The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Jordan and Rushdoony

I recently read where James Jordan and ? Rushdoony represents different schools in their Theonomy. That Jordan may have influence the FVers? Will someone speak to that and is all Theonomy bad news? IOW, would all Theonomists include the civil law as part of the moral law?

The word "theonomy" means any view that identifies God as the source of ethics. Not every theonomy is bad news. It depends on the type of theonomy you are discussing. The historic reformed theonomy of Calvin and the Westminster Divines is certainly not bad news, but a faithful statement of the biblical position. On the other hand, the "ethical perspective of Christian Reconstruction" popularized by Rushdoony and Bahnsen (and which I call Theonomy to distinguish it from other theonomies), uses a different hermeneutic than Calvin and the Divines do to justify institution of Mosaic judicial stipulations tody. This particular perspective is bad news relying as it does upon Bahnsen's flawed exegesis of Matt. 5:17,18 and errant understanding of the position espoused by the Westminster Divines. One key difference between the two positions; historical theonomists following Calvin and the Divines do not include the civil laws in the moral law while many and perhaps most Theonomists say that the civil laws are included in the moral law.

I am not sure where Jordan (when he was a Theonomist - he is not one now) and Rushdoony differ. Jordan is certainly sysympathetic to FV'ers although my admittedly limited reading of the issue makes me suspect that he was not a formative influence on them. People like Saunders, Dunn, Wright, Shepherd, Schliessel, Wilkins, and Wilson were far more influential.