Talk:Theonomy

Catholic theonomy

Article needs improvement. Theonomy is also a concept in the thought of the late Pope John Paul II. Rusell Hittinger's _The First Grace_ touches upon this. I'll see if I can make the time to improve the article myself. --KJJ 04:43, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

One must also remember that theonomy, in the Calvinist sense, not the Pope John Paul II sense, is not only a belief in the Reconstruction of the Law of God, the Torah, but the belief that Christ's domain will eventually stretch throughout the world. It is at this point that the Torah will be applied once again, as in ancient Covenantal Israel. Before this time, establishment of the Law would not be understood by most, for they lack the knowledge that theonomists have: that Christ rules the world, and one day every knee will bow to Him. Thus, the theonomist's act, at the present, in any case, is to spread the Good News throughout the globe and to make people understand that Christ is the One King of the World. --Eric Hendrickson. September 17, 2005.

Theonomy is basically bypassing the hard work of bringing people to the cross for individual conversion (the Great Commission) by making obedience to God a matter of civil law, sort of like handling almsgiving by having the government take it out of your paycheck before you see it. Paul had a problem with theonomy when he wrote in Galatians 5:4, "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." --Her girlfriend 21:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Her girlfriend, I think citations may be needed, I am not finding this view in the linked articles. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 07:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

support

i support this rv. The previous edit was a wholesale copy of a page on geocities, which this claims is a joke site. (No other verifiable references to Erik Klafshenke). Current rv is a lot more verifiable as regards the references given. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 22:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"note to editors"

NOTE TO WIKIPEDIA EDITORS: While there is indeed a nutball link to support the crap in this article, it is balatantly biased to presume that such wackos are a fair representation of the ideas behind Theonomy. This article (and particularly this section) is anything but objective. I've read and listened enough to Bahnsen to know that even though he's legitimately controversial in some ways, he has never and did never advocate anything like eliminating freedom of religion, and any sort of theocracy is repugnant to almost all Reformed Christians - that's what the Reformers were driven to schism with the Roman church to get away from, after all! The US Government was deliberately based largely on Presbyterian church government, but also quite deliberately separate. Finally, The existence of a site making extremist claims is not a justification for slamming legitimate ideas with which a few wingnuts choose to align themselves. For that matter, if one extremist site is justification for such a response, then what's to keep people from posting thier own radical sites for their opposition in order to make them a strawman for Wikipedia. (The site linked to in this section is so "over-the-top" that I question if even the most rabid of wingnuts could have published it seriously. It's so outrageous that it makes the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" look like a puff piece. far more likely, it is a fake site designed to "expose" the "hidden agenda" of those dangerous "Dominionists" (a term which is likely defamatory on its face.)) The entire "Dominionist" series is shot through with this sort of hateful non-objectivity, and does not deserve its sidebar status in Wikipedia. This is an execllent example of how writing can be true, but totally biased to misrepresent the facts. I am anything but an expert on Theonomy, but the bias and deliberate misrepresentation exhibited here is staggering - Michael Moore could scarcely have done better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.160.115 (talk • contribs)

It is important to allow Wikipedia to be extreme and patently absurd in its vilification of Christians. When you correct the most egregious lies, it makes the propaganda more believable. 71.103.224.224 (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Erik Klafshenkel

Please don't rv this page to link to Erik Klafshenkel without even discussing it here. Who is he? Does he exist? 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 16:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Some vs. most

User:216.232.14.14 and I seem to be at a disagreement over the wording of support for theonomy. The sentence in question is:

Some in the modern Reformed churches are critical of this understanding, while other Calvinists affirm Theonomy.

I changed the italicized some to most because support for theonomy in the Christian Reconstructionist sense is small relative to the size of the group Reformed churches, which includes mainline denominations that wouldn't touch theonomy (or many other conservative doctrines) with a ten foot pole. Additionally, Reconstructionists are a relatively small (but vocal) group on the fringe of Calvinism today, and none of the major American, conservative, Reformed seminaries (WTS, WSC, RTS, Covenant, etc.) teach theonomy. Indeed, as I understand it, Bahnsen was drummed out of his position at RTS for his theonomic views. Therefore, I propose we change it back to most. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

References

The first two sentences of this article are in error

The first sentence states: "Theonomy....is the idea espoused by Christian Reconstructionists, that Mosaic law should be observed by modern societies". Well "Mosaic Law" includes the ceremonial law. Christian Reconstructionists or Theonomists do not believe in observing the Mosaic ceremonial law, nor even the those civil laws which accompany the ceremonial laws (i.e. civil penalties for violating the ceremonial laws). All these laws have indeed passed away with the coming of the Messiah and His complete sacrifice for sin.

A better way to state the first sentence would be: Theonomy....is an old reformed doctrine espoused by some modern day Calvinists who call themselves Christian Reconstructionists, that God's entire moral law should be observed by contemporary society, including the OT civil penal code that enforces the Ten Commandments (In other words, a civil enforcement of both tables of the Decalogue).

The second sentence, "Theonomists reject the traditional Reformed belief that the civil laws of the Mosaic Law are no longer applicable." errs in falsely presuming that older reformed theologians believed that all the OT civil laws "are no longer applicable". So why did the 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith make public blasphemy a crime? (WCF chap. 23:3) and why did its scripture proofs cite the OT civil law against blasphemy? (Lev 24:16). And why did Calvin, Knox, Luther, Beza and Melanchthon all write in defense of capital punishment for blasphemy? As well as capital punishment for many other crimes.

Perhaps a better way to state the second sentence is: "Theonomists question the fashionably modern reformed belief that the civil laws of the Mosaic Law are no longer applicable." Although I'd like to think that even the modern reformed still believe in capital punishment for murder. And I would like to think that the modern reformed still object to public displays of blasphemy and would appreciate some civil redress available (such as it being "supressed" by the magistrate, as the original Westminster Confession stated). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainsongman (talk • contribs) 03:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I can currently read: "Theonomists reject the traditional Reformed belief that the civil laws of the Mosaic Law are no longer applicable". If I visit the link for the reference, I fail to see this direct interpretation however, and here is why the formulation cannot make sense: "traditional Reformed belief" appears to be a biased misinterpretation, or accusation, that secular legal codes which adapt to modern societies are profane, outdated (a fashion that came and went) and inferior to ancient traditional texts tainted with savagery, taboos and superstitions. The reality is that theonomists believe that the archaic, traditional Mosaic Law are of divine origin, can still be considered valid and applicable today, that it somehow could answer the modern challenges of current societies, and that our current legal systems are somehow out of fashion, which is also fringe belief today. If the sentence is a direct quote, it could probably be cited as one, however... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse me for finding it hilarious and ironic that you called the phrase "traditional reformed belief" a biased misinterpretation and then immediately followed your comment by calling the Biblical laws "ancient traditional texts tainted with savagery, taboos and superstitions", as if your statements reflect zero bias (which they plainly do). Fringe belief or not, this isn't the place to argue whether Theonomists hold valid beliefs, but rather it is a place to represent them in a way that strikes a balance between being fair to their self-descriptions and being understandable by people who disagree. If you describe the beliefs of Theonomists on this wikipedia article, and then theonomists who read it say "that's not who we are or what we believe", then your article has clearly failed to represent them fairly. That said, I'm not 100% sure you understand the meaning of the phrase "traditional reformed" in the context of historical Christian denominational differences, because your comments seemed almost completely off-topic with regard to the OP's post (to which you were responding). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.245.132 (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Further reading section

The "further reading" section has grown well beyond what would be considered a reasonable length for a Wikipedia article. It presently has significantly more listed items than the number of sources actually used as references in the article. This section should not be used for as a comprehensive list of source on the subject ("Wikipedia is not a directory" WP:NOTCATALOG). I have started pruning by following the general standard of not including sources that are already used as cited sources in the references section, but more needs to be trimmed. Butlerblog (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Because one has to start somewhere, I continued pruning to one item per author. I also removed items that were web links, leaving only books and journals. That still leaves a list that would be considered too excessive, especially considering the length of the actual article, and it is still more than the article's actual referenced sources. Butlerblog (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Theocracy vs

It would be great if someone well versed in the details of both could add a line explaining the distinction between theonomy and theocracy. Right now the only thing it says is that some people think theonomy is Dominionism and some people think Dominionism is a kind of theocracy, so it's pretty vague. Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 21:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point. I believe that when I was validating sources, something along that specific line was addressed in one of Rushdoony's or DeMar's books. I'll go back and see if I can figure out where I saw that. If I can find the source, it might be a good starting point. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)