Born Again Christian; Biblical Fundamentalist, Received Text-KJV, Dispensational
Tuesday, August 31, 2021
Covenant Theology is Historic Christianity BY DR. J LIGON DUNCAN
Much of the confusion that I see in the current theological discourse within the various Reformed branches of the Reformational churches pertains to an ignorance of historic covenant theology. By historic or classical covenant theology, I mean the bi-covenantal theology exhibited in, for instance, the Westminster Confession of Faith (but with a pedigree stretching back to Zurich and Geneva, and behind them on into the Patristic era) which fully appreciates the fundamental difference between God's dealings with man pre- and post-Fall, and thus the vital distinction between God's goodness and his grace. C.H. Spurgeon was right when he asserted: "The doctrine of the covenant lies at the root of all true theology. It has been said that he who well understand s the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, is a master of divinity. I am persuaded that most of the mistakes which men make concerning the doctrines of Scripture, are based upon fundamental errors with regard to the covenant of law and of grace."
The current popularity of sundry mono-covenantal approaches (that is, systems that deny the covenant of works/covenant of grace framework of biblical history, whether they are Barthian or Hoeksemanian or Schilderian) exists only because of a widespread lack of familiarity with the more robust historic Reformed tradition on this subject. Furthermore, a serious effort at historical theological reacquaintance with classical bi-covenantal Reformed theology would also prove to be a great boon to current Reformed-Lutheran dialogue on the relation of their law-grace hermeneutic to the Reformed covenant of works-covenant of grace hermeneutic of Pauline polemics.
Covenant theology is the Gospel set in the context of God's eternal plan of communion with his people, and its historical outworking in the covenants of works and grace (as well as in the various progressive stages of the covenant of grace). It explains the meaning of the death of Christ in light of the fullness of the biblical teaching on the divine covenants, undergirds our understanding of the nature and use of the sacraments, and provides the fullest possible explanation of the grounds of our assurance. Put another way, covenant theology is the Bible's way of explaining and deepening our understanding of: (1) the atonement [the meaning of the death of Christ]; (2) assurance [the basis of our confidence of communion with God and enjoyment of his promises]; (3) the sacraments [signs and seals of God's covenant promises—what they are and how they work]; and (4) the continuity of redemptive history [the unified plan of God's salvation]. Covenant theology is also an hermeneutic, an approach to understanding the Scripture—an approach that attempts to biblically explain the unity of biblical revelation.
Covenant theology is a blending of biblical and systematic theology. It is biblical theology in the sense that covenant theology recognizes that the Bible itself structures the progress of redemptive history through the succession of covenants. It is systematic theology in that it recognizes the covenants as a fundamental architectonic or organizing principle for the Bible's theology. Thus it proceeds to integrate the biblical teaching about the federal headships of Adam and Christ, the covenantal nature of the incarnation and atonement, the continuities and discontinuities in the progress of redemptive history, the relation of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, law and gospel, into a coherent theological system.
Covenant theology is not a response to dispensationalism. It existed long before the rudiments of classical dispensationalism were brought together in the nineteenth century. Covenant theology is not sectarian, but an ecumenical Reformed approach to understanding the Bible, developed in the wake of the magisterial Reformation, but with roots stretching back to the earliest days of catholic Christianity and historically appreciated in all the various branches of the Reformed community (Baptist, Congregationalist, Presbyterian, Anglican, and Reformed). In light of this, J.I. Packer is surely right when he says "in modern Christendom covenant theology has been unjustly forgotten" (see his introduction to Witsius' Economy of the Covenants (P&R).
My social policies I would support if put forth.
I will get down to brass tacks and say what social policies I would support. I would also employ the current centre-right parties in Canada to consider making them part of their platform.
- Federal and state governments must enact constitutional and legal measures establishing the right to life from conception until natural death. These measures specifically include a constitutional amendment clarifying that there is no right to abortion, as well as laws that prohibit or restrict abortion. Because human life begins at conception, the intentional destruction of human embryos in any context must end.
- Federal, state, and local governments must end taxpayer funding of organizations that provide, promote, or facilitate abortions, and of health-care plans that include abortion coverage. Such funding should be redirected to organizations that promote healthy pregnancies and prenatal care.
- Federal and state governments must renew capital punishment in light of its being mandated by Christ himself for the most extreme crimes such as murder, sexual predators, rapists, acts of terrorism and things within general equity of those horrific crimes.
- I support efforts to help prevent the tragedy of suicide, including universal access to affordable mental-health care and the destigmatization of mental illness. Assisted suicide and euthanasia are a violation of disability rights, medical ethics, and human dignity, and must be prohibited in every state.
- Federal and state governments should collaborate to guarantee universal healthcare by diverse means, including single-payer initiatives, direct subsidization of provider networks, subsidized education for medical professionals willing to work in rural areas, support for cost-sharing programs and mutual aid societies, home care grants, simplified regulation, and the easing of restrictions on the importation of prescription drugs.
- Health policy must include protections for those with preexisting, chronic, and terminal conditions. We must include those who have no means to save for an emergency, people at every stage of life from prenatal care to hospice care, and people who find themselves in need of medical assistance while away from their home network.
The natural family, founded on the marriage of one man and one woman, is the fundamental unit and basis of every human society. Family breakdown is a key contributor to widespread social problems in this country. In order to promote stable families, it is in the interest of the state to support marriage recognized as the exclusive union of one man and one woman for life. At the same time, we recognize that the state must support the needs of people—especially children, as well as the elderly and disabled—in families of all kinds.
- States should repeal policies that penalize couples for getting married or that encourage divorce. At the same time, such reforms should not come at the cost of helping single parents.
- States must repeal no-fault divorce laws, which effectively undermine the permanence of marriage. At the same time, it is vital to continue efforts to prevent and prosecute domestic violence.
- In opposition to the commodification of children and the reproductive process, gestational surrogacy contracts and sperm banks should be prohibited. Adoption and fostering should be encouraged as a redemptive alternative, but with the understanding that the separation of children from their biological parents is never the primary goal.
- Federal and state governments should allow public funding for services that promote stable, healthy marriages and the flourishing of children, even when such services are provided by religious institutions with religious values.
- Pregnancy, childbirth, and neonatal care should all be fully covered by all healthcare plans so that no family need worry about the expenses of bringing a child into the world.
- Workplace accommodations for parents, including paid parental leave, flexible scheduling, and affordable child care should be available to as many families as possible. Further, no family should be forced to have two full-time incomes just to survive, and thus policies subsidizing child care by parents staying at home should be enacted. Funding and services should also be provided to encourage families to care for elderly and disabled family members at home without being impoverished by lost income. This could include preferential housing options, tax credits, and respite care.
- We reject the idea that surgical or hormonal treatment to circumvent the natural, healthy development and function of the body is necessary health care. In particular, we vigorously defend the right of parents to protect their minor children from such treatment. We call for legislation prohibiting any form of gender reassignment surgery on children.
- To create a more pro-family culture and strengthen the social fabric of neighborhoods, we favor efforts to make public spaces child-friendly, encourage outdoor play, and reform legal and administrative practices that unfairly penalize parents for giving children a reasonable degree of independence.
- Responsibility for the education of children resides primarily in the family. Families should be free to home-school their children or send them to public or private schools.
- We call for public support of both public and private schools, with a preferential option for economically disadvantaged students and an emphasis on making teaching a well-paying occupation.
- Teachers should be free to design their own curricula within general parameters set by local authorities. Standardized testing should not be the most significant factor in measuring the success of students and schools.
- Sex education classes, when offered, should be required to include accurate information on prenatal development, the risks of hormonal contraceptives, and the scientific evidence that abortion takes a human life.
I call upon all levels of government to live out the God-given ideals of human dignity, equality, and fraternity. Stemming from these ideal include; the free exercise of religion, freedom of conscience and expression, a fair justice system, and equal protection under the law.
- We advocate for laws that allow people of all faiths to practice their religion without intimidation, and we deplore secularism that seeks to remove religion from the public sphere. We are committed to the “free exercise of religion,” which should not be limited to “freedom of worship” that merely exists in private and within a house of worship. Faith is a public expression.
- Federal and state governments must safeguard and where needed create laws that protect religious institutions, small businesses, and private individuals from civil or criminal liability for choosing to follow their conscience in matters regarding life, healthcare, morality, sexuality, and marriage.
- Federal and state governments must safeguard conscience protections for employers and charities in health, education, and welfare that do not wish to participate in activities that contradict their sincerely-held convictions. In particular, we are in solidarity with religiously-affiliated institutions such as colleges, adoption agencies, and hospitals, which are facing pressure in some states to compromise on principles central to their doctrines.
- The prohibitions against an establishment of a State religion does not require the eradication of religious symbols from community events and property. So long as nobody is compelled to endorse or participate in an activity, communities should have the freedom to celebrate religious events and express religious values, without artificial distinctions that force religious believers to check their faith at the public door.
- All levels of government must defend the rights of public assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, understood through the tradition of ordered liberty.
- We acknowledge discrimination based on religion, race, ethnicity, and sex, and support laws favoring equal access to the polls, the courts, housing, and education.
- Government agencies working with the disabled must ensure that financial benefits are applied fairly and consistently. They must also make more efforts to incorporate the disabled into work or volunteer programs, depending on individual circumstances.
- Unjust employment discrimination and poor working conditions hinder career advancement and financial stability. We insist on legal protection for occupational safety and compensation, good faith in hiring and retention, and paid leave for illness and child-rearing.
- We oppose conscription into the armed services and other forms of compulsory government service, except in cases of clear and present necessity. We also oppose the mandatory registration of women in the Selective Service system.
- Drug addiction remains a social harm. It is vital to not remove laws against drugs.
- Laws against prostitution should focus on removing those participating from the cycle of exploitation, mandating penalties primarily on those who buy sex or arrange for its purchase. Closely tied to this is the need to aggressively combat human trafficking.
- It is also vital to recognize the social costs of pornography, which is inseparable from human trafficking, the promotion of pedophilia, and rape. We therefore support laws which criminalize the production and sale of pornography and deny categorically that pornography is protected speech.
The federal government has the responsibility to implement safe, secure, and orderly borders.
Reinstating Laws against Sunday Shopping (both for Christian reasons and to give workers a day of rest.)
Working towards.....
the Abolition of the Drug Trade
Abolition of human trafficking and sex trafficking.
Returning to a Biblical definition of marriage under the law.
I oppose any idea of allowing public nudity. I also am against public displays of sex or flaunting sexuality.
Small t theonimist/theonomy vs the so-called "Theonomy movement."
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/our-ethical-basis/ "Dr. R.C. Sproul notes that Christian ethics are theonomic, that is, governed by God’s law. This does not mean the church is called to institute a theocracy in the civil realm. It does mean that no correct ethical decision can be made apart from reflection on God’s law. Many Christians neglect the study of the law of the Lord, but if we do not seek to understand His commandments, we will lack the wisdom needed to discern between right and wrong in our decisions."
Or as explained in more detail below;
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/basics-ethics/
"According to Scripture, ethics are theonomic — determined not by the self but by the Lord. God’s standard alone provides the absolutes for our conduct.
This standard exists outside of us and is binding upon all, regardless of whether or not one believes Scripture.
All men, because they are in Adam (Rom. 5:12), are bound by the covenant of works and will be judged according to their obedience. We may choose to disregard this relationship’s obligations, but we cannot destroy them.
Scripture reveals to us a transcendent law that remains binding upon all and is based on our Creator’s holy character. These stipulations do not exist outside of Himself; they are part of His eternal nature. This law, often known as the moral law in the Reformed tradition, is the “law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2) and can be found in the Ten Commandments and in the ethical imperatives of the apostles.
Finally, when we say all Christians are theonomic, we are not endorsing theonomy, a movement that says the old covenant’s civil penalties remain in force. Believers may legitimately debate this issue, but all must be “theonomists” in the sense of affirming the permanent validity of God’s moral standards (1 Cor. 6:9–10).“
Thus I would be a lower case "theonomist,” in the sense of affirming the permanent validity of God’s moral standards (1 Cor. 6:9–10). However, I am not a "theonomist," in the sense used by The so-called "Theonomy movement." The latter use of the term was inappropriately and inaccurately taken to mean Reconstruction or taking Dominion by misapropriating Van Til.
https://feedingonchrist.org/theonomy-two-kingdom-and-a-middle-road/ "In contrast to the “spirituality doctrine” and “Two Kingdoms theology,” there is the Christian Reconstructionist movement of the 1970’s. This twisting and contortion of what theonomy means was an attempt, albeit inaccurate, to apply Van Tillianism to the political sphere. Cornelius Van Til, the great Reformed apologist from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, boldly asserted that there was no such thing as “natural law,” rather there is only God’s law. He even went so far as to say “you are either autonomous or theonomist.” He did not mean what the movement says he meant. Van Til was simply asserting that God’s word is authoritative for every sphere of life. What the Reconstructionists miss in Van Til’s theology is the role of common grace in regard to the moral law and politics. Van Til constantly pointed out the fact that the law of God, the Ten Commandments, were written on the heart of all men by nature. While men hate the fact that they are the Imago Dei, they can never escape the implications of the fact that they descended from Adam and had a conscience that bore witness to the law of God (Romans 2:15). How could ungodly governements enacted righteous laws throughout the centuries? This is where Van Til’s empahsis on common grace comes in. Paul could say of Nero that he was God’s minister to punish evil and reward good–not because he was reading the Bible and implementing the Old Covenant civil law, but because he was made int he image of God and by common grace acknowledged to some extent right and wrong in God’s world."
"The Theonomy movement" is a horrendous redefining of the original meanings of those whom coined the terms theonomic, theonomist, theonomism and even theonomy. It is also even a distorting of the term Theocracy which literally means ruled by God. The only true Theocracy exists when Christ returns to physically reign and rule with the Culmination of all things at the end of all things.
What they really believe in is called Reconstructionism or Domionism/Kingdom Now Theology.
https://www.gotquestions.org/dominion-theology.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/kingdom-now.html
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/dominion-theology-or-reconstructionism
Proponents of the "Theonomy Movement" appropriated the terms theonomic and theonomist from people that fell under the Natural Law tradition.
This could have been a simple misunderstanding of Van Til's applications by Brothers and Sisters in the Faith. The term theonomy historically simply means God’s Law and Morals. Theo meaning God and nomy meaning Law.
Theonomy, prior to the Christian Reconstructionists was defined the same way theonomic and theonomist was used by Ligioner Ministries or Cornelius Van Til. Which is not compatible with the redefinition within Reconstructionist or Domionism theology.
I am theonomic, a theonomist in that sense and in that form agree with the idea of theonomy when it means simply living by God's Law and Holy Word. However, if you mean the Reconstruction co-opted "Theonomy movement," I would not go near it with a million foot pole.
What did Cornelius Van Til mean by theonomist? Not what the Christian Reconstructionists think it means.
Source of all Van Til information comes from the following article
https://feedingonchrist.org/theonomy-two-kingdom-and-a-middle-road/
The Theonomy movement is not truly understanding what Cornelius Van Til meant by the term theonomist. I am not saying that all of them are intentionally misleading. I think many of them are just following what they were taught by Greg Bahnsen and J. Rushdoony whom themselves misplaced what theonomist actually meant. This will be a more detailed look at Cornelius Van Til’s political views.
First off did Cornelius truly say, "you are either autonomous or theonomist?" Yes, he certainly did, but, he in no way would endorse the twisting of this into the modern Theonomy movement which misappriated the term theonomic or theonomist. He was a proponent of Reformed Natural Law and Common Grace in politics.
"The Theonomy movement of the 1970’swas an attempt, albeit inaccurate, to apply Van Tillianism to the political sphere. Cornelius Van Til, the great Reformed apologist from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, boldly asserted that there was no such thing as “natural law,” rather there is only God’s law. He even went so far as to say “you are either autonomous or theonomist.” He did not mean what the movement says he meant. Van Til was simply asserting that God’s word is authoritative for every sphere of life. What the Reconstructionists miss in Van Til’s theology is the role of common grace in regard to the moral law and politics. Van Til constantly pointed out the fact that the law of God, the Ten Commandments, were written on the heart of all men by nature. While men hate the fact that they are the Imago Dei, they can never escape the implications of the fact that they descended from Adam and had a conscience that bore witness to the law of God (Romans 2:15). How could ungodly governements enacted righteous laws throughout the centuries? This is where Van Til’s empahsis on common grace comes in. Paul could say of Nero that he was God’s minister to punish evil and reward good–not because he was reading the Bible and implementing the Old Covenant civil law, but because he was made int he image of God and by common grace acknowledged to some extent right and wrong in God’s world. What Van Til had in mind when he said there was no such thing as natural law was the theology of “natural law” developed by the Roman Catholic church. The Church of Rome has for centuries asserted that there is authoritative natural law that men can ascertain by their reason. This, in fact, denies the noetic effects of sin, and gives man an element of autonomy that the Bible emphatically denies."
Far from condoning the movement that took the word and misapplied it Van Til was in favor of a much different outlook on politics and the civil magistrates.
"Men like Rousas John Rushdooney, Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, Gary Demar etc., on account of their commitment to Van Tillian theology and a strong postmillennial expectation, spearheaded the movement, known as Christian Reconstructionism. The postmillennialism actually drove the movement as much or more than their commitment to Van Til. Implementing the civil law, given to Israel as a body politic in redemptive history, is a non-reality in pagan governments, therefore, theonomy as a movement is a non-reality unless the governments are first Christianized. There came to be an affinity, on the part of theonomists, for the “Christian America/God and Country” men like Pat Robertson. Theonomy flourished for a time in America, for obvious reasons. As an aside, Van Til was amillennial in his eschatology. This, it seems to me, had an enormous impact of his silence with regard to the political sphere.
The important thing to remember, as you seek to wade through these waters, is that the Two Kingdoms theology being promoted today is largely a response to the Theonomic movement/Christian Reconstructionism and the Christian America/God and Country influence. It is an overreaction to deviant theological movements. But, it is a reaction that is findamentally good and necessary. Theonomy as a movement is an aberrant theology that is not upheld by Scripture, a healthy biblical theology, or the Westminster Confession of Faith. The civil laws of the Old Testament were given to Israel in redemptive history. The Westminster Divines emphatically say that the civil laws were “abrogated” with the state of that people. In the Old Covenant Dispensation the Church was also the State. While theonomists will vehemently assert that there was a distinction between church and state, in Old Covenant Israel, due to the fact that there were separate ecclesiastical and civil offices, they cannot answer the question, “To whom was the Bible written?” The Bible was written to the church. This means that the civil laws of the Old Covenant were written to the church. Which in turn means that there was not as strong a distinction between church and state in the Old Covenant, as there is in the New. In the New Covenant, the church is said to be a spiritual nation (Matthew 21:43). It is here that proponents of Two Kingdom theology are correct with regard to their redemptive-historical emphasis. So where does “Two Kingdoms theology” fall short? The answer is found back in Van Til’s theology."
What would Van Til’s theology actually look like applied to the political sphere? In other words what would a Van Tillian politics based on classical theonomic ethics or theonomist ethics look like according to his works on this subject?
"While proponents of the Theonomy movement misrepresent Van Til in regard to the role of civil law for modern governments, they are correct to follow Van Til in regard to the Bible being authoritative for all of life. Since rulers are the Imago Dei, they are bound to enact righteous laws. The only way they can accurately discern those laws is by means of God’s special revelation–His written word. In his article “Nature and Scripture,” found in The Infallible Word–a symposium by the faculty of Westminister Theological Seminary–, Van Til persuasively argues that natural and supernatural revelation were meant to be together from the beginning. Adam was to interpret the world around him–a world that revealed the God who made him–by means of the word of God–the God who spoke to him. It was Satan who sought to lead Adam to separate natural and supernatural revelation. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was part of God’s natural revelation, but it was also the object of supernatural revelation. Satan told Adam that he could interpret the Tree apart from God’s word. In the sphere of redemption natural and supernatural revelation are brought back together again (Here it is interesting to note that Jesus created a body for Himself and brought natural and supernatural revelation back together. Man is natural revelation as the Imago Dei. The living Word of God became man to reconcile all things to Himself and to one day consummate His saving work in a New Heavens and New Earth wherein righteousness dwells.)
Someone may ask the question, “How does this come to bear on my life as a Christian?” While hundreds of applications could be set forth, the most fundamental applications have to do with ethics in the civil realm and the responsibility of the Christian as a citizen of a particular country. Christians have enormous privileges and responsibilities. We do not think that we will usher in the Kingdom of God through politics, but as the apostle Paul wrote, “as we have oppotunity, let us do good to all men, especially to the household of faith.” Voting for the most righteous political leader is a privilege and a responsibility. We have the privilege of voting for representatives, influencing legislation, that will impact the lives of our neighbors and especially brethren in the church. Some proponents of a “Two Kingdoms theology” assert that it really doesn’t matter who you vote for, that the Bible does not speak to politicians as politicians, and that homosexual marriage in the civil realm is completely legitimate and should be embraced by Christians. To be fair, those who promote the later stance would say that homosexuality should be opposed in the church, but supported in the world."
In other words Van Til was right in stating what he did and it is even legitimate to bring Christian Ethics or theonomic ethics to bear in the realm of what legislation we vote for or against. However, that is different than supporting the Reconstructionists definition of theonomy in the public square.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/basics-ethics/ "According to Scripture, ethics are theonomic — determined not by the self but by the Lord. God’s standard alone provides the absolutes for our conduct.
This standard exists outside of us and is binding upon all, regardless of whether or not one believes Scripture. All men, because they are in Adam (Rom. 5:12), are bound by the covenant of works and will be judged according to their obedience. We may choose to disregard this relationship’s obligations, but we cannot destroy them.
Scripture reveals to us a transcendent law that remains binding upon all and is based on our Creator’s holy character. These stipulations do not exist outside of Himself; they are part of His eternal nature. This law, often known as the moral law in the Reformed tradition, is the “law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2) and can be found in the Ten Commandments and in the ethical imperatives of the apostles.
Finally, when we say all Christians are theonomic, we are not endorsing theonomy, a movement that says the old covenant’s civil penalties remain in force. Believers may legitimately debate this issue, but all must be “theonomists” in the sense of affirming the permanent validity of God’s moral standards (1 Cor. 6:9–10)."
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/our-ethical-basis/ "Dr. R.C. Sproul notes that Christian ethics are theonomic, that is, governed by God’s law. This does not mean the church is called to institute a theocracy in the civil realm. It does mean that no correct ethical decision can be made apart from reflection on God’s law. Many Christians neglect the study of the law of the Lord, but if we do not seek to understand His commandments, we will lack the wisdom needed to discern between right and wrong in our decisions."
No Van Til’s theonomists/theonomy and the Theonomy Movement are not the same thing.
I came across an article that like me denounces the Christian Reconstructionists whom have taken on the term Theonomy Movement. However, I had to do a response to it because it was severely mistaken in one very big respect. That is in assuming The Theonomy Movement was truly theonomic as opposed to Quasi-Theocratic Domionism. Assuming that Van Til somehow pushed forward Christian Reconstruction when he supported theonomist ethics or Theonomism or theonomy in ethics.
The truth as I have pointed out before is Van Til’s views on Government fall into the Reformed Natural Law tradition not Christian Reconstructionist. Theonomy as put forward by Van Til was the idea of making Our Lord authoritative in all spheres of our Lives. In this Van Til sense I am absolutely a defender of theonomy and theonomic ethics. I am a Van Tillian theonomist, but, I fall squarely in the anti Reconstruction movement box.
https://feedingonchrist.org/theonomy-two-kingdom-and-a-middle-road/ In contrast to the “spirituality doctrine” and “Two Kingdoms theology,” there is the Christian Reconstructionist movement of the 1970’s. This twisting and contortion of what theonomy means was an attempt, albeit inaccurate, to apply Van Tillianism to the political sphere. Cornelius Van Til, the great Reformed apologist from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, boldly asserted that there was no such thing as “natural law,” rather there is only God’s law. He even went so far as to say “you are either autonomous or theonomist.” He did not mean what the movement says he meant. Van Til was simply asserting that God’s word is authoritative for every sphere of life. What the Reconstructionists miss in Van Til’s theology is the role of common grace in regard to the moral law and politics. Van Til constantly pointed out the fact that the law of God, the Ten Commandments, were written on the heart of all men by nature. While men hate the fact that they are the Imago Dei, they can never escape the implications of the fact that they descended from Adam and had a conscience that bore witness to the law of God (Romans 2:15). How could ungodly governements enacted righteous laws throughout the centuries? This is where Van Til’s empahsis on common grace comes in. Paul could say of Nero that he was God’s minister to punish evil and reward good–not because he was reading the Bible and implementing the Old Covenant civil law, but because he was made int he image of God and by common grace acknowledged to some extent right and wrong in God’s world."
"The Theonomy movement" is a horrendous redefining of the original meanings of those whom coined the terms theonomic, theonomist, theonomism and even theonomy.
It is also even a distorting of Theocracy which literally means ruled by God. The only true Theocracy exists when Christ returns to physically reign and rule with the Culmination of all things at the end of all things.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/our-ethical-basis/ "Dr. R.C. Sproul notes that Christian ethics are theonomic, that is, governed by God’s law.
This does not mean the church is called to institute a theocracy in the civil realm. It does mean that no correct ethical decision can be made apart from reflection on God’s law.
Many Christians neglect the study of the law of the Lord, but if we do not seek to understand His commandments, we will lack the wisdom needed to discern between right and wrong in our decisions."
Or as explained in more detail below;
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/basics-ethics/
"According to Scripture, ethics are theonomic — determined not by the self but by the Lord. God’s standard alone provides the absolutes for our conduct.
This standard exists outside of us and is binding upon all, regardless of whether or not one believes Scripture.
All men, because they are in Adam (Rom. 5:12), are bound by the covenant of works and will be judged according to their obedience. We may choose to disregard this relationship’s obligations, but we cannot destroy them.
Scripture reveals to us a transcendent law that remains binding upon all and is based on our Creator’s holy character. These stipulations do not exist outside of Himself; they are part of His eternal nature. This law, often known as the moral law in the Reformed tradition, is the “law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2) and can be found in the Ten Commandments and in the ethical imperatives of the apostles.
Finally, when we say all Christians are theonomic, we are not endorsing theonomy, a movement that says the old covenant’s civil penalties remain in force. Believers may legitimately debate this issue, but all must be “theonomists” in the sense of affirming the permanent validity of God’s moral standards (1 Cor. 6:9–10).“
My take on the controversial article on Reforming America Ministries
This is going to be my take directly on the controversial article espousing Arminians as being not Christian. I am going to detail what I agree and disagree with. I do agree with some of it and disagree with other parts of it.
Arminianism teaches that human beings are not totally depraved because they can exercise their frail and fickle free will to save themselves. This is contrary to Holy Scripture––which teaches that sinners are conceived in sin, dead in sin, slaves to sin, and are servants of sin––that are totally polluted in all faculties and parts of the body and soul. To argue that a sinner can come to Christ by exercising their free will is to falsely assume that they have the “desire” to do this, which is clearly antithetical to the teachings of Paul (Rom. 3:10-18).
Yes, Classical Arminianism as put forward by the Ramonstrants leads to the above heretical false teaching. Agreed that classical Arminianism as espoused by the Ramonstrants is false teaching and a False Gospel. However, there are many varieties of Arminianisms.
If the Arminian is preaching/teaching people Open Theism, Provisionism, or actual Pelagianism they are truly espousing a different Gospel. One espousing views such as the denial of Original Sin would indeed be lost and outside the Kingdom.
There is a major difference in eschewing the title of Brother or Sister from a person espousing truly false teachings and what a majority of Arminianists believe in. One should not eschew the Brethern whom is the average modified modern day Arminian. John Wesleyan Arminianism comes to mind for example as truly Evangelical, yet, confused/blessedly inconsistent Christian brethren.
If God has to foresee whether a sinner will either accept or deny Him––this would mean that God would have to see something in the sinner that He must laud, and not loathe. God sees absolutely nothing in anyone that He must praise, since our best works do not merit His favor, but His wrath. Also, if God must foresee whether the sinner will either accept or deny him, then God is not transcendent. The all-knowing God does not need to foresee; He already knows from all eternity, and that is so because He has ordained everything that comes to pass.
Arminianism is diabolical because it teaches that the vicarious and atoning death of Christ was made universally for all, even to include those whom the Father has consigned to everlasting torment in hell. Does this mean that Christ actually redeemed or just made sinners redeemable? If Christ died for all––this would mean that Christ only made sinners redeemable. Therefore, because the application of His death is contingent upon the mere will of men to either accept or deny Him, this cannot be the glorious gospel of grace.
Arminianism distorts the teachings of God’s free grace. If God’s grace is contingent upon man’s decision, then God's grace is not free, and salvation would have to be ascribed to man and not God. Also, if the will of man precedes the will of God, or if the power of God in the gospel is only possible if men cooperate, then Paul would be a liar because he said that “it is God that works in us to will and to do” (Phil. 2:13), and he called the gospel the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). This is why advocates of semi-Pelagian popery are teachers of their own righteousness, and despisers of free grace.
Arminianism will contradictorily teach that regenerate saints can fall from the faith that they once previously accepted. Unlettered men or women will denounce this necessary conclusion, and will posit that not all Arminians will agree with this notion. Despite these conjectures or opinions of men or women, Arminians can never have assurance of their salvation because if they have the free will to be saved, then to be logically consistent, they will have the ability to lose it also. On the contrary, regenerate Christians can have assurance of their salvation, since God’s decree is unchangeable, eternal, and absolute.
Arminians are inconsistent and thankfully do not tend to take their views from the Classic Dutch Arminian views of the Ramonstrants detailed above.
However, it is correct to say that all Arminianists, even saved ones believe in an incoherent and subiblical/Unbiblical view known as Unlimited or Universal Atonement. Which says Jesus died even for those whom would end up in hell by not becoming a Christian. I agree that it is a subblical/Unbiblical view and it is due to blessed inconsistencies that they are saved despite this view. I also agree that the Arminianism view of losing your salvation is also Unbiblical.
I disagree that due to Classical Arminianism being a complete heretical false teaching that tends from serious errors to outright False Gospels one should paint all Arminianism with the same brush. Most Arminianists do not even know the history related to the Canons of Dort let alone follow all 5 points of the Ramonstrants. We do have legitimate Arminian Brothers and Sisters because Election to Salvation is all of God and none of us. Just because a Brother or Sister gets saved despite inconsistent or incorrect Theology does not give Calvinists the right to deem them as not being saved by God.
If the Arminianism espoused by someone is the same as the Arminianism described in this article one would have serious concerns for them. However, the majority of Arminianisms are not this kind of Arminian thankfully.
Does The Gospel come filled with Calvinist freight? Yes, of course I agree with C.H. Spurgeon whom said that, "Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."
If one fully understands the gospel, then it inevitably leads to Calvinism. However, non-Calvinists can be (and are) saved. C.H. Spurgeon famously praised his Evangelical Arminianism Brothers like John Wesley in his, "A Defense of Calvinism."
In the words of J.I. Packer on the matter of Arminianisms.
"A more discerning approach, however, is that exemplified by William Ames, one of the periti of Dort, who wrote: “The view of the Remonstrants, as it is taken by the mass of their supporters, is not strictly a heresy [that is, a major lapse from the gospel], but a dangerous error tending toward heresy. As maintained by some of them, however, it is the Pelagian heresy: because they deny that the effective operation of inward grace is necessary for conversion.”18 Ames’s words alert us to the fact that Arminianism varies, so that blanket judgments are not in order: each version of post-Reformation semi-Pelagianism must be judged on its own merits. Ames is right.
Thus, it is surely proper to be less hard on Wesleyanism than on any form of Dutch Arminianism, just because (to the loss of clarity and consistency, yet to the furtherance of the gospel) Wesley’s teaching included so much Reformation truth about the nature of faith, the witness of the Spirit, and effectual calling. Wesley’s Arminianism, we might say, contained a good deal of its own antidote! Its evangelical and religious motivation, also, puts it in a different class from the Remonstrant position.
But why should Arminianisms vary in this way? The final answer is: not because Arminians are personally erratic, but because all Arminian positions are intrinsically and in principle unstable. Arminianism is a slippery slope, and it is always arbitrary where one stops on the slide down. All Arminianisms start from a rationalistic hermeneutic which reads into the Bible at every point the philosophic axiom that to be responsible before God man’s acts must be contingent in relation to him. All Arminianisms involve a rationalistic restriction of the sovereignty of God and the efficacy of the cross, a restriction which Scripture seems directly to contradict. All Arminianisms involve a measure of synergism, if not strong (God helps me to save myself) then weak (I help God to save me). All Arminianisms imply the non-necessity of hearing the gospel, inasmuch as they affirm that every man can be saved by responding to what he knows of God here and now. The right way to analyze the difference between Arminianisms is to ask how far they go in working out these principles, and how far they allow evangelical checks and balances to restrain them.
On all this, we have just two comments to make.
First, the Bible forbids us to take a single step along the Arminian road. It clearly affirms the positions which Dort highlighted: God’s absolute sovereignty; human responsibility without any measure of contingency or indeterminacy (look at Acts 2:24!); and a direct connection between the work of Christ in obtaining and applying redemption. The very name of Jesus is itself an announcement that “he shall save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). It does not tell us that He will make all men savable, but that He will actually save those who are His. And it is in these terms that the Bible speaks throughout.19
Second, if we travel the Arminian road, there are three precious things that we necessarily lose. These are: the clear knowledge of God’s sovereignty in our salvation, the clear sight of Christ’s glory as the Savior of His people, and the clear sense of the Christian’s eternal security in the covenant of grace. These are sad, and saddening losses, which impoverish the children of God in the same way that Roman Catholicism impoverishes them. There is more comfort and joy for God’s children set forth in the Scriptures than the Roman and Arminian theologies allow them to possess. At this point, at least, Rous’s verdict stands: Romanism and Arminianism show themselves to be all too much akin.
We conclude, then, that Arminianism should be diagnosed, not as a creative alternative to Reformation teaching, but as an impoverishing reaction to it, involving a partial denial of the biblical faith in the God of all grace. The lapse is less serious in some cases, more so in others, but in every case it calls for responsible notice and compassionate correction. The logical conclusion of Arminian principles would be pure Pelagianism, but no Arminian takes his principles so far (otherwise one would call him a Pelagian, and be done with it). Calvinists should therefore approach professed Arminians as brother evangelicals trapped in weakening theological mistakes, and seek to help them to a better mind."
In summary :
Consistently Arminian viewpoints as espoused at the Synod of Dort are a Graceles False Gospel and Heretical Unbiblical Unchristian views.
However, the different Arminianisms means one can be Arminian and still be sticking to enough of the Gospel for one to consider them fellow Christians in the Body of Christ.
However, one is a saved Arminiast despite holding to said views. Very similar to Romanism vs Biblical Christianity.
Although IF Arminianism did equal unsaved God would not be unjust in saving only Calvinists either. I just do not think it is wise nor correct to say the Elect require correct hermeneutics to be saved.
Arminianists are getting into the Kingdom of God due to a blessed inconsistency. It is that same blessed inconsistency and Gods Soveriegn election that points to why I can claim inconsistent Armenians as Brothers and Sisters in Christ.
If the Arminian is preaching Open Theism, Provisionism or actual Pelagianism they are truly espousing a different Graceless False Unchristian Gospel. One espousing views such as the denial of Original Sin are to be treated as lost and outside the Kingdom. Someone whom was involved in said Churches could be saved despite the horrific heresy they came to faith under.
Is Arminianism damnable heresy? (Effectual Grace)
by Phil Johnson
This post is adapted from a transcript of a seminar from the 2007 Shepherds’ Conference, titled “Closet Calvinists” (at this link).
I love the doctrines of grace and don’t shy away from the label “Calvinist.” I believe in the sovereignty of God. I’m convinced Scripture teaches that God is completely sovereign not only in salvation (effectually calling and granting faith to those whom He chooses); but also in every detail of the outworking of Providence. “Whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified” (Romans 8:30). And He makes “all things work together for good to those who love God, [i.e.,] to those who are the called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28). Quite simply, He “works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Ephesians 1:11).
That’s what people commonly mean when they speak of “Calvinism.” When I accept that label, I am not pledging allegiance to the man John Calvin. I am not affirming everything he taught, and I’m not condoning everything he did. I’m convinced Calvin was a godly man and one of the finest biblical expositors and theological minds ever, but he wasn’t always right. As a matter of fact, my own convictions are baptistic, so I am by no means one of Calvin’s devoted followers. In other words, when I accept the label “Calvinist,” it’s only for convenience’s sake. I’m not saying “I am of Calvin” in the Corinthian sense.
Furthermore, I’m not one of those who wears Calvinism like a big chip on his shoulder, daring people to fight with me about it. It’s true that I can get feisty about certain points of doctrine—especially when someone attacks a principle that goes to the heart of the gospel, like substitutionary atonement, or original sin, or justification by faith and the principle of imputed righteousness. When one of those principles is challenged, I’m ready to fight. (And I also don’t mind beating up on whatever happens to be the latest evangelical fad.)
But Calvinism isn’t one of those issues I get worked up and angry about. I’ll discuss it with you, but if you are spoiling for a fight about it, you are likely to find me hard to provoke. I spent too many years as an Arminian myself to pretend that the truth on these issues is easy and obvious.
Now, don’t get the wrong idea. I do think the truth of God’s sovereignty is clear and ultimately inescapable in Scripture. But it is a difficult truth to come to grips with, so I am sympathetic with those who struggle with it. I’m Calvinistic enough to believe that God has ordained (at least for the time being) that some of my brethren should hold Arminian opinions.
Over the years I have probably written at least twice as much material trying to tone down angry hyper Calvinists as I have arguing with Arminians. That’s not because I think hyper Calvinism is a more serious error than Arminianism. As a matter of fact, I would say the two errors are strikingly similar. But I don’t hear very many voices of caution being raised against the dangers of hyper Calvinism, and there are armies of Calvinists out there already challenging the Arminians, so I’ve tried to speak out as much as possible against the tendencies of the hypers.
That’s why I’m probably a whole lot less militant than you might expect when it comes to attacking the errors of Arminianism. Besides, I have gotten much further answering Arminian objections with patient teaching and dispassionate, reasonable, biblical instruction—instead of angry arguments and instant anathemas.
Why not take a more passive, lenient, brotherly, approach to all theological disagreements? Because I firmly believe there are some theological errors that do deserve a firm and decisive anathema. That’s Paul’s point in Galatians 1:8-9; and it’s the same point the apostle John makes in 2 John, verses 7-11. When someone is teaching an error that fatally corrupts the truth of the gospel, “let him be anathema.”
But let me be plain here: Simple Arminianism doesn’t fall in that category. It’s not fair to pin the label of rank heresy on Arminianism, the way some of my more zealous Calvinist brethren seem prone to do. I’m talking about historic, evangelical Arminianism, of the classic and Wesleyan varieties — Arminianism, not Pelagianism, or open theism, or whatever heresy Clark Pinnock has invented this week — but true evangelical Arminianism. Arminianism is certainly wrong; and I would argue that it’s inconsistent with itself. But in my judgment, standard, garden variety Arminianism is not so fatally wrong that we need to consign our Arminian brethren to the eternal flames or even automatically refuse them fellowship in our pastors’ fraternals.
If you think I’m beginning to sound like an apologist for Arminianism, I’m definitely not that. I do think Arminianism is a profound error. Its tendencies can be truly sinister, and when it is allowed to go to seed, it does lead people into rank heresy. But what I’m saying here is that mere Arminianism itself isn’t damnable heresy. It’s just grossly inconsistent with the core gospel doctrines that Arminians themselves believe and affirm.
But as long as I’m sounding like a defender of Arminianism, let me also say this: There are plenty of ignorant and inconsistent Calvinists out there, too. With the rise of the Internet it’s easier than ever for self taught lay people to engage in theological dialogue and debate through internet forums. I think that’s mostly good, and I encourage it. But the Internet makes it easy for like minded but ignorant people to clump together and endlessly reinforce one another’s ignorance. And I fear that happens a lot.
Hyper Calvinists seem especially susceptible to that tendency, and there are nests of them here and there—especially on the Internet. And more and more frequently these days I encounter people, who have been influenced by extremism on the Internet, touting hyper Calvinist ideas and insisting that if someone is an Arminian, that person is not really a Christian at all. They equate Arminianism with sheer works salvation. They suggest that Arminianism implicitly denies the atonement. Or they insist that the God worshiped by Arminians is a totally different God from the God of Scripture.
That’s really over-the-top rhetoric—totally unnecessary—and rooted in historical ignorance. A couple of years ago, when I started my weblog, I mentioned that tendency in the first entry I posted, which was titled “Quick and Dirty Calvinism.” At the end of that post, I said this: My advice to young Calvinists is to learn theology from the historic mainstream Calvinist authors, not from blogs and discussion forums on the Internet. Some of the forums may be helpful because they direct you to more important resources. But if you think of the Internet as a surrogate for seminary, you run a very high risk of becoming unbalanced.
Read mainstream Calvinist authors, however, and you’ll have trouble finding even one who regarded Arminianism per se as damnable heresy. There’s a reason for that: It’s because while Arminianism is bafflingly inconsistent, it is not necessarily damnably erroneous. Most Arminians themselves—and I’m still speaking here of the classic and Wesleyan varieties, not Pelagianism masquerading as Arminianism—most Arminians themselves emphatically affirm gospel truth that is actually rooted in Calvinistic presuppositions.
(some) “tell God He has no right to draw a straight line with a crooked stick. It is straightforward: until you embrace all of Calvinism (I wonder just how much of that they really believe, or just how perfect their own understanding actually is?), you are lost. Unsaved. Enemy of God. Only Calvinists are saved. Pretty blunt, but there it is. Hyper-Calvinism in all its theological snobbery and perfectionism, never realizing that God works with sinners over time, in His own way, to cause them to GROW in grace and the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. I was an heir of grace before I ever heard of John Calvin, ever heard of particular redemption, ever heard of many elements of Reformed theology. Once you start making the definition of the gospel more strict than the Spirit did in the Word, you have walked out of grace and into the realm of error yourself. Mark these men, keep an eye out for them! Few things can kill a Reformed church faster than graceless hyperism.”
The 20th century and the modern missionary movement. You remember I called your attention to the fact that though the missionary movement really began with Calvinistic missionaries, the present day scene and really during the 19th century the transition from a predominantly Reformed missionary endeavor to a predominantly Arminian one took place. We’ve analyzed Arminianism a little bit more at an earlier period but now we are addressing the question with respect to evangelism and missionary work and winning people to Jesus Christ, and the question I’d asked was whether, indeed, an Arminian can do this.
My answer I said, was yes…and no.
Now the answer is yes in this sense: Because evangelical Arminians profess faith in the divine Christ, His atoning blood, His inspired word, and many, many other elements of Christian truth. People giving these essential truths, unlike people hearing the liberal denial of them, may be saved. We must never forget that point, that Arminianism is evangelical. It does proclaim the Gospel. It tells of a divine Christ who died vicariously for the sins of the people. That, we must never forget and for that we must always be profoundly grateful.
But along with it are other doctrines that we’ll come to in a moment, but right now we’ll say, when an Arminian speaks his version of Christianity, a person who hears him hears essential, core Christianity. The Gospel is there. There’s no denying that. And if the people really do believe in the Jesus Christ preached by an Arminian, they’ll believe in the Christ of the Gospel. He is the second Person of the Trinity, He is absolutely divine, He has a true and sinless human nature, He died vicariously on the cross. He rose bodily from the grave, He is going to come again in the clouds of heaven. Those basic verities will be carried to the ends of the earth by people who are truly Arminian and truly evangelical. In that sense, yes, because the core of the Gospel is there.
The answer is also no. … Arminian evangelism rests on profound error: that fallen man is not dead spiritually but only dying. He is therefore supposed to be able to bring about his own new birth by his self-generated faith. This can never happen. No one can ever be saved by himself even with the help of the Holy Spirit. Usually when I point this out to Arminians, they say, ‘don’t forget, we’re relying on the help of the Holy Spirit!’ Well, help from the Holy Spirit is not going to do any good for a corpse! You need more than help! And all you’re offering IS help! You admitting the person is sick and dying but you don’t admit what the Bible says, namely, he is dead. … I hope and believe that multitudes of Arminians really believe the truth they do hold in spite of the otherwise fatal errors they proclaim to the world.
So in a sentence, can an Arminian be a missionary, can person actually be saved by persons propagating such errors, yes, because they are propagating such truths. Such glorious truths that cause us to embrace them as fellow Christians and ask them to accept us as the same.
But at the same time, as an integral part of their theology, is an element which if it’s taken seriously, understood and acted upon by hearers of the Arminian gospel they’ll never be saved, they never can be saved. … These people are evangelical, they believe in the bible, they worship Jesus Christ, so you tend to trust them. If you trust their errors, it’s fatal. If you rely on their way of converting, you’ll never be converted.
Let’s try to hold onto both of these ideas.
Ray Ortlund: In Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism, Iain Murray draws four lessons from that conflict:
1. “Genuine evangelical Christianity is never of an exclusive spirit. Any view of the truth which undermines catholicity has gone astray from Scripture.” Spurgeon disagreed with hyper-Calvinists who “made faith in election a part of saving faith and thus either denied the Christianity of all professed Christians who did not so believe or at least treated such profession with much suspicion.”
2. Spurgeon “wanted to see both divine sovereignty and human responsibility upheld, but when it came to gospel preaching he believed that there needed to be a greater concentration upon responsibility. The tendency of Hyper-Calvinism was to make sinners want to understand theology before they could believe in Christ.”
3. “This controversy directs us to our need for profound humility before God. It reminds us forcefully of questions about which we can only say, ‘Behold, God is great, and we know him not’ (Job 36:26).” “It is to be feared that sharp contentions between Christians on these issues have too often arisen from a wrong confidence in our powers of reasoning and our assumed ability to draw logical inferences.” Spurgeon saw “how a system which sought to attribute all to the grace of God had itself too much confidence in the powers of reason.”
4. “The final conclusion has to be that when Calvinism ceases to be evangelistic, when it becomes more concerned with theory than with the salvation of men and women, when acceptance of doctrines seems to become more important than acceptance of Christ, then it is a system going to seed and it will invariably lose its attractive power.”
Iain H. Murray, SPURGEON VS. HYPER-CALVINISM; Banner of Truth (Edinburgh, 1995), pages 110-122. Italics added.
Does The Gospel come filled with Calvinist freight? Yes, of course I agree with C.H. Spurgeon whom said that, "Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."
If one fully understands the gospel, then it inevitably leads to Calvinism. However, non-Calvinists can be (and are) saved. C.H. Spurgeon famously praised his Evangelical Arminianism Brothers like John Wesley in his, "A Defense of Calvinism."
Consistently Arminian viewpoints as espoused at the Synod of Dort are a False Gospel and Heretical Unbiblical Unchristian views.
However, the different Arminianisms means one can be Arminian and still be sticking to enough of the Gospel for one to consider them fellow Christians in the Body of Christ.
However, one is a saved Arminiast despite holding to said views. Very similar to Romanism vs Biblical Christianity.
Although IF Arminianism did equal unsaved God would not be unjust in saving only Calvinists either. I just do not think it is wise nor correct to say the Elect require correct hermeneutics to be saved.
Arminianists are getting into the Kingdom of God due to a blessed inconsistency. It is that same blessed inconsistency and Gods Soveriegn election that points to why I can claim inconsistent Armenians as Brothers and Sisters in Christ.
If, however, the Arminian is preaching Open Theism, Provisionism or actual Pelagianism they are truly espousing a different Graceless False Unchristian Gospel. One espousing views such as the denial of Original Sin are to be treated as lost and outside the Kingdom. I recommend considering anyone spreading such views outside of The Church. If someone has been truly saved despite such Teachings they need to be decipled and taught the True Gospel. Having done so they would hopefully switch to a truly Solid Church. I would say a good Orthodox Reformed Church, but, any truly Orthodox and Biblically Solid church would suffice. If they refuse to listen to what is Biblical they may have never truly been saved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)