2 comments

1. Not that I take the position of “theonomist” (for some common definitions), this is just a really bad argument.

   Should we focus on marketing techniques because they *are* effective for church growth? Effectiveness has never generally been the basis upon which we decide to do things. Else we’d be running three-ring circus church services because it’s good at getting seats filled.

   Instead we generally do what God has commanded, regardless of human wisdom.

   Reply ↓

   • Chris,

     It’s not a bad, pragmatist argument. It’s statement of fact. You’ve changed the terms of the argument.

     A pragmatist argues:

     1) I want to grow the church
     2) X will grow the church
     3) Let’s do X

     Gordon is arguing historical fact. Our contemporary theocrats are ignorant of history. They promise an outcome that 1) is not promised by God; 2) has never actually happened in history. In other words, there no basis for believing the theocrats.

     I make the same argument against them as I do the Marxists. There’s no basis in history for believing the Marxists when they promise that they’ll get it right the next time. No, they won’t. They murdered 100 million people in the 20th century. They don’t get to play anymore.

     Just yesterday, in class, as we working an aspects of Nicea and its aftermath I pointed that Constantine’s involvement wasn’t all good and the good outcome was exceptional in history. Immediately after his death, orthodoxy was seriously jeopardized and it remained so for a long time. Kuyper was right. Most of the time theocracy did not aid orthodoxy. The theocrats, Christian Nationalists, Theonomists, Reconstructionists all point to the exceptions. That’s not how history works. That’s magical thinking. The good outcome at Dort happened by a thread and was virtually undone afterward by latitudinarian magistrates. Worship was corrupted by latitudinarian magistrates. The return of the Remonstrants was supported and facilitated by latitudinarian magistrates. Heresy was promoted all over Europe by latitudinarian magistrates.

     What magistrates want is power, not the glory of God. They use religion for their own ends. It has always been that way. Some times, in transactional relationships, magistrates have advanced orthodoxy, briefly, but almost always for transactional reasons. The list of truly pious magistrates is very short. Frederick III was truly pious but his Lutheran son, Ludwig VI, drove out the Reformed right after. Had there been no state-church that wouldn’t have been possible.

     As to theonomy, there’s no doubt as to what is at issue: the abiding validity of the Mosaic judicial laws. To promote that is to contradict flatly the Westminster Confession and the universal Reformation consensus as represented in the Augsburg Confession and the Second Helvetic Confession. Theonomy, as defined, was the product of the fevered brain of an Anabaptist (Karlstadt, during his Anabaptist phase). It’s nuts.

     Reply ↓

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.