Critiquing the “General Equity Theonomists”
--
In today’s video I’m sharing one way to combat the trend of the theonomists (or the “general equity theonomists”) that is growing today.
I offer some behind the scenes on my thought process.
==> Critiquing the “General Equity” Theonomists
Step 1:
Select an extreme quote or two from R.J. Rushdoony or Greg Bahnsen (examples below).
Step 2:
Ask the “general equity theonomist” how (and if) they disagree with Rushdoony or Bahnsen.
Step 3:
Ask them the following: Greg Bahnsen has made some extreme statements. Bahnsen called himself a general equity theonomist. When you say you are a general equity theonomist, do you mean the same thing that Bahnsen meant?
Step 4:
Bring up the specific quotes:
Bahnsen wrote: “The civil precepts of the Old Testament (standing ‘judicial’ laws) are a model of perfect social justice for all cultures, even in the punishment of criminals…”
In analyzing Bahnsen’s thought Sam Waldron writes that, in Bahnsen’s view, “all of the statutes revealed by Moses for the covenant nation were a model to be emulated by the non-covenantal nations as well.”
Sam Waldron also writes:
“There is no doubt, therefore, that for Dr. Bahnsen, ‘general equity’ does not refer to general moral principles underlying the case laws (i. e. the scope of the Ten Commandments). He is not saying that the case laws are no longer binding. Instead, ‘general equity’ refers to the case laws, minus their cultural expressions, which are to be applied in an equitable manner cross-culturally in today’s society.”
Sam Waldron summarizes Bahnsen’s position:
“All the statutes revealed by Moses for the Covenant Nation were a model to be emulated by the non-covenantal Nations as well.”
That’s a very strong claim. Sam Waldron goes on:
“There is no doubt therefore that for Dr. Bahnsen, general equity does not refer to general moral principles underlying the case laws (for example the scope of the Ten Commandments). Dr. Bahnsen is not saying that the case laws are no longer binding. Instead, general equity to Bahnsen refers to the case laws minus their cultural expressions, which are to be applied in an equitable manner cross-culturally in today’s society.”
Is that the position you hold too, as a “general equity theonomist”?
Step 5:
If a theonomist will agree with Bahnsen, you can then point out:
Greg Bahnsen was removed from his teaching position because he was in violation of the Westminster Confession of Faith. It is likely that you disagree with the WCF and with Calvin.
Step 6:
If you have opportunity, ask the theonomist:
Do you go so far as Rushdoony, to call John Calvin a heretic? I don’t think Bahnsen ever did that. But people that agreed with Calvin concluded that Dr. Bahnsen was not in agreement with the confession of faith.
Step 7:
The theonomist is in a hard spot. See what level of understanding he has of Bahnsen’s claims and answer appropriately.
For instance:
If you’re not agreeing with Dr. Bahnsen, could you show me exactly where you disagree?
Could you show me how your position differs?
Otherwise, it would be fair to assume that you are fairly close to Bahnsen and you are having a hard time being clear about your position.
With this approach, you can place a theonomist on the back foot.
Instead of allowing them to repeatedly accuse you of not loving God’s Law (which seems to be their main method of persuasion), you can highlight the difficulty they have in explaining their own claims.
Are they within the orthodox Reformed Tradition at all?
They claim to be, but they have two difficult choices to make:
First: Will they choose Reformed orthodoxy, or will they choose the views of Rushdoony and Bahnsen?
Second: Will they express their own views with clarity, or will they merely hide behind empty rhetoric?
Check out the video below:
Become a Christian Defender of Reason, Individualism, and Capitalism:
Get our latest book for free when you subscribe
