Question:
Van Til taught there is no neutrality. as quoted below, "There is no alternative but that of theonomy and autonomy." Cornelius Van Til. You apparently do not agree with Van Til (am I right on that score?). So, how do you get around his flawless (my opinion) logic? Just curious.
Answer:
I have no argument with a great deal of what the theonomists teach. In fact I find much of their writings on apologetics and theology positively delightful. So my rejection of Theonomy does not mean that I wholesale reject all of what they have to say. I have always agreed with their stance that there is no neutrality, and that all persons have basic presuppositions (many they cannot account for), even prior to reading any of their writings. My disagreement is with their political ideology which appears to be bent on enforcing the first table of the Law.
The rule of God is good and I long for it in its fullness when our Lord returns, but a theocracy is still a rule of man, since men's understanding of God is always subjective. Thus the depravity of man itself rules out the possibility of a real theocracy since our application of it is always flawed. This is not to mention the disagreements amongst ourselves us are sharp. I especially find it disturbing when theonomists begin speaking of imprisoning or deporting persons of other religions. Such a lack of meekness is not our place this side of the cross prior to the parousia. Do you hope to persuade those in prison of our Christianity by force of will? In my opinion this methodology, proposed by many prominent theonomists, is in conflict with the Word of God. The sword is not to be used as it is in Islam to coerce conversions. I have had enough debates with theonomists to know this is what many of them believe.
Also disturbing, and often to my surprise, is that the attitude of many of those who attempt to enforce their logic to persuade me in this issue to be unrelenting and often mean-spirited. Theonomy/Reconstructionism needs to take a gentler approach if it hopes to persuade others. Jesus told us to look at the fruit of the persons to determine the spiritual reality, and the common lack of genuine humility I find among many followers of reconstructionism is enough to give me serious pause. I say this while recognizing my own cold-heartedness toward others so this is surely not a blanket condemnation. I merely say it because I believe love hates what is harmful and destructive in others' lives. When I see my friends caught in something that is ultimately harmful I must come humbly with a clear attitude of "I love you and am committed to you but I can't stand to see what this is doing to your life," all the while recognizing my own sinfulness.
It is my strong belief that in this era our Lord has called us to make his Word known through meekness, suffering and godly persuasion, not coercion. If postmillenialism is true and we have the opportunity to apply biblical law to civil government, I would part ways with you guys with regard to the first table of the Mosiac Law. I do not believe that it can be enforced on unbelievers. Our tools of war are love, prayer and the word of God, as empowered by the Holy Spirit. Political enforcement of worship isn't going to save people. The Lord never sanctions it.
