Lately I have been posting a lot about what the origin and actual meaning of theonomic and theonomist had been. As well as ways in which one can use the term in a positive way while denouncing the negative or deformed definition of it to support a Theocracy of Man. The question is should people whom are theonomic, but, totally against a Theocracy of man actually use the term theonimist?
Given the "Theonomy Movement of a Theocracy of Man". Is it wise to use the term even if used correctly and not in a distorted way? This is a good question and I can only give my own opinion of the term. I think it helps to destinguish between Uppercase Theonomy and lowercase theonomism or theonomists. Which means it would depend on the context.
If someone asked me if I was in favor of theonomy I would need to ask if they mean a literal Theonomy Movement advocate or supporters. If they were meaning God's word and Ethics has a say in politics and which policies a Christian supports. I would and can say I am a theonomist because my ethics are God's ethics, thus theonomic. So, yes that has a role in what political polices and initiatives I would support or not.
If they are asking if I want to try and recreate OT Isreal in my current Nation, or am for a Theocracy of Man of any kind, then I am extremely against and exceedingly troubled by Theonomy or Theonomists. I would not go into a grammar or history of term lecture about how the term was misappriated by over zealous Brethern.
I think, however, it is wrong not to ever use the term theonomist in any form and to let the word be soiled by over zealous Brethren. I think people need to know there is a exegetically consistent and proper use of the term and there is the Theocracy of Man use. That the two of them are at odds with each other in deepest love for our fellow Christians that have embraced the Theonomy Movement or Christian Reconstruction.
We need to be able to explain the difference when given the chance. However, my disdain for the ideology of the uppercase Theonomy Movement does not mean I love my Brethren whom have embraced the movement any less. In fact, my problems with the movement is stated because I love them and wish for them to not be following such a dangerous movement. Not out of a wish to divide the Body of Christ.
I would love for them to use the theonomist term in the way Van Til meant it to be used. Instead of embracing an abbaration Brother Til would be dead set against. In respect for Brother Til Christian Reconstructionists need to rethink and abandon their horrific distortion of theonomist. As well as the misuse of theonomy which simply means God’s Law or God's Ethics applied to life not a Theocratic regime of Man or a Christianizing by Force of the Nations.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/basics-ethics/
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/our-ethical-basis/
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/dividing-land/
https://feedingonchrist.org/theonomy-two-kingdom-and-a-middle-road/
https://heidelblog.net/2018/05/the-usa-is-not-old-testament-israel-1/
https://www.evidenceunseen.com/theology/practical-theology/christian-ethics/
