Theonomy Breaks Its Own Rules: A Presuppositional Analysis

1. Overview of Bahnsen’s Thesis in Theonomy in Christian Ethics

In Theonomy in Christian Ethics, Bahnsen argues that the civil laws given to ancient Israel remain normative unless the New Testament explicitly sets them aside. He believes that Christians—and by extension, modern governments—are obliged to enact these Old Testament judicial laws and penalties in contemporary society. According to Bahnsen, this is simply an extension of honoring God’s unchanging moral standards.

Key Points of Bahnsen’s View

• Continuity of Civil Law: Bahnsen sees the Mosaic civil (judicial) code as an expression of God’s character and, therefore, binding on all nations, not just Old Covenant Israel.

• Minimal Abrogation: Only those commands that the New Testament clearly abrogates (e.g., ceremonial laws related to sacrifices, dietary regulations) are no longer in force.

• Postmillennial Expectation: Under Bahnsen’s theonomic vision, society eventually should (and will) conform more and more to Mosaic standards as the gospel advances.

2. Contradictions with the Westminster Confession of Faith

The Westminster Confession of Faith, written in the 1640s, includes a robust treatment of “The Law” in Chapter 19. While Bahnsen claimed agreement with the core of Reformed confessional theology, critics maintain that his interpretation of how Old Testament law applies today contradicts the WCF, especially in three key areas:

A. Expiry of Judicial Laws Except for “General Equity” (WCF 19.4)

WCF 19.4 (1646 text) states:

To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

1. Purposed Expiry of Israel’s Judicial System:

• The Confession clearly teaches that the judicial laws “expired” with the Old Testament theocracy; they are no longer strictly binding on modern states.

• In contrast, Bahnsen insists these laws remain legally obligatory, unless the New Testament explicitly repeals them.

2. “General Equity” Clause:

• The WCF acknowledges that the moral principles (general equity) behind the judicial laws still guide Christian ethics and civil righteousness.

• Bahnsen’s critics contend that he effectively redefines “general equity” to mean near-wholesale adoption of the Mosaic legal code, with few exceptions. This stretches the Confession’s language beyond what most Westminster divines historically intended.

B. The Distinction Between Moral Law and Civil/Political Ordinances (WCF 19.2–3)

WCF 19.3 says:

Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances…

WCF 19.4 differentiates:

…He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people…

• Moral vs. Judicial/Ceremonial: The Confession makes a threefold division—moral, ceremonial, and judicial. The moral law (the Ten Commandments) remains the perpetual rule for all humanity.

• Obligatory vs. Typological Laws: Ceremonial and judicial laws carried typological and civil significance specific to Israel’s covenant. Bahnsen’s approach, critics argue, collapses this distinction by taking the judicial laws as practically co-extensive with the moral law.

C. Practical Enforcement and the Role of Civil Government (WCF 23)

• WCF 23 (“Of the Civil Magistrate”) teaches that the civil magistrate is ordained to maintain justice and peace, but there is no statement commanding magistrates to enforce the specific penal codes of Mosaic Israel.

• Bahnsen’s teaching—that modern nations must adopt the Mosaic penalties (for example, capital punishment for various Old Testament offenses)—is widely seen as going beyond the Confession’s teaching.

3. Bahnsen’s Dismissal from Westminster Seminary California

Historical Context

• Greg Bahnsen was an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and taught at Reformed institutions, including the extension campus that would become Westminster Seminary California (WSC).

• In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Theonomy in Christian Ethics generated significant controversy, especially among Reformed circles.

Key Reasons for the Dismissal

1. Doctrinal Discrepancies: The primary disagreement centered on whether Bahnsen’s theonomic views violated the Westminster Confession’s stance on the expiration of the judicial laws.

2. Seminary Leadership and Faculty Concerns: Faculty at WSC, including figures such as Robert Godfrey and others, raised concerns that Bahnsen’s position was out of step with mainstream Reformed teaching. They believed Bahnsen exceeded the boundaries of confessional orthodoxy, especially regarding the law’s application in modern civil contexts.

3. Tension over Seminary’s Public Reputation: WSC, newly established as a distinct institution, did not want to be identified primarily with Theonomy. Bahnsen’s affiliation made it appear that the seminary itself endorsed the reimposition of Mosaic laws in civil society, which they did not.

In the end, the divergence between Bahnsen’s theonomic teaching and the seminary’s understanding of the WCF’s “general equity” approach to the civil law contributed heavily to his contract not being renewed.

Note: While the official reasons can be framed in various ways, it’s widely acknowledged that Theonomy in Christian Ethics and Bahnsen’s public advocacy of Theonomy were key factors in the decision.

4. Contradictions with the Puritans on Civil Government

Bahnsen often claimed a Puritan pedigree for his views, suggesting that he was merely reviving the original spirit of Reformed orthodoxy. However, most historians of Puritanism and Reformed theology dispute that conclusion:

1. Puritans and the “General Equity” Principle

• While the Puritans did have a high view of Old Testament law, they typically emphasized extracting universal moral lessons from Israel’s code rather than enforcing every judicial penalty verbatim.

• For instance, Thomas Watson (a prominent Puritan divine) regularly preached on the moral law but showed little sign of wanting to replicate the Israelite penal system for 17th-century England.

2. John Calvin as a Reference Point

• Calvin’s Institutes (Book 4, Chapter 20) suggests that different nations may adopt varied civil codes, as long as they reflect the “perpetual rule of love.” Calvin explicitly states that while moral principles abide, specific ancient statutes can—and should—be adapted to current societal conditions.

• Bahnsen, on the other hand, tends to say that adaptation can only go so far. If the law is moral in nature (as he argues for the entire judicial code), it must be applied basically as is.

3. Case in Massachusetts Bay Colony

• Some early New England Puritans (e.g., John Cotton) tried to use biblical law as a template for civil codes, but even they selectively adapted it and did not replicate Mosaic penalties wholesale. Their attempts were partial and still recognized some measure of cultural difference between ancient Israel and colonial America.

• This measured adaptation stands in contrast to Bahnsen’s broader claim that the entire Mosaic civil law remains binding unless explicitly repealed.

Representative Puritan Quote on “General Equity”

Richard Baxter, in A Christian Directory (1673), writes:

“Many of the laws which were suited to the Commonwealth of Israel, are not suited to us now; the equity or reason of them is perpetual, but not the form in which they were then delivered.”

(Baxter, A Christian Directory, Part 4, p. 152, in some modern reprints.)

Baxter’s statement underscores the Puritan approach: Mosaic laws contained abiding principles (“the equity or reason”) but not necessarily an unchangeable civic code.

5. Representative Quotes and Sources

Below are a few brief representative quotes (with references) that highlight the theological tension:

1. Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics

“We conclude, then, that the civil precepts of the Old Testament (standing ‘judicial laws’) are a revelation of God’s justice for modern governments, and that nothing less than a full adherence to them is required.”

(Bahnsen, 1977 edition, p. 310)

2. Westminster Confession of Faith 19.4

“To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people… not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.”

3. Meredith G. Kline’s Critique

• In “Comments on an Old-New Error,” Westminster Theological Journal 41 (1978): 174, Kline criticized Theonomy as “a radical neonomian distortion of the covenantal arrangements of the Old Testament.” He especially faulted Bahnsen for failing to see how Christ’s fulfillment alters the civic dimension of the law.

4. John M. Frame

• While more sympathetic to some aspects of Bahnsen’s presuppositionalism, Frame still acknowledged that “Bahnsen’s understanding of the judicial laws goes beyond what the Westminster Assembly evidently intended by ‘general equity.’”

(Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life, P&R Publishing, 2008, p. 219)

6. Conclusion

Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics stirred enduring debate because it proposed that the Old Testament civil laws remain in full force—except where explicitly repealed—thus demanding that modern states enforce Mosaic statutes, including penal sanctions. This stance:

• Clashes with the Westminster Confession of Faith:

Theonomy’s strong continuity model conflicts with the Confession’s teaching that the judicial laws “expired” with Israel’s theocracy, though their general equity remains morally instructive.

• Led to Doctrinal Controversy at Westminster Seminary California:

Bahnsen’s dismissal was largely due to concerns that his theonomic outlook was out of step with mainstream Reformed orthodoxy, as represented by the WCF.

• Differs from the Puritan Tradition:

While Puritans valued God’s law highly, they generally advocated a “general equity” approach, discerning timeless moral principles rather than reestablishing the full Israelite penal code.

In short, while Theonomy in Christian Ethics made a robust case for the abiding moral relevance of Old Testament law—and has influenced some in the Reformed world—its conflation of the moral and judicial dimensions, and its assumption that modern nations must adopt Israel’s penal code, stand in tension with both the historic Westminster Confession and broader Puritan practice. Critics have, therefore, found Bahnsen’s conclusions to be at odds with the confessional standard he professed to uphold, which ultimately contributed to his separation from Westminster Seminary California.

On a personal note, I absolutely love and respect Dr. Bahnsen. He has done so much good for the church and in my own walk with Christ. I simply disagree with theonomy. As I disagree with his view on infant baptism. There is no animosity whatsoever. This is an analysis and comparison with scripture and historic Reformed Christianity.