Ligon Duncan on Theonomy

A couple of weeks ago I did a post at Theologica on Theonomy.  For those of you who aren't familiar with that term, here's a Wikipedia definition:

Theonomy is the ethical view that God's law in the Bible must be applied to all spheres of public and private everyday life where appropriate: not only religious mandates – but also political, social, and cultural rules.

I'm not a theonomist, but I have friends who are, and I do think that most of theonomy's critics, inside and outside of the church, don't really understand it.  So, I wrote a fairly sympathetic post, trying to clear up what I believe are some misunderstandings.

That post led to some dialogue with Ligon Duncan, pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Jackson, MS, and past moderator of the PCA General Assembly.  He has written a paper called Moses Law For Modern Government, which deals with the issue of theonomy and is available on the website of First Pres of Jackson.

I would encourage you to read the paper there, but if you are like me, if there is something I really want to read, I much prefer a hard copy.  So, Dr. Duncan has graciously given me permission to put the paper in .pdf format and make it available for download.  You may download this paper here:

Download duncan_moses_law_for_modern_government.pdf

Along with being in a format that is a little easier to read, this version of the paper is footnoted, whereas the .html paper is not.  He also includes a bibliography at the end which would be helpful for those who would like to study the matter further.

As usual, opinionated bloke that I am, I have a few introductory thoughts of my own that I would like to share.

1. Though I am not a theonomist, there is so much in the theonomic position I agree with, share and admire.  Theonomists are against antinomianism, isolationism, and the "myth of neutrality."  These are all biblical concerns I agree with.  Dr. Duncan points out that theonomists are also exercised about things like limited government, free markets and state sponsored education.  I have some opinions on the latter three, but I'm not as worked up about them as the theonomists are.  I believe the former three issues have clearer and stronger biblical guidance than the latter three.  Still, this does not stop me from being sympathetic to their concerns.

2. Like many movements, theonomists do an excellent job of diagnosing the illness, but I'm not sold on the cure(s) they propose.

3.  I'm not convinced theonomists have done justice to the redemptive historical shifts between Old Covenant and New.  One of the things Dr. Duncan brings out in the paper is that theonomists want to enforce Old Testament civil laws with necessary modifications.  My questions are "what constitutes a necessary modification?"  "Who says this modification is necessary?"  "How do we know it is necessary - by what standard do we determine that this is necessary?" 

On the one hand the fact that theonomists use the phrase "with necessary modifications" should cause their critics to simmer down a bit and not accuse them of trying to import Old Testament to law into today's world in a tit-for-tat, one to one correspondence manner.

On the other hand, it seems to me that the reason they use the phrase "with necessary modifications" must be due to their recognition that there are redemptive historical shifts between the Old and the New.  In that sense this is what the traditional reformed view affirms when it says that the Old Testament civil laws have been abrogated, except insofar as the general equity applies.  But from what I can tell, this traditional reformed view seems too weak for the theonomists.

4. The last point leads me to this point and that is that Dr. Duncan points out that the theonomists do not accept the traditional reformed understanding of the abrogation of OT civil law.  So, it seems to me that they would have to take exception to the Westminster Confession, 19.4 on the abrogation of the OT civil law.  Yet, from my understanding theonomists consider the Westminster Confession to be a "theonomic document." 

I realize that Dr. Duncan and others have addressed this last point elsewhere but I am wondering if there might be a self-identified theonomist out there who might want to explain their position on this to us.

All in all, I think you will find that, though Dr. Duncan is a critic of theonomy, he gives a fair and balanced treatment of the movement, demonstrating strengths and weaknesses. I don't believe he constructs straw men and I believe his criticisms are on point.  But I would invite any theonomists who disagree to respond in the comments.