abstract: |

Skip Navigation

by William Einwechter

In the foregoing article, "The Incomplete Program of the National Reform Association," Robert Emery takes the National Reform Association (NRA) to task for not defining its terms when it speaks in its Statement of Purpose of the civil magistrate's duty "to govern according to the expressed will of God," and of the necessity of our nation conforming its laws, institutions, and practices "to the principles of biblical law as revealed in the Old and New Testaments." His repeated use of the words honest, honesty, and honestly implies that he believes the National Reform Association may be acting dishonestly in this matter, i.e., the NRA is, for some reason, not saying what it really believes in reference to the law of God. Mr. Emery's article raises important questions and deserves an answer.

History and Purpose of the NRA

The National Reform Association was founded when this nation was in the midst of its War Between the States. The men who came together in those dark times in American history to form the NRA saw the war in terms of God's judgment on America for two primary sins: a failure to give honor and authority to Christ in the national covenant (the U.S. Constitution) and for chattel slavery. In their minds, the first sin was foremost. Therefore, the stated goal of the NRA from the beginning was to amend the Constitution so that it would acknowledge "the authority of Christ and His law." In fact, the original name of the NRA was, "The National Association to Secure the Religious Amendment to the Constitution." At a conference that led to the forming of the NRA, the following amendment to the Constitution was presented as an example of what needs to be done (the proposed amendment is in brackets):

We, the People of the United States, [recognizing the being and attributes of Almighty God, the Divine Authority of Holy Scripture, the law of God as the paramount rule, and Jesus the Messiah, the Saviour, and Lord of all,] in order to form a more perfect union...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.1

The theology that undergirded the drive to found the NRA was the doctrine of the mediatorial reign of Jesus Christ over the nations and the duty of all nations to formally submit to His reign. This doctrine has received its finest exposition in William Symington's Messiah the Prince.2 After proving the mediatorial reign of Christ over the nations, Symington makes this application:

It is the duty of nations and their rulers, to have respect to the glory of Christ in all their institutions and transactions. No principle can less admit of dispute than that it is the duty of subjects to honour their king: and if Christ is King of nations and magistrates subjects of the Messiah, they must be held bound, in virtue of their relative characters, to pay all possible respect to his honor and glory.... Like all other moral creatures, they are to have respect to the highest possible end in all that they do; and certainly no end can they ever propose to themselves, at all so dignified and illustrious as the display of the glorious excellency of the Prince of the kings of the earth, who possesses undisputed sovereignty over all. This object, therefore, they are bound to keep distinctly before them, in the formation of their constitution; in the establishment of their various institutions; in the shaping of their policy, whether domestic or foreign; in the selection and appointment of their functionaries, whether supreme or subordinate; in their legislative enactments; and in all their separate acts of administration. Not an establishment are they at liberty to set up; not a law are they entitled to pass; not a step are they free to take; not an alliance are they permitted to form, without having supreme regard to this high and glorious end. Hostility, or even indifference, to this, partakes of the very essence of rebellion against their sovereign Lord.3

The truths herein set forth by William Symington express the theological underpinnings of the NRA then and now. It is our desire, above all, to proclaim the crown rights of Jesus Christ. And the first of these rights is that His subjects must recognize His authority and submit themselves by covenant to His reign (cf.. Ps. 2:10-12). The NRA purpose statement says it this way:

Jesus Christ is Lord in all aspects of life, including civil government. Jesus Christ is, therefore, the Ruler of Nations, and should be explicitly confessed as such in any constitutional documents.

Now, presumedly, Mr. Emery is in agreement with these truths and does not fault the NRA for failure of definition at this point. But what he needs to understand is that the truth of the mediatorial reign of Christ over the nations is the fundamental basis for the NRA's testimony and mission in regard to civil government. It is on this grand truth that the members and supporters of the NRA have united--not on the basis of a particular understanding of how the Old Testament judicial laws apply today. Within the NRA there is room for debate on a whole host of issues--such debate is good and necessary for refining our understanding of what the Bible teaches concerning civil government--and one of these issues is the applicability of the Old Testament judicial laws to the state today. The matter of the law of God and its authority over the state is very important and is a necessary corollary to the doctrine of Christ's mediatorial authority, but it, of itself, is not the foundation of the NRA.

The Law of God and the NRA

Mr. Emery is disturbed that the NRA does not explicitly define what it means by "the principles of biblical law." He says that there is no "generally accepted definition" of this phrase, and since we have not adopted our own clear definition of it, those who read our Statement of Purpose will not know what the NRA is talking about. He says that we have "blithely" (i.e., carelessly, irresponsibly) declared that the civil ruler must "govern according to the expressed will of God," implying that we are unconcerned whether or not anyone knows what we mean by this. Such allegations need a rebuttal.

First, throughout the history of the NRA, which was founded in 1864, our statements on the law of God and its relationship to the civil magistrate have been consistently of the same "undefined" nature. If our current statement on the authority of God's law is undefined and irresponsible, then this has been a fault of the NRA throughout its 140 year history. For instance, the NRA began with the proposal that this nation recognize "the law of God as the paramount rule" and set as its goal "the acknowledgment of the authority of Christ and His law" by the nation. The original constitution of the NRA stated in its preamble:

Believing that Almighty God is the source of all power and authority in civil government, that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Ruler of Nations, and that the revealed will of God is of supreme authority in civil affairs;....

The original constitution went on to say that one of the objects of the Association was to,

secure such an amendment to the Constitution of the United States as will declare the nation's allegiance to Jesus Christ and its acceptance of the moral laws of the Christian religion, and so indicate that this is a Christian nation, and place all the Christian laws, institutions, and usages of our government on an undeniably legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.4

Forms of Petition employed by the NRA to lobby civil magistrates to recognize the authority of Christ spoke of the "supreme authority of his [Christ's] moral laws" and "the moral law of the Christian religion."5

In a listing of the Fundamental Positions of The Christian Statesman, the founding editors stated: "The Holy Scriptures as a revelation of the will of God to men for their guidance in all the relations of life, are the supreme law of nations."6

David McAllister, who was one of those founding editors and an early leader in the NRA, wrote in his book on the history and principles of the NRA that the principles of Christian political science advocated by the NRA include the belief that the nation as a moral person "is under the moral law of the Supreme Ruler of nations, which includes both the law of nature and the Revealed Will of God."7 He further stated in a chapter on the scriptural basis of the NRA that the nation "is a moral being to which God has given supreme moral law" and quotes Deuteronomy 6:1-3 and 8:1 in support.7 In the same chapter, McAllister declares that "Civil Rulers are enjoined to learn Christ's law, and acknowledge and obey him as king," and that, "They are required to consult God's revealed law as the great law-book of the nation."8 In defense of these two points, McAllister quotes Psalm 2:10-12 and Deuteronomy 17:18-20.

Now this long and consistent testimony to the absolute authority of the written law of God over the state and the civil magistrate is continued in the Statement of Purpose adopted by the NRA Board on November 3, 1995. On that same date, the Board also embraced David McAllister's summary of the basic principles of Christian political science and the scriptural basis for Christian civil government.9 By these decisions we align ourselves with those who have gone before us, and continue the unbroken NRA witness to the truth of the authority of Christ and His law over the nations.

Second, the statements concerning the law of God that Mr. Emery dislikes, because he says that he and others cannot know what we mean by these statements, are rather definite. The statement that the civil ruler "is duty-bound to govern according to the expressed will of God" means that magistrates are not autonomous, nor in office to serve the will of the people. Rather, they must carry out the duties of their office in obedience to the written Word of God--the Bible. The word "expressed" means that which is uttered in words, set down in writing. The NRA would bind the magistrate to the text of Scripture for knowing the will of God for him as a president, lawmaker, judge, mayor, councilman, etc. This means that civil rulers are not free to follow public opinion, reason, or "natural law" as the ultimate basis for their decisions. On the contrary, they must study the Bible to see what It has to say, and how It applies to the issue at hand; having discerned the will of God, to the best of their ability, they are duty-bound to obey God.

When the NRA speaks of "the principles of biblical law as revealed in the Old and New Testaments" we do not speak in riddles. The word "principle," in such a context as this, refers to "a general truth" or a "tenet" which "serves as a rule of action or the basis of a system."10 Since the rule of action for the civil sphere is "justice" or "equity," and since the word "principle" means "general truth," the statement of the NRA affirms that the general equity of biblical law as revealed in the Old and New Testaments is binding on the civil government of our nation in regard to its laws, institutions, and practices. Perhaps, now, we can have a "generally accepted definition" of "the principles of biblical law"; i.e., "the general equity of biblical law." At least this is a definition that the NRA would "honestly" affirm to those who seek to understand us.

Since our statement is similar to the position of the Westminster Confession on the judicial laws of the Old Testament, it is unclear why our critic is so zealous to commend the Westminster standards as precise and condemn ours as vague. It is true that our statement on the law of God leaves room for debate on how the Old Testament judicial laws apply today (not if they apply, but how they apply), but it is also true that the statement in the Westminster Confession does the same thing.11 The statement of the Confession unquestionably says that we are bound today to the general equity contained in the judicial laws:

To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require (Westminster Confession of Faith, XIX, 4).

So then, what is the general equity of the judicial laws concerning blasphemy, Sabbath desecration, murder, rape, incest, adultery, divorce, sodomy, incorrigible youth, unsolved homicide, a goring ox, assault, theft, abortion, etc.? The statement of this Confession does not answer the question, it raises it. It is left for men of Christian faith and goodwill to answer it. Amen, says the NRA. Let the discussion over the "general equity of biblical law" proceed.

Third, the NRA has vigorously contributed to the discussion over the meaning and application of biblical law to the state. Our affirmations in our Statement of Purpose are the organization's "official positions" on God's law. Within the framework of these doctrinal assertions, we have written and developed our views on biblical law. In The Christian Statesman, the NRA has published many articles relating to the interpretation and application of the law of God to the state. In the book that sets forth the vision of the NRA, Explicitly Christian Politics, there is a wealth of material on the subject of God's law. Although most every chapter in the book speaks, at some point, to the issue of the law of God in the state, there is one entire chapter written by Kevin Clauson that is devoted to the subject: "The Great Law-Book of the Nation." The reprinting of Messiah the Prince by the NRA enables us to set forth the views of this Covenanter pastor on the law of God. His section that delineates "the duty of nations, as the subjects of Christ, to take his law as their rule," is an outstanding statement of what the NRA has historically believed.

If Mr. Emery (and others like him), want to know what the NRA confesses concerning the law of God, let him read our Statement of Purpose and our Principles of Christian Civil Government. If he wants to know how the NRA is advancing the discussion on the meaning and application of the general equity of biblical law to today, let him read the NRA's periodical and our published books. Instead of finding fault with our lack of definition, perhaps he will see that we are working hard to perfect ours and the church's definition of the "principles of biblical law." Instead of insinuating that we have not been honest in our statements on the law of God, perhaps he will have his own mind challenged by our forthright writings on God's law.

Fourth, the NRA's statements on the law of God are designed to meet the "crisis of definition" we face in our time. In terms of the standard, the "higher law," that binds the state and the magistrate, the Christian answers put forth in our day are such as the following: family values, traditional values, conservative values, democracy, freedom, doing what's right, the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, reason, "natural law," and God's law. A few of these may be helpful and on the right track, but most are not. Among most evangelical Christian scholars and leaders, the standard that is advocated is "natural law." Anyone who is familiar with evangelical social theory, knows that pluralism and "natural law" are the reigning paradigm.12

Therefore, the definitional crisis of our day is about what should be the standard of law for the state: family values, "natural law," or biblical law. In this crisis, the NRA speaks a definitive word: biblical law is the standard. Democracy, pluralism, and "natural law" must be rejected by the Christian, and God's written law must be advocated as the only true and sure foundation for justice, peace, and prosperity. The NRA is meeting the definitional crises of the hour by its ongoing critique of "natural law"13 and pluralism, and its explicit advocacy of biblical law.

Mr. Emery implies that the debate over theonomy is the definitional crisis of the hour. This is not the case. The leading question of the day that the church must confront is whether biblical law or "natural law" will be the standard the church raises to equip Christians for carrying out their duty in the civil sphere. Theonomy is an important issue, but it is a meaningful subject of debate only among those who agree that the law of God as revealed in the Bible is the absolute moral standard for every area of life.

Theonomy and the NRA

In his brief article that calls into question the program of the NRA, Robert Emery states:

Many now active in the organization are "theonomists," followers of R. J. Rushdoony in holding that Old Testament law ("judicial" as well as moral), unless specifically abrogated or qualified by the New Testament, still provide the binding rule of action for both state and individual.1 This position is, as a matter of historical reality, antithetical to the classical, orthodox Calvinism set forth by the Westminster standards: "To them [Israel] also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require."

Is the NRA a theonomic association, and is theonomy "antithetical" to the Westminster standards?

First, we need to define theonomy. The word "theonomy" is the combination of two Greek terms, theos, which means "God," and nomos, which means "law." So the word "theonomy" simply means "God's law." In and of itself, theonomy is a perfectly good and biblical term. However, giving the meaning of the word, does not define the view on God's law that is associated with theonomy, or theonomic ethics. Perhaps there is no agreed upon definition of theonomy14 (this is part of the problem), but here is a definition that this writer advocates:

What then is "theonomy"? Theonomy is that view of Christian ethics that believes that God's law as revealed in Scripture is the only proper rule and the only acceptable standard for judging the rightness or wrongness of any and all human behavior. God's law alone determines what man ought to do and why he ought to do it. Theonomic ethics, therefore, sets forth God's law as the supreme standard of truth and righteousness, and seeks to apply the precepts of God's law to every action of man and to every sphere of life. Theonomy is simply the extension of the doctrine of sola scriptura into the realm of ethics.15

Theonomy teaches that the law of God as revealed in the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures is the sole authoritative standard of ethics, and that the Bible is entirely sufficient to instruct us in righteousness for every sphere of life. Theonomy's motto could well be: "the whole Bible for the whole of life."16

The stumbling block to many is that theonomy believes that sola scriptura applies to the civil magistrate and the issue of justice. In other words, the magistrate is not granted autonomy in deciding what sins are crimes and what punishment these particular crimes deserve. This means that magistrates today are duty-bound to consult the revealed will of God in the civil statutes and judgments (case laws) of Old Testament law to determine the justice God requires of them as they execute His wrath on evildoers (Rom. 13:4). The theonomist maintains that the civil law of Israel (along with any other pertinent Scripture) reveals the the essential justice required in criminal cases.

Second, although there are a number of theonomists active in the NRA, belief in the particular tenets of theonomy is not a prerequisite for NRA members. As stated earlier, the NRA's defining doctrine is its witness to the mediatorial reign of Jesus Christ over the nations. Tony Cowley, a past president of the NRA and a current member of the Board of Advisors, states, after noting the influence of theonomy in the NRA:

Yet theonomy is not the defining characteristic of the NRA. The vision of the NRA continues to be that of calling this and all nations to acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Mediator-King, to submit to His Word as law, and to govern justly in accordance with His revealed will.17

All who endorse the NRA's Statement of Purpose and our Principles of Christian Civil Government are welcome in the NRA, regardless of their particular views on theonomy. It should be noted that the Board that endorsed these organizational standards in 1996 was composed of non-theonomists as well as theonomists. We all agree on the authority of biblical law in the state, but we do not necessarily agree on what the general equity of the Old Testament judicial laws require of the magistrate today.

The NRA's view that King Jesus "should be explicitly confessed as such in any constitutional documents" is often called "national confession." Harold Harrington, a past president of the NRA and a national confessionalist, gives this analysis of the relationship between theonomy and national confession:

The theonomic position and national confession position have some close affinities. Indeed, some advocates of each position appear to move from one camp to the other without noticing any difference. However, for some there are considerable differences to be discussed and resolved if possible. At the heart of the theonomic position is the conviction that any law of God given in any time remains in effect until God revokes it or it can be shown that it has no contemporary application. What we have is an interpretive principle for the Bible. This principle does not in itself, appear to be in opposition to the position of the national confessionalists and may, in fact, complement that position. One question raised is whether or not this is a sound hermeneutic....

It seems that one could adopt both the national confession position and the theonomic position as complementary. Or one could be a national confessionalist without being a theonomist. However, the non-theonomist would be left with the problem of discovering what the law of Christ the king might be for a modern Christian nation. Much of the appeal of theonomy to the advocate of the national confession position is that it appears to provide a large body of law for the Christian nation immediately. Nevertheless, many national confessionalists believe that one can find the moral principles of Christ's law for nations within the Israelite law and elsewhere without explicit application of that body of law to a modern nation. On the other hand... it would be difficult to be a theonomist without being a national confessionalist as well. The confessionalist position may be implicit in the theonomist position.18

Harrington, giving the national confessional response to theonomy at the "Consultation on the Biblical Role of Civil Government" that was held at Geneva College in 1987, notes that he finds himself in agreement with theonomists in many important respects. Primary areas of agreement are the necessity of the revealed Word of God to construct a Christian political and social ethic, the unchanging nature of moral law, the sovereignty of Jesus Christ over the rulers of the earth, the profitability of Old Testament law to instruct the nations in law, and a rejection of pluralism.19 He commends theonomists because they "have boldly faced the question, If Christ is sovereign, what is His law?"20 However, he expresses the following thoughtful dissent:

...I am much more certain that Christ is presently Lord over the civil magistrate than I am as to what law Christ calls him to administer. It is certain that the Christian civil magistrate must administer some law that he regards as Christ's law, but I am not persuaded that the modern theonomist has correctly identified that law for us. The theonomic argument that the civil law of ancient Israel (with revisions) should become the basis of contemporary American civil law is thoughtful but not compelling. Difficulties arise over what laws Christ may or may not have changed in the New Covenant age. Moreover, various societal change since the time of Moses and Christ make many Israelite civil laws seem irrelevant.21

National confessional theonomists respect the view of men like Harrington, and recognize the difficulties he mentions, but, nonetheless, are convinced that universal and unchanging principles of justice are revealed by Christ in the civil statutes and case laws of the Old Testament, and to these (though not to these alone) the Christian magistrate must look to understand the law he is to administer.22

The doctrinal affirmations of the NRA provide the setting for national confessionalists and theonomists to work together to advance the crown rights of Jesus Christ. There are some important differences, but in the fundamentals we are one. The perspective of Harold Harrington sets the example: "It is my fervent desire that theonomists and national confessionalists will be able to consolidate their agreements and work out their disagreements at least to the degree that we will be able to cooperate fully with each other."23 He also states that it is his "desire to join with theonomists in constructing a political philosophy based upon special revelation. From that start we confidently proceed, knowing that we will not always come to the same conclusions, but believing that the Spirit will fruitfully guide us in our thinking."24

Third, the Westminster standards are not antithetical to the perspective of theonomy, but neither are they an explicit endorsement of theonomy. The statement concerning the judicial laws of Israel in chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession is, as we have argued above, somewhat vague. On the one hand, the Confession says that the judicial laws of Israel expired with that state. But on the other hand, it lays down the rule that we are yet bound to the "general equity" contained in these laws. So anti-theonomists build their case on the clause that says the judicial laws of Israel have expired, while theonomists argue from the fact that the Confession teaches that we are still obliged to these laws as far as their general equity requires. Harrington suggests that, "It is useless to argue the question of whether the Westminster Confession does or does not endorse or imply theonomy."25 He is right, because the Confession's statement on the judicial laws reflects a consensus that balances the differing views on these laws among those who drafted it--it is not definitive one way or another.26

Theonomists have pointed out that it is hard to argue that the Westminster Confession is antithetical to theonomy when the most controversial aspect of the Old Testament judicial laws, i.e., the death penalty for blasphemy and heresy (as found in Lev. 24:16; Deut. 13:5-6, 12; Ezra 7:25-26; 2 Chron. 15:12-13) is cited in support of the Christian magistrate's duty to protect the purity of God's truth, suppress heresy and blasphemy, and make sure the worship and discipline of the church is duly administered (XXIII, 3).27

Theonomists also call attention to the fundamental theonomic arguments concerning the civil magistrate's duty by George Gillespie, one of the Scottish commissioners to the Westminster Assembly, in his pamphlet, Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty.28 Samuel Rutherford and the Puritans also give evidence of a nascent theonomy in their writings and political theory.29 The Puritans of New England actually embodied the essentials of theonomy when they drafted the civil law for their colonies.30

A concluding summary of the Puritan view of the judicial law may help illuminate the problem faced in appealing to the Westminster Confession in the debate over theonomy:

There is a perplexing problem of historical interpretation here, which in our day is causing some worthy men to engage in some rather vain polemics. In the face of the political, economic, and social theory enunciated from the Scriptures by the Chalcedon Foundation, some in the neo-Puritan movement have argued that the doctrine of the continuity of the case law and its relevance for the church, state, family, and society was never part of Calvinistic and Puritan tradition. The dispute arises partly because of the ambiguity of the Puritans on this matter. There was some discussion amongst them on exactly how far the judicial law of Moses was to be carried over. The doctrine of the continuity of the case law was not articulated, to my knowledge, in a fully self-consistent, self-conscious form. But the case law did form the bedrock of the Puritans' outlook on society, as we will demonstrate below from Rutherford. To declare that the doctrine of the continuing relevance of the case law was never a part of Puritan theology is errant nonsense, but I readily grant that it had not been developed as consistently by them as it has been in our day by men like Rushdoony, Bahnsen, and others of the Chalcedon Foundation. What we find in the Puritans and in Rutherford are the principles--biblical, theological, and hermeneutical--upon which the case for theonomy is built. The medieval social consensus was a Christian consensus. There was much biblical truth that the Puritans could assume to be the "law of nations" and the "rule of nature," because from their perspective it seemed as though it was. But three hundred years of humanistic autonomy give us a profounder insight, and enable us to be more consistent and epistemologically self-conscious. We must ground our outlook on the Scripture, if for no other reason than there is no longer any social consensus that is Christian.31

Conclusion

The National Reform Association advocates a comprehensive basis for political reform along biblical lines. By our Statement of Purpose and Principles of Christian Civil Government, we delineate the essential foundation for a Christian reformation of civil government. But we do not claim to have answered all the questions or settled all the debates. We are an organization that is seeking to enlighten the church in regard to what the Bible says about the state, the civil magistrate, and the duty of Christian citizens. We also want to advance the discussion of how the Bible applies to politics today.

The NRA, historically, has not been the province of any one denomination of Christians. Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Calvinists, Arminians, theonomists and non-theonomists, have worked together to advance the cause of Christ through the mission and message of the NRA. Obviously, there were areas of disagreement among such a diverse group of Christians. But the truth that united them was greater than the things that divided them. That truth was the sovereignty of Jesus Christ over the nation, and the authority of His law over all civil law. "The crown rights of Jesus Christ!" was their rallying cry. And so may it be ours today.

William Einwechter is the vice president of the National Reform Association and the editor of The Christian Statesman and the book Explicitly Christian Politics. He serves as a teaching elder at Immanuel Free Reformed Church in Ephrata, Pennsylvania.

Endnotes

1. David McAllister, Christian Civil Government in America, 6th ed., rev. by T.H. Acheson and Wm. Parsons (Pittsburgh: National Reform Association, 1927), p. 21.

2. William Symington, Messiah the Prince (Pittsburgh: The Christian Statesman Press, [1884] 1999).

3. Ibid., pp. 151-152. Emphasis added.

4. See McAllister, Christian Civil Government in America, p. 345.

5. Ibid., p. 347.

6. The Christian Statesman, vol. 1, no. 2 (September 16, 1867), p. 16.

7. McAllister, Christian Civil Government in America, p. 151.

8. Ibid., p. 157.

9. See Explicitly Christian Politics, William O. Einwechter, ed. (Pittsburgh: The Christian Statesman Press, 1997), pp. 254-257.

10. Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (San Francisco: Foundation for American Christian Education [1828] 1993 ed.).

11. There has been disagreement in Presbyterianism over the meaning of the general equity clause in the Westminster Confession, and there is spirited debate today over the interpretation and application of the Old Testament judicial law among those who take the Confession as their standard.

12. See William O. Einwechter, Evangelical Political Compromise, The Christian Statesman, vol. 141, no. 6 (November- December 1998), pp. 4-10.

13. For example, The Christian Statesman, vol. 142, no. 1 (January-February 1999) issue is entirely devoted to a critique of "natural law."

14. In this writer's opinion, Greg Bahnsen's definition of theonomy as "the abiding validity of the law in exhaustive detail" is misleading and unhelpful.

15. William O. Einwechter, Ethics and God's Law: An Introduction to Theonomy (Mill Hall, PA: Preston/Speed Publications, 1995), pp. 6-7.

16. Ibid., p. 15.

17. Anthony A. Cowley, From Whence We Came: A Background of the National Reform Association, in Explicitly Christian Politics, p. 15.

18. Harold Harrington, Christian Views of Civil Government, The Sovereign, vol. 1, no.1 (June 1989), p. 9; as cited by Cowley in From Whence We Came, p. 13.

19. H. B. Harrington, The National Confessional Response to Theonomy, in God and Politics: Four Views of the Reformation of Civil Government, ed. Gary Scott Smith (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1989), pp. 68-72.

20. Ibid., p. 69.

21. Ibid., p. 70.

22. See William O. Einwechter, A Theonomic View of Civil Law, The Christian Statesman, vol. 140, no. 5 (September-October 1997).

23. Harrington, The National Confessional Response, p. 68.

24. Ibid., p. 71.

25. Ibid., p. 70.

26. See Christopher Coldwell, George Gillespie's Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty, The Christian Statesman, vol. 137, no. 1 (January-February 1994), pp. 18-23.

27. Not all theonomists would go as far as the Westminster Confession on this point. In fact, one of the chief criticisms lodged against theonomy by modern "Covenanters" (primarily "Steelites") is that some theonomists only argue that the magistrate is responsible to enforce the civil penalties of the Old Testament judicial laws in regard to the Second Table of the Ten Commandments.

28. An excerpt from this essay that reproduces the essence of the theonomic argument is printed in this issue of The Christian Statesman, pp. 22-24.

29. Richard Flinn, Samuel Rutherford and Puritan Political Theory, The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, vol 5, no. 2 (Winter 1978-79).

30. For documentation of this see, Donald S. Lutz, ed., Colonial Origins of the American Constitution; and also John Cotton, An Abstract of the Laws of New England, as They Are Now Established (1641), reprinted in The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, vol. 5, no. 2 (Winter 1978-79).

31. Flinn, Samuel Rutherford and Puritan Political Theory, p. 55.

back to top