A couple people have asked about James White’s podcast regarding the Kavanaugh hearings and laws for witnesses. In an effort to describe the conflagration surrounding the Ford testimony, the discussion turned to the law of God and its application in modern times. “Kinda sounds like Theonomy,” was the thought—which would be a novel thing for someone who has criticized Theonomy. So, the question was asked. Let’s examine it a bit.
Read MoreThis question has been asked by a handful of critics, one of whom mined a quotation from a 2010 article I wrote and behaved as if they had exposed something big: either McDurmon is confused, a hypocrite, has sold out big time, or all three.
Read MoreIt is unfortunate that theonomists in the past have had to spend more time saying what Theonomy is not than what it is. There are good reasons for why this has been the case, but the fact can also leave newcomers and critics alike frustrated when searching for a concise definition which is both broad enough and distinctive enough to be helpful. In this chapter, I will give my version of that definition. I will also discuss some of the reasons past theonomists so often have had to spend time saying what Theonomy is not, as well as often take a defensive posture. I will show you why some of these reasons are not only expedient, but necessary.
Read MoreIn my previous review of Rev. Dewey Roberts’s claims that the principles of Theonomy taught by Greg Bahnsen lead directly to Federal Vision, I criticized his lack of definition, context, and consistency. Rev. Roberts has supplemented his previous effort with a new offering of lack of definition, context, and consistency in his “Part 2.”
Read Morehe Aquila Report ran a post by PCA pastor Dewey Roberts entitled “Theonomy, Bahnsen, and the Federal Vision” with the thesis, “Federal Vision is the natural progression of the principles of theonomy.” This piece is a response to that overly simplistic claim. A follow-up will look further at Theonomy and the uses of the law in Reformed thought.
I was interested by the subtitle of Dewey’s article mainly because such simplistic language often indicates that reasoning of similar nature is to follow, and I feared the worst. I read the piece and ended up bewildered. I can’t remember the last time I read something where the author refuted himself in such a short space and didn’t appear to realize it. So, I feel somewhat good in my bewilderment. I’ll explain more on that in a moment.
Read More
