I was wondering if anyone has read Westminster Seminary's book "Theonomy: A Reformed Critique,’
Although I have not read it, I just received via e-mail a response to that book that even though I don’t know a whole lot about Theonomy, this response has put ‘Westminster Seminary's "Theonomy: A Reformed Critique,’ on my wish list.
As I said I don’t know a lot about this topic, however from what I have read about it I am not in favor of it, mainly because it seems to me that Theonomy could only work in a theocracy.
I have a few questions.
1.) Have you read ‘Westminster Seminary's "Theonomy: A Reformed Critique,’ and do you believe it does a good job of critiquing Theonomy?
2.) Read below and tell me what comes to mind. As someone who has not read either book, if I was to judge the matter based on this response, I would probably be inclined to agree with it. However, even though I only know a little about Theonomy, I am inclined to believe that it is written by people that want a theocracy, when I don’t see anywhere in the Scriptures that speak of this. Am I thinking along the right lines?
I also thought this might provide for in an interesting discussion.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Westminster’s Confession:The abandonment of Van Til’s Legacy by Gary North
In October, 1990, the long-promised book by the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary finally appeared: Theonomy: A Reformed Critique. In response comes Westminster's Confession. It is both a negative and a positive statement. Theonomists believe that "you can't beat something with nothing." It is not enough to demonstrate that someone is wrong: you must also show what is correct.

Cornelius Van Til made this principle the bedrock application of his apologetic method. It was not enough to demonstrate that his opponents' systems of thought were internally inconsistent; he also showed why Christianity is the only logical alternative. But he left an incomplete legacy. He refused to offer an explicitly biblical alternative to the natural law theory that he had refuted. His system created a judicial vacuum.

Into that vacuum have come two rival factions: the political pluralists and the theonomists. The battle is now engaged.

Westminster Seminary's problem for a generation — indeed, Calvinistic American Presbyterianism's problem for two centuries — has been to justify a commitment to modern religious and political pluralism in terms of the Westminster confession's judicial standards. The faculty has been double-minded on this point: Proclaiming their commitment to Van Til's apologetic method, they have simultaneously denied the idea that the Bible is the bearer of biblical blueprints or judicial frameworks for society. In short, they have abandoned any ideal of a Christian society, i.e., Christendom itself.

This is Westminster's social and cultural confession — a theologically negative confession, proclaiming in the name of the original Westminster Assembly what society ought not to be, but never daring to suggest what it should be. In contrast, Westminster's Confession offers a positive confession. It offers a biblical alternative. It restores the vision of Christendom.

"Boy what a breath of fresh air! This book is a response to Westminster Seminary's "Theonomy: A Reformed Critique," which for the most part is so weak and off the point it's almost hard to believe they actually published it. North's book is entertaining and full of insights--you will really enjoy it." -- Jay Scott Herman, Escondido, CA



Last edited by Tom; Tue Aug 24, 2010 7:55 PM.