1992 Issue 7 - Cross-Examination: In Defense of Theonomy - Counsel of Chalcedon

8/12/2019 1992 Issue 7 - Cross-Examination: In Defense of Theonomy - Counsel of Chalcedon

1/5

An Odd Review

At the request of a few

friends,

this

month scolumn willaddressacritiqueof

the theonontic position in

Christian

eth

icswhichwaswritten, aswellaspersona1ly

published, by john W. Robbins in

his

ownnewsletter, The Trinity Review (no.

84: Feb, 1992; for a copy write to P. O.

Box

700,

jefferson,

MD

21755). I

understand that

other periodicals de

clined

to

publish it.

What has

come

to be

called

the

"theonontic"

approach

to ethicshas

been

expounded in this column previously

(see Sept., Oct.,

Nov.,

1991).

It is

also

explainedatlengthinmybooksTheonomy

n

Chrlst tan Ethics (1977,

1984), By This

Standard (1985), and most recendy No

.Other

Standard:

Theonamy and Its Critics

(1991).

Oddlyenough, the

1992

pieceby

Mr.

Robbins

comes to

us in the

form

of a

bookreviewofmyByThisStandard,

which

was

published fully

seven years earlier

(1985) It has taken him some time

to

accomplish the task.

EquallyoddisthatMr.

Robbins chose

to overlook the vety book, published

only a year ago, which forthrighdyan-

swerswould-becritics like

himself.

Why

would

h

close his eyes

to

possible an

swers

and skirt

dealing with relevant

matetial?

(He

rationalizeshisminimalist

approach to researchand understanding

by gratuitously assuming that Bahnsen

might

"differ frOIn bim.self in another

book"

-- and

by

whispering

the gossip,

utterly

imagtnative

and

untrue,

that

"a

new,

revised

edition

of

this

book [is]

already

in

the

press" )

Another oddity:

although

purport

ing

to be a

review

specifically

of the book

By

This

Standard the article by Mr.

Robbins

sets off by

wandering

far and

wide to criticize

the

positions

and

vo

cabulaty

of men

like

Gary

North,

R ]

Rushdoony,

and

R.

E McMaster. We

have to

wade through nearlya quaw:rof

the

article

- all ofitessentially irrelevant

material

--

before

reaching the author s

attempt

to

address

and

challenge

the

specific

book under

review.

And then,

it

wasn't worth the wait.

A Reluctant

Reply

For

fifteen

years Ihave tried

to

listen

carefolly

to those who disagree with the

theonomic thesis,

either to be

corrected

whereitisnecessaryortoreplytomistakes

:j: TIlECOUNSELofCltalcedon j July/AUguSt 992

andmisrepresentations on the part ofthe

critics. Ihave usually made an effort to

respond

to their charges, aiming to be

courteousineveryinstance(eventhough

in some

cases

the refutation ntight need

to

be stated

strongly).

I ask forgiveness

where

I have failed in

his aim.

However,insomecasesthecriticisso

irresponsible so acadenticallyoudand

ish

and/or

personally

nasty

- that Ihave

felt it the better part of

Christian

wisdom

hot

to answer

atall

(cf.

2 Tint

2:23;

Prov.

26:4;29:9). As a

general

rule, strife with

umeasonable or contentious men does

not

produce

the

fruit of the Holy Spirit

(cf.jas. 1:20), and i t s usually

just

not a

good use

of

time (cf.

Eph.

5:16).

These

principles

once

again came

backtomymind

when

Ifinished

reading

the

Robbins critique,

copies of which a

.handful ofpeople hadsent me. His tone

was

openly

arrogant and sarcastic.

The content of his article, in my

humble

but honest

opinion,

was so

ri

diculous

as to warrant a failing grade if

this were

a college

assignment.

(Profes

sors

will

sometimes

write on studen

papers rebukes

lij;:e: jack, I

do

not

ex

pect

you to

agree with Kant's view

[or

Plato's, etc.], butl do expectasa

minimal

requirement

that

you

will

portray

that

view

accurately

- and

riot

pretend

to

correct your author as to what his

view

actually is ")

Accordingly, I situply put

aside

what

Mr.

Robbins had

written

--

put it in the

same file with

pieces

like the diattibe by

a

Baptist

preacher

who wrote

an absurd

newsletter against

theonomy

onthe basis

that

it (allegedly) calls

for

a return to the

practice of animal sacrifices If men

will

not

read

what their

opponents actually

write- orwillnotreadany

better

than this

-- then they deserve no serious response.

Thus

Iam

reluctant to take

any time

with

the Robbins critique. However,

some

friends

have

encouraged

me to

pen a

reply, and it

ntight

ultimately save me

time (from

repeating myself)

to

record

some

comments in this public column.


2/5

Bahnsen,

the

llIogical Moron

What does

Mr.

Robbins find wrong

with the theonomic thesis presented in

By Th s Standard Atvatiouspoints inhis

article Robbins is

not shy

to

voice

the

utter severity

of

his condemnation:

"Bahnsenabandonslogic." ahnsen

fails

to exercise '10gical rigor."

ahnsen

is

committed to "Anti-Rational

Theology";

likeVanTil heaflirms

and denies

theuse

oflogicintheology. "Bahnsen

advocates

two irreconcilable views." "Oblivious to

the contradictiOns, Bahnsen slogs on."

"ThecontradictionsinDr.Bahnsen'sbook

are

patent, numerous,and

insuperable."

His

position

is "utter nonsense." "The

onomy

is simply

not

biblical." "It is,

in

fact,

anti-Christian."

Mr.

Robbins tells

his

readers

with

bravado that 'it is all too

easy

to

lay

waste"

my arguments.

This

is,

to be

sure, one

possibility. I

cannot hide behind a doctoral degree in

philosophy

(specifically epistemology),

or behind

high

marks in

graduate

school

logic, or behind my teaching many

courses in

advanced logic

. That isnot

an

absolutely sure defense, I realize. I still

might

have

published utterly

contradic

tory

views

on

the

law

of God. Mr.

Robbinsmayindeedbecorrect.

Pethaps

in my book

I

lapsed into a

state

of

blithering

stupidity

and,

like

a moron,

did not

even

noticemylogical blunders.

"Patent,

numerous , and

insuperable,"

as

Robbins asserts.

But in all fairness of mind, there is

another

possibility as

well which

should

at least be considered. Isn't it at least

possible that

maybe

it is Mr. Robbins

who is

utterly

confused? Just maybe? In

his

haste

and bravado - not to mention

his notorious and perpetual

disdain for

anyone

favorable

to Van

Til--

might not

Mr.

Robbins have misconstrued

and

dis

tottedhis opponent's view,

to the

point

of creating

for himself

an

artificial

ap

pearance ofintemal contradiction,

when

there is none there in reality?

Which

hypothesis

has

initial

plausibility?

Is

there any possibility

--

even

pre-

sumption --thatanauthoris more famil

iar

with

his own views and pUblished

position than a

secondary reviewer? If

so,

then

you

might

expect a reviewer to

be somewhat cautious and hesitant, if

not duly humble, about leaping

to the

inunediate and emphatic judgment

that

an author has made the schoolboy mis

take

of

explicitly

contradicting himself-

inde

ed,

that

his logical

gaffs

are

numer

ous, patent and insuperable. f t seems

he

has, shouldn't the

reviewer

stop

and

reconsider?

Askifhe(thereviewer)isnot

the

one

who has not understood?

But

not so

for

Mr. Robbins.

Get

this

. According

to

the critique

written by Mr.

Robbins, he

finds the

author already guilty of outrageous con

tradiction by

page

3

of

the

(362-page)

book under

review

Reflect for

a

mo

ment on that - on

this

accusation

being

lodged at

the very

outset

of

the book. I

submit that

even

the

friends of

Mr.

Robbins

must

recognize

that such haste

strongly

suggests

prejudicial thinking

and

preconceptions on

the pan of

the

reviewer.

Mr.

Robbins c1aimstoperceive

an

insuperable contradiction right

at the

threshold of

my

book. More likely, he

arrived with

jaundiced vision to begin

with

--

and

an ax

t grind.

The Case Against Robbins'

Accuracy

So then,

on

the one hand maybe

Bahnsen's

book contains patent

cornra

dictions. Or on

the

other hand maybe

Robbins

himself has prejudicially

mis

construed

the

theonomic

position.

Let's

look

and

see.

Acc

ording to

Robbins, my

book

sets

fonh

two

contradictory

vie

ws

regarding

the validity of God's law :

one

is the

view

of the

Westminster Confession

of

Faith,

the

other is something

Robbins

calls

the

reconstructionistortheonomicview. The

former view allows for changes in the

Mosaic

law with

the coming of

the

New

Covenant, even

though

the

principles

of

the ceremonial law

are

applied inChrist

and the

general

equity (underlying point

or

purpose)

of

the judici.a\laws is still

binding.

Acconding

to Robbins, the

"theonomic"

view does

not allow

for any

changes in theMosaic law with the inau

guration

of the

New

Covenant.

Holding both of

hese

views

(change

allowed, no change allowed) would in

deed be self-contradictory. But I have

never held the latter

view

- my

books

being witness.

According

t

Bahnsen, the

"theonomic" view is not at all what

Robbinsall

eges(viz.,nochangeallowed).

It is rather the

view

that although there

are

many, even

radical,

changes regard

ingtheMosaiclawintheNewCovenant,

the categorical presumption

(working

assumption)

is that of continuity be

tween

the covenants; accondingly,

New

Covenant

changes regarding

the law are

to be

warranted on the

basis

of

Biblical

exe

gesis

(not the dispensational prin

ciple of general

abrogation).

Who

is correct about the true nature

of the "theonomic"

thesis?

The prepos

terous character

of

Robbins' ctitique be

comes

mauifest with the very asking

of

that question.

Mr.Robbins defines "theonomy" one

way.

I wrote an enrire book (more

than

one actually) which defines "theonomy"

inadifferentway.

Indeed,

thevetybook

under

review

byRobbins

was

written to

explain

and set fonh

my

conception of

the "theonomic" viewpoint So then,

when

Mr

.Robbins gotto pages3-4 of he

book

and

found

that my

definition

of he

theonomic

position was in conflict with

his own conception of what my

theonomic

view

was expected

to

be,

rather than recoguize his own error,

instead he

eagerly

pounced on the

falla-

cious inference

that"Aha

,

Bahnsenmust

be contradicting himselfl" This is buf

foonery unwonhy of

Mr.

Robbins'intel

lectual abilities.

For the record, I want the reader

t

seeforhimselfwhatwaswrittenonpages

3-4 of

my

book By

This

Standard. You

decide

for yourself whether "theonomy"

maintains, as

Robbins

alleges,

that no

July/August, 1992

THE

COUNSEL

of Chalcedon

;.

5


3/5

changes

in theMosaiclaw are

allowed

in

the New Covenant. Given

this

in

struction

[in

Matthew

5:

17-191, ouraiti

tudemustbe that

all

Old Testament laws

are

presendy our

obligation

unless u r ~

ther revelation from the

lawgiver

shows

thatsomechangehasbeenmade

...

What

has been said above is simply

that

the

presumption shonld

be

that an Old

Testament

law

is

binding

in the New

Testament. TIlls

does not

in any way

preclude or reject many radical differ

encesbetweenOldandNewTestaments.

Changes

do

indeed come through the

COUISe

of redemptive

histOl)',

so that

there ceJtainlym

exceptions to

the gen

eral continuity that characterizes the re

lation between Old and

New

Cov

enants.... the New

Testament

should

interpret the Old

Testament for us

(all

italics original).

Robbins vel)' well knows that Ihave

said these things

(and at the vel)'

outset

ofmy book, no less), for he even quotes

part of them in

his review.

But

alas,

he

stubbornly

takes

them as evidence that I

am thereby

repudiating

the theonornic

view oflaw, ratherthanexplainingit (d.

Proverbs

18:2)

Also

for

the record, I would like

the

reader to

realize

that Mr. Robbins could

no

more

justify his pseudo-conception

of the theonomic view (no changes al

lowed in the law) from my preceding

book on the subject,

entided Theonbmy

in

iristian thics

(1977),

than

he can

Ii:om the book he has latelyreviewed.

As

a

sampling,

fifteen years

ago

I spoke of

"legitimate and noteworthy discon

tinuities with the Old Testament law-

indeed radical differences. Iwrote that

the Mosaic system ofshadows was in-

tended

to

be superseded.

Nevertheless,

only God has the authority and pre

rogative to discontinue thebinding force

of anything

He

has revealed

..

[and] we

are

not warrantedto

affirm

discontinuity

with the OlderTestament except

where

expresslyindicatedotherwise

...

theNew

Testament must be used

to understand,

not undermine, the Older Testament;

again the presumptionwould have tobe

continuity, not

contradiction

(pp. 2l3 .

313,366,431).

Has Bahnsen blatantly contradicted

himself, or has Mr.

Robbins simply

dis-

played his inaccuracy

as

a

reviewer,

no

tablyin his(pre)conceptionoftheonomic

ethics? The

reader

can decide for

him

self.

The Case for Robbins' Artificiality

Rather

than

taking

this correction to

hean, I fear that Mr.

Robbins

instead

might

complain that

his misconstruing

of the theoriomic position (viz., over

looking that it indeed allows for

Biblically-based

changes in

the Old

Tes

tament law) is really Dr. BahtJsen's

fault.

I can intagine Robbins grumbling that

there are

sentences in Ba1msen's book

which

affirm

the

continuing

validity

of

the

Old

Testament law,

butwhichdo

not

(each and

every

time) explain thatthis is

acategorical presumption and

which do

not (each and evel)' time)

acknowledge

the exceptions which

are possible. Thus,

he

might

protest

that

these many un

qualified statements

give the natural

impression that

theonomists

do

not

al

low for any changes whatsoever in the

Old Testament law.

lfthiswerethewayinwhichRobbins

would attempt

to

justify his belligerent

charge

of self-contradiction inmy book,

it would be appropriate to call down the

artificiality

of

his scholarship and criti

cism.

1)Human communication bymeans

of language would come to a

grinding

halt if twere illegitimate ever to

express

yourselfbyway ofgeneralizations which

do

I).ot

explicidyacknowledge

qualifica

tions and

exceptions.

Lawyers may

spe

cialize in the fine ptint of

complicated

legal

contracts,

but

even

they do

not

speak

that

way in ordinal)' discourse. A

father

who

asserts that his son is a fine

baskethall

player

is not

guilty

of false

hood or deception simply

because

he

does not add that, of

COUISe

his son has

some bad games.

6 THE COUNSEL of Cbalcedon July/August, 1992

Generalizations which state

an

accu

. ate summary or the

prevailing ptinciple

arenot,

as

generalizations, faulty orinac

curate.

Does Mr. Robbins

chastise

gos

pel writers Mark

and

Luke? They

gener

aliZed Our

Lord's

teaching

by

saying that

anyone

who

divorces and

remarries

thereby

commits

adultery

(Mark

10: 11;

Luke

16:18) --

and they

cOmpletely

.omitted

the qualifying

exceptive clause,

found only in

Matthew

(19:9), that this

principle

did

not

apply

to

cases

of

forni

cation . Mark

and

Luke are not faulted

because they did indeed expI _


4/5

words

of our

Lord

Jesus Himself. He is

the one who categorically assened the

abiding

validity

of the law in exhaustive

detail,

withoutatthatpointexplainingthe

presumptive sense ofHis words or the

exceptions

to

the generalization

given.

(To

g< in the

fuller

interpretation, we

must go

to

other texts.)

All

evangelicalbelievers

--

not

simply

theonomists - must hearthese words of

Christ and somehow take them into

account

in

their theological convictions:

"I came not

to

abrogate... not one jot or

tittle

shall

pass away until heaven

and

eanh pass away .. Therefore,

whoever

teaches

the breaking ofthe least ofthese

commandments shall

be

called least in

the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew

5:17-19) . Our

Lord

did not at this point

add qualifications to

His

categorical

dec

larations

.Thusthosecriticsoftheonomic

writers who

would

reproach categorical

statements of he

law's

continuingvalid

ityareunwittinglyguiltyofheaping their

reproach upon the Savior Himself.

4) n his review Mr. Robbins ac

knowledges

that I

teach

that it

is

the

underlying principles ofthe judicial and

ceremonial

laws

which

are

valid today -

rather

than

the literal or cultural

details

by which those principles are expressed

andillustrated. (Wedonotbringanima1

sacrifices today, but the principle is still

valid

that there is

no

atonement without

shedding ofblood

--

indeedisat the heart

of

gospel proclamation. We do not build

railings around our housetops, but the

principle of providing for the safety

of

others is still valid, etc.) He then turns

around and with shameless artificiality

says that this approach contradicts my

assertion

that the

law is

binding in

"ex

haustive detail"(or that

"every

stroke"

is

confirmed).

But come now. Isn't this the naive

mistake made by

many dispensational

fundamentalists? To

assen

the

authority

ofevery single word ofGod'slawis not at

a

to

assen that those words may only be

interpreted in a literal manner. (The

professor

who requires his

students

to

pay attention

to

"every line" in a

Shakespeare play

is

not

thereby

claiming

that

Shakespeare never

used figures of

speech ) Andremember:Jesus

is

the one

who declared

that

every "jot

and tittle"

of

the

law

remains valid 'until heaven and

eanhpassaway. DcesMr.Robbinsnow

accuse

Jesus of

self.


5/5

abused the views ofa Christian brother I

do notbelieve lam he only one) dishonors

our common Lord whom he endeavors to

servebyhiswriting. MayGodbemerciful

to me where I have done likewise. And

may

Mr

Robbins accept my sincere offer

for peace; we are

not

reallyso far apart as

he may imagine. Let's together turn

our

attention to deal

with

the real enemies

of

God's truth and Christ's kingdom, rather

than bIting

and

devouring each other.

- The above response will quite suitably

refute

Mr

Robbin's further article pub

lished in the August 1992 Triniry Review.

Further Investigation

For further studies about theonomic

ethics

on

tape, write for a catalog from

CovenantTapeMinistry,24198AshCourt,

Auburn,CA 95603. CTMcanalsosupply

copiesofDr. Balmsen'sbooks:Theonomy,

By This Standard,

and

No Other Standard

an answer to critics

of

theonomy).

To receive Dr. Bahnsen's free monthly

newsletter, Pimpoitlt, write to Southern

California Center for Christian Studies, P

O. Box 18021,lrvine, CA 92713.0

Arise

Shine

APPALACHIAN O ~ R E N E

TO REBUILD

AMERICA

Rec/aimingOur

Christian Heritage

Speakers:

Dr

John Eidsmoe

Rev.

Steve

Wilkins

Friday

PM:

Home

School Workshop

Saturday

9AM-4PM October 3 992

Sheraton Plaza Hotel

Johnson City TN

35/ couple

25/ individual

For more info

phone:

6159281401

or

6158785560

or

write: ACTRA P.O. Box 1473Bristol

Tn

376211473

A

New Recording by

Songs

Candle of Faith

Jesus Saves

Psalm One

Judy RO ers @Becky Morecmfl

Clap Your Hands (Ps. 47)

Arise Shine (Isa. 60)

How Firm a Foundation

He Is The One

Come

Ye

Sinners

When

I Survey

Praise Him Praise Him

Name

dmes ________________________________

Qty State Zip

For direct purchase

at 9.95

Mail

to:

Judy

Rogers,

P.O.

Box

888442,

Atlanta GA 30356

8 f TIlE COUNSEL

of

CbaIcedon

July/August, 1992

1992 Issue 7 - Cross-Examination: In Defense of Theonomy - Counsel of Chalcedon

Documents

Transcript of 1992 Issue 7 - Cross-Examination: In Defense of Theonomy - Counsel of Chalcedon