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.
"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."
