31 May 2007


It seems that its cool to be anything post these days but, really, I am a post-theonomist. I remember James Jordan called himself a post-theonomist at one point several years ago and perhaps he still does. I can’t remember what he means by that nor am I going to take the time to search through all my papers to find it again but let me explain what I mean by this term. In essence, I still embrace nearly all that theonomy, as a movement, once taught. However, does it really matter at this point in history? Now let me say that we still need to talk about it, teach it, promote it, write about it, read about it & preach about it but before we do we need to take one large step backwards before trying endlessly to take three steps forward. We need a powerful working of the Holy Spirit in this land (and the world) before we can move ahead with any kind of theonomic strategy. Yes, we can study and learn and prepare but before all else we need to see, and I use this word cautiously, revival. To see that revival we need to do our part first, i.e., live holy lives unto the Lord that will bring unbelievers to us so that we can share the gospel. And, we need to pray – pray for an outpouring of the Holy Spirit that will truly change lives. Only then can we start to seriously consider a theonomic society. And until then the pro-theonomy writers, preachers and bloggers would do well to incorporate more of what’s been outlined above and slightly less of the constant flow of theonomic ideals.


Big Shooter said...

By your definition, I am a post-theonomist as well.

But having to actually say that you desire true Revival before you desire a "Christian state," every time you're talking theonomy, would seem a bit like always having to say, "Yes, I know drunkeness is a sin," whenever you speak about alcohol. You shouldn't have to: it would seem a "given."

But, that said, such things may be necessary, especially in an era in which so many evangelicals have taken hold of the theonomic hammer and now think that politics is the only nail in sight.

Reformed Renegade said...

I'm not actually saying that I desire anything, especially revival before a Christian state.
I'm saying it would not work without revival first. Would you happily live under Islamic rule and laws not being Islamic? Of course not. Of course, I and many others, would like to live under Biblical law regardless of everyone else but it wouldn't work as the motivation is not there for everyone to abide by biblical law.
Thus, we need revival first. Revival meaining the majority of the popuation would be true believers. If that were the case society would, to some degree, be naturally moving towards initiating bibical law as the law of the land anyway.

Anonymous said...

If men can't govern themselves in a theonomic manner, a theonomic state will hardly help things. (A long way of saying revival first...)