PE036
The Banner of Truth, issue 178 (July, 1978), Covenant Media Foundation,
800/553-3938
Letter: “Comment on Chantry’s Review of Rushdoony,”
In a book review
appearing in issue 175 [April, 1978] your associate editor, Walter Chantry,
associates my name with ‘the viewpoint of a growing coalition’ and their
‘distinctive doctrines.’ He asserts
that my book Theonomy in Christian Ethics
[Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press, 1977] ‘has added to the growing number of
volumes supporting this new force among Reformed Christians.’ He identifies this coalition and force as
the Chalcedon Foundation, goes on to associate its viewpoint and doctrines with
one writer for the Foundation, and then associates this perspective with the
distinctive doctrines of one booklet of this one writer.
Through
this loose series of associations and fallacious transitions he comes to
attribute or give the impression of attributing certain teachings and attitudes
to me. These direct and tacit
attributions are quite inaccurate and unfair to my theological viewpoint. Please allow me briefly to correct the
mis-impressions.
I do not hold to a new version of
postmillennialism wherein the world is radically changed through social action
rather than evangelistic revival, a version calling for the imposition of law
on nations which have not come to faith by God’s grace [Theonomy, pp. 191ff, 257, 422, 427, 278, 486, 489, also chapters 4
and 7].
I do not think of the cultural mandate as
having an importance above that of the Great Commission, nor do I have a concept of the Kingdom which minimizes the role of
the church [Theonomy, pp. 33-34,
35-36, 177-181, 199-203, 521ff., 546, also chapter 20 and pages cited in
previous paragraph].
I do not support any form of ‘new legalism’
which misconstrues the distinction between
Old and New Covenants [Theonomy,
chapters 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, and pp. 218ff., 491].
I do not hold that the dietary requirements
of the Old Testament must be practiced today [Theonomy, pp. 209-210, 228].
I do not see the economic, civil, and penal
commandments of God in the Old Testament as extraneous additions to ‘the moral
law’ which binds all men in its fundamental principles [Theonomy, passim, but especially chapters 2, 16-23, and appendix
2].
I do not present a point of view which is
somehow radically new or surprising to those of us who have great esteem for
the Puritans [Theonomy, appendix 3,
also chapter 1 and the use of Reformed theologians throughout].
Mr. Chantry
may not like what is distinctive about my book in the long run, but I am
unhappy that he has given a misleading portrayal of its viewpoint. The views and styles of Mr. Rushdoony and
myself are sufficiently different that I will be content to answer simply for
myself. But I would like to suggest
that Mr. Rushdoony has not been given a very sympathetic reading and
understanding by mr. Chantry either. I
am sure that this is only a temporary lapse; I am usually quite edified by Mr.
Chantry’s literature. Thank you for the
opportunity to express myself in your pages and set the record somewhat
straight.
[To the
above letter Walter J. Chantry replies:
It was poor of me to treat Greg Bahnsen’s Theonomy in
Christian Ethics in such an offhand way
during my review of Mr. Rushdoony’s booklet.
Mr. Bahnsen’s work is important in its own right and deserves
independent attention. My apology, too,
if I gave the impression that he and Mr. Rushdoony agrees at all points.
Nonetheless, I am afraid that Mr. Bahnsen’s work is
seriously adrift in the waters of the legalism to which I referred. By ‘legalism’ I do not denote any teaching that a man may be
justified before God by keeping the law.
Mr. Bahnsen has made himself abundantly clear in opposing such a
position. Yet his work does bind on the
conscience of believers details of O.T. theocratic law which Scripture and the
mainstream of Reformed theology have regarded as set aside in the New Covenant. Promoting fastidious attention to the letter
of a law never intended for Christians deserves the label ‘legalism’.
Also in keeping with the Chalcedon emphasis, Theonomy finds within the Great Commission an
obligation for social reconstruction among unbelievers! Perhaps the following quotes will lead many
to read Theonomy for themselves:
‘The Older Testamental law was declared to have
exhaustive validity under the New Covenant by the covenant mediator, our Lord.’
p. 89.
‘Every bit of the law remains binding in the gospel
age.’ p. 74.
‘The New Testament consistently supports the Christian’s obligation to
God’s law as expressed in the stipulations of the Older Testament, both inside
and outside the decalogue.’ p. 264.
‘Lament antinomianism expresses itself in different
ways. Sometimes it comes in the form of
multiplying distinctions and qualifications which are not enumerated in God’s
word. Some people (e.g., Charles
Hodge) try to draw a line between “moral” and “civil” laws . . . Yet Scripture
recognizes no such demarcation.’ p. 310.
‘Magistrates in the era of the New Testament are
under obligation to those commands in the book of the Law which apply to civil
affairs and social penology’. p. 317.
‘Knowing that God’s standard of righteousness (which
includes temporal, social relations) is as immutable as the character of God
Himself, we should conclude that crimes which warrant capital punishment in the
Older Testament continue to deserve the death penalty today.’ p. 422.
‘The civil magistrate is obligated to follow the
penal sanctions of God’s law, for those sanctions are neither arbitrary nor
temporary.’ p. 470.
‘Believers . . . must exhort governmental officials
to enforce God’s righteous law by imposing divinely prescribed punishments upon
violators of God’s law . . . It is quite clear that if the Christian is not
exhorting others to obey the law of God and promoting such obedience in every
way he can, then he is not fulfilling the great commission delivered to him by
His Lord and Saviour . . . “Teaching them to keep everything I commanded you”
(Matt. 28:19) . . . the church is assured of victory on these terms.’ p.
476-478].