his finer students. One can find quotations here & there about theonomy in VanTil's books, but remember these were all written long before there was this identifiable cluster of doctrines called "theonomy." He was using the term in a generic sense. Theonomists are dishonest when they claim VanTil as one of their own. There is one very weak chapter in this book. The other essays are well done. Quite frankly, this book is about all there is contra Theonomy because Theonomy is such a chameleon, changing its colors & positions regularly. About the only thing that Binds Theonomists together is an unhealthy focus upon the Law (often to neglect of Grace, but see John 1:17). As pointed out in this book, THE fundamental error of most Theonomy is that it reads the NT through the lens of the OT. On the other hand, historically the Church has read the OT in light of the NT. They start out backwards & end up getting too much wrong. This book is a calm, level headed refutation of excesses of much Theonomy. Christianity is all about Jesus, not the law!
Where's the analysis and critique? July 15, 2007
Jacob of Sterlington (Louisiana)
9 out of 9 found this review helpful
This book is extremely important in the history of Reformed social thought. It delineates a new movement in Reformed thought. In responding to theonomy, the authors of this "critique" posit a functional anabaptist political ethic that is foreign to the Reformers. In my review I will set forth the theonomic thesis, illustrate how 75% of the book failed to come to grips with it (some chapters didn't even mention it!) and offer my own criticism of theonomy. In the review I will show how some authors contradict other authors (within the same book!) and how other authors do not even address the thesis.
The body of the book:
The book tries to critique theonomy along exegetical, eschatological, theological, historical, and socio-economic lines.
Moises Silva writes a theonomic essay refuting Meredith Kline ("Galatians 3:19"). Silva writes nothing that contradicts Bahnsen, but much that contradicts Bahnsen's main critic. Why was this essay even in the book?
Richard Gaffin argues that theonomy is wrong because many theonomists are postmillennialists, which bothers Gaffin's amillennarianism. There are two problems to Gaffin's essay: 1) He miscontrues postmillennialism (the present reviewer is premil, so I don't have a dog in this hunt); 2) eschatological positions do not logically determine social ethics.
Bruce Walke argues that Theonomy is distinct from mainstream covenant theology and from dispensationalism. So?
Will Barker argues for a pluralist approach to civil government. The problem with this is that pluralism--everyone has a right to practice their faith as long as it doesn't harm others--has logical tensions within it. What if my faith says I *can* harm others? At this point the pluralist sees the theonomic trap: if he says yes then he is advocating a form of theonomy--the civil magistrate is evidently imposing his values by force on someone's religion. If the pluralist says no, then he has no logical or moral objection to satanic human sacrifice (cf the Santierra cult in 1989).
Tim Keller and John Muether write economic and sociological essays respectively. That's fine and Muether makes a few good points, but neither touch the theonomic *system.*
Bob Godfrey argues from Book 4 of Calvin's Institutes that Calvin opposed the use of the Mosaic Judicials. That's true, technically. However, in Calvin's sermons on Deuteronomy he goes much further in than do theonomists in advocating those same judicials.
Sinclair Ferguson doe the chapter on the Westminster Confession. Essentially Ferguson argues that not everyone at the Westminster Assembly was a theonomist, although some were. I agree. I am going to avoid the discussion on WCF 19.4 at the moment.
Claire Davis writes an appreciation of theonomy. He says that American culture's antinomianism has warranted a theonomic response (what's this essay doing in the book?!) Davis specifically says "Even if culture gets worse and worse, does that refute theonomy? Not necessarily. Even in such a culture, believers have an obligation to bring their values into the public square, even if it means persecution." Wow. Among other things that one paragraph refutes Gaffin's entire essay.
Conclusion:
After reading these essays I got the impression that the real bad guy is not theonomy, but conservative political ethics. After this publication the Presbyterian church hasn't had much of a voice in social ethics. That mantle has been passed to the Baptists (see the fine work of Russell Moore).
I am not a full-blown theonomist, nor am I postmillennial. I applaud the theonomists for developing a life-and-worldview. I would urge them to do more exegesis. For example, I do not believe we should establish a theocracy given Paul's admonition to the Corinthian church that the church is not reigning now over unbelievers. As an historical premillennialist, I believe that is for the millennial reign of Christ.
 Original review updated Jan 2006 January 25, 2005
Jay Scott Herman (Escondido, CA USA)
4 out of 17 found this review helpful
This book is a compilation of essays from former and present Westminster Seminary professors on the subject of theonomy. While a small number of the writings could be called scholarly, for the most part they show a complete lack of familiarity and understanding of the subject matter. Most glaring, it seems only one of the professors (Frame) has actually read Rushdoony's "Institutes of Biblical Law," the foundational work on modern theonomy.
"Critique" gives you tangents and rabbit trails. Never does it address the key issue of theonomy, natural vs. biblical law: one is reality, one is mirage, one necessarily sits atop your worldview. If natural law is mirage (a post-fall corruption of biblical law) by definition you're a theonomist. To not take the next step, i.e. a systematic theology of applied biblical law, like Lot's wife you look back with the hermeneutical lens of natural law.
Any serious debate on theonomy cannot skirt the natural vs. biblical law question as "Critique" does, attempting to refute theonomy from a purely aesthetic platform, as if scrutinizing the leaves of a great oak amounts to axing its trunk. Thus failing to recognize natural vs. biblical law is the issue demonstrates the authors have yet to apprehend this theological paradigm or theonomy. [email: herscott@gmail]
|
|
|
CERTAIN CONTENT THAT APPEARS ON THIS SITE COMES FROM AMAZON SERVICES LLC. THIS CONTENT IS PROVIDED ‘AS IS’ AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR REMOVAL AT ANY TIME.
| |
