Does theonomy really cause Federal Vision?

The answer is "kind of."   True, there is no explicit connection between theonomy and federal vision theology.  However, in both you see a marginalization of Reformed theological sources.  If you see theonomists quote older theologians like Warfield or whomever, it is mainly for Warfield's postmillennialism or some comment on civil ethics.  Rarely is it on the gospel.

But if you push a theonomist in the corner, they will affirm (usually) justification by free grace.  But why did it take so long to get there?

It comes down to this: both are suspicious of post-Calvin sources of Reformed theology.  Both see the period from Beza until Kuyper as one of philosophical compromise.  Ironically, this is Karl Barth's thesis.  Both accidentally erode the foundations of Reformed thought.

Theonomy and the Steroids Effect

I wrote this at Bayou Huguenot a few years ago and I was reflecting on my own life.  But even then the article was somewhat abstract.  Since then I participated (much to my shame) in the "Level Headed Reconstructionist" group on facebook.  I don't want to be mean, and I am well aware of my own limitations (quite painfully), but these guys are the 4 year olds of theology.  They don't know how much they don't know, yet they think--due to their understanding of Van Til--that they know everything.   

One of the dangers in taking steroids while lifting weights is that despite all the gains, the level you reach is likely the highest you will ever reach.   Once you get off steroids, and even the biggest “user” won’t take them perpetually (No one does steroids, or even creatine, during the regular season for risk of dehydration), it is unlikely you will ever reach those levels naturally again.

We see something similar in theological studies.   Deciding which area to major in will determine how deep one’s theological knowledge can get.   Here was my (and many others; and for what it’s worth, throughout this post substitute any Federal Vision term in place of a theonomy term and the point is largely the same) problem in institutional learning:  I immediately jumped on how important apologetics was for the Christian life to the extent that I made apologetical concerns overwhelm theological concerns.  While I believe Greg Bahnsen died entirely orthodox, and I do not believe theonomy is a heresy (only an error), focusing on Bahnsen’s method to such an extent, both in apologetics and ethics, warped the rest of theology.   I essentially made theology proper (and soteriology and ecclesiology) subsets of apologetics/ethics, instead of the other way around.
I won’t deny:  I became very good at apologetics and ethics, but I didn’t know jack about theology outside of a basic outline of Berkhof.   Studying Reformed theology among sources, and worse, movements, who are only barely Reformed (Bahnsen excluded), limited how deep I could go in Reformed theology.

I’ll say it another way:  when I was taking covenant theology we had to read sections of Gisbertus Voetius and Cocceius in class.  I got frustrated thinking, “These guys are tying in the covenant of works with natural law.  Don’t they know how un-reformed natural law is?”  Problem was, I was wrong.  But if you read the standard theonomic (or FV; by the way, the FV fully adopts the Barthian, and now historically falsified, Calvin vs. Calvinist paradigm) historiography, there is no way to avoid such misreadings.  Even worse, said historiography fully prevents one from learning at the feet of these high Reformed masters.

By the grace of God I’ve repented of that misreading.  I spent this spring finding as many Richard Muller journal articles and taking copious notes.

Observation on the FV fracas after the fact

I think I can write this as someone who has no stake in the FV debate.   Having read the church fathers and medieval theology in detail--often in original languages--for about a decade (and eventually standing in a rather critical relation to them), I think I can bring a unique  perspective to it.  I am going to evaluate Jim Jordan’s article “How not to do Reformed Theology Nowadays.”

The first section is somewhat vitriolic in tone.  That’s unfortunate, for whatever faults critics of FV have, this only gives them more ammo.  But in any case, content matters.  Jordan is responding to Prof Strange,

Concerning “theological reformulation” and “living within a received system,” Jordan notes

Again, I wonder if this is for real. Does Strange think that there has been no theological development since the Westminster Assembly? Does he utterly reject the work of Cornelius Van Til, of Herman Bavinck?

There is some truth to this, though Bavinck stayed rather close to the post-Reformers.  

There is the danger of saying “We only use the Bible’s language.”  On one hand that’s good.  Hearing healthy doses of biblical language is refreshing.  What happens when you get to the Trinity?  Further, I do worry that “we just use the Bible’s language” can be an easy way out when we come to hard passages.  I think the “Vanilla-ers” are justified in their caution, even if I don’t go with them all the way.

Part 2

I think I can agree with Jordan that when people criticize a movement for “over-emphasis” arguments, we can probably just ignore the criticism.  Emphasis-argument claims are almost too subjective to really be effective.

The next paragraph addresses the claim that FV guys are too sympathetic to NT Wright.  I can only think of one guy who might be: Rich Lusk.  The rest of the FV guys are quite critical of Wright.  I, for one, enjoy reading Wright.  I don’t follow him (whatever that means).  I

Jordan then follows with an interesting description of the PCA’s early history.

Jordan then writes,

The Reformers to whom Calvinists and Presbyterians look, such as Bucer, Calvin, Knox, Beza, and the Westminster Divines, were theocratic (Christocratic; Bibliocratic), postmillennial, sacramental, and except for some of the Divines, liturgical (sung prayerbook liturgy and weekly communion).

This is a kind-of truth.  With the exception of historic premillennialism, to say that a group of men were “post” or “a-mill” is anachronistic.  The rest of the paragraph is probably accurate.  Dabney himself thought Calvin to be too sacramental.

Part 3

Jordan says the Federal Vision holds to 5 principles, and it is to this the critics object

1. The Bible is given to help us mature and grow up as images of God so that we take dominion wisely over all of life.

2. The Bible is also given, because of Satan’s rebellion, to teach us holy war against principalities and powers.

3. The Bible is also given, because of Adam’s rebellion, to show us the history of redemption.

4. Because God is Three and One, so is human society, and so the history of redemption is not just about the salvation of individuals but also about the salvation of societies.

5. Jesus Christ has been given all power and authority, and has commanded His people to disciple all nations, promising to be with them and strengthen them by His Spirit until this has been accomplished. There can be no question that Jesus will successfully accomplish this programme, and at the end deliver all to the Father.

I agree with all 5, and I further agree that “TR Vanilla-ism” might have trouble with a few of these, but I don’t think this is why the critics object to FV.  On the other hand, if you preach a “doom-and-gloom” eschatology, it’s hard to see how one can affirm Jesus’s statement to disciple the nations.  

This section ends with the inadequacies of amillennialism.  While not postmillennial myself, I agree with his criticisms.  

Pauline Studies as a Formal Theology

One prediction I made about a decade ago was that the hyper TRs in the Reformed world, after having dealt with theonomy and Federal Vision by means of biblical theology arguments, would themselves turn on Biblical Theology and deal with it accordingly.

To say it another way: it's hard to see any rapprochement between biblical and systematic theology in the modern TR conversation.  Note:  I do not criticize Reformed people.  I am in the Reformed tradition.   In any have reason to boast of being a Calvinist, I have more:

Catechized on the 8th day, of the people of Scotland, of the tribe of Cameron, a Scot of Scots, a blogger in the church, as to righteousness under the Law, condemned.

No, I do not think the Church Universal (yeah, I said it) would be as well off today if not for the Reformed faith.  However, it's hard to be optimistic about the future.

Some thinkers have attempted to show the limits of Wrightean acceptance and I like their summaries. I think Mr Wedgeworth did a good job summarizing the issues.  This post isn't to condemn or vindicate Wright, though I am sympathetic to his general project. 

Rather, I think Pauline studies can be used as a guideline for how the church interacts with culture, controversy, and the world (or "civitas" to keep the alliteration going).  Pauline theology is never abstract.  Yet, it maintains its universality. 

For example, the problem of church unity has long bothered me.  While I feel comfortable with my responses to Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy on this point, it's hard to shake the initial challenge.  They seem unified (except to each other!) while Protestantism is fragmented.  What do we say to that?  We say what Paul said, "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek."  Wait a minute, you respond, that's not answering the question. No, but it's Paul's answer.  If you speak of church unity apart from the blessed reality that Jewish believers and Gentile believers have table fellowship, then you aren't Pauline.  We need to rethink our entire categories. 

Someone will say, "Aren't you New Perspective?"  How do you really respond to that?  I don't think I am.  My formal answer to that question is "no."  But here's the deal:  I am more interested in doing biblical studies and biblical theology than in answering Reformed Shibboleths.  If N.T. Wright helps me solve a problem that's bugged me for over a decade, good for him.  Why must I join sides?