You Can't Get There From Here... pt 1

Can a Reformed Baptist that holds to covenant theology as expressed in the 1689 LBC be a Theonomist?

IT is my contention and others as well that for someone to say "I am a Reformed Baptist and a theonomist" is an actual impossibility. Covenantal Presbyterian no but I can see the confusion, Covenantal  Baptist no!


Here is an excerpt from this article discussing Jefferey Johnson's new book on Reformed Baptist covenant theology.


"Our view of the covenants have profound implications for political theory as well.  Understanding the covenants accurately will play into questions on the relationship of the Christian with the State, the Church with the State, and the Christian and the Church with culture and society.  Should the Mosaic law be applied today?  The Christian Reconstructionists answer in the affirmative.  This is because of their understanding of the nature of the Mosaic Covenant specifically, and the nature of the Covenant relationships more broadly. But for those who hold to a Baptist understanding of the Covenants, it is a theological impossibility for the Mosaic law to be applied today.  That is, it would be a logical and hermeneutical systematic inconsistency to take this view".

Here is an email question I sent to Pastor Jefferey Johnson and his response.


Pastor Johnson,


.......I have recently been in a conversation with a confessing baptist brother (LBC) who is a theonomist, which is contra the confession. 

 

......As I have been reading these works, seeing the distinction of the Mosaic covenant as a republication of the covenant of works given to Adam, I am wondering is it possible for a Reformed covenantal baptist to be a theonomist? I am wondering if the understanding of the Mosaic covenant being a covenant of Grace is somehow responsible at least to some degree in a theonmist error. I find that most if not all of the writers and adherents of theonomy seem to be Presbyterian. Is it their view of the covenant of grace as the same substance two administration model which allows for the Mosaic covenant to be a covenant of grace somehow responsible for their theonomic views to be easily ushered in? Is the idea of too much continuity between the old and new testament somehow responsible? Am I on the right track? Am I looking for an issue here that is not necessarily an issue? I know the issue, at least when you see a rebuttal to a theonomist from another Presby, it always focuses on the misapplication of Old testament case laws enforced through the government authorities in todays society. Which i think is true, but I haven't read anything that approaches this subject from a covenantal standpoint. That is, from a Reformed Baptistic covenantal polemic against theonomy. I have read Sam Waldron's article. I did not notice a covenantal argument. 

 

Thanks in advance
Nolan.

Nolan,

I believe you are 100% right! It is very inconsistent at best for any Reformed Baptist to be a Theonomist. For Theonomy is based upon the Presbyterain assumption that there is essential unity between the Old and New Covenants. For this reason, Theonomy is the natural outworking of Presbyterian covenant theology, for what is true in the Old must be true in the New unless directly abrogated in the New Testament. I know of only one Baptist Theonomist, and could not understand why he did not view his children as belonging to the covenant.

Like you, I wish I knew of a good resource (book or article) that critiqued Theonomy from a Reformed Baptist position, but I know of none. I would assume this is because Theonomy is chiefly a Presbyterian issue.

May we keep pressing forward, brother.
In the love of Christ,
jeff 


Here is another email question I sent to Jason Delgado of Confessing Baptist website
I have been enjoying your website and podcast. Thank you,it has and am sure it will continue to be a blessing. I have a question that maybe you could help me with or at least send me to someone who can via email conversation, maybe.  Until recently everything that I have read and studied on covenant theology has been from a presby. I found Pascal Denault\'s book and it helped me see that there is a major difference covenantaly that I never knew. I also listened to your interviews with Denault, again thank you. I have recently read Nehemiah Cox and John Owen on Covenant theology as well as Jeffery Johnson\'s book \"The fatal Flaw\". In Bahnsan and Rushdooney\'s  writings on the subject of Theonomy, which by the way my former pastor endorses they do not see the Mosaic/Sianatic covenant as a covenant of works as do our reformed baptist brothers have seen, not to mention some presby\'s as well. It also appears that all the ones I see who are theonomic are presbyterians. So my question is can a Reformed Baptist who adheres to Reformed Baptist covenant theology actually be an \"honest\" theonomist? It appears that the difference a Reformed baptist sees between the old covenant and new covenant would make a theonomic position unattainable. Maybe they have been unknowingly influenced by an interpretation of a presbyterian view of covenant theology? Am I on the right track?
Has anyone written something specific that you are aware of on the subject of why a reformed baptist cannot be a theonomist?

Thanks in advance
Nolan

 Howdy Nolan,
Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. I am unsure as of yet who would be best to answer this question (been trying to dig) but I don't have anything specific. I will keep this question in mind though if I find someone who would be best to answer.

Regarding Reformed Baptist and Theonomy here are two post we have that have dealt with it. Neither one endorses it to say the least and show it is inconstant with 1689 Confessional theology:

http://confessingbaptist.com/theonomy-christian-reconstruction-and-the-1689/

http://confessingbaptist.com/theonomy-christian-reconstructionism-by-roger-nicole/

I would be interested to find any 1689 pastor that was positively endorsing it though.

soli Deo gloria!

jason d. of The ConfessingBaptist.com

To be continued.........