— John of the Postmil (@johnandrewwords) March 30, 2022
Dr. Owen Strachan is a Calvinistic Baptist who has not only refused, but has also doubled down on the contended teaching of Eternal Functional Submission (EFS). As a former president of CBMW (Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood), he also focuses on the need for proper gender roles and functions. The first antagonizes the Thomists, and the second many Americans. It is foolishness to think that even in supposed conservative Reformed circles in America, the taint of liberalism has not taken hold. After all, the feminist Aimee Byrd came out from one of the most conservative Presbyterian denominations in the US, the OPC. Having studied in America and watched as America went down the toilet on maintaining any semblance of morality, I can almost confidently say that conservative Americans (in other words, all but the most ultra-conservative Americans) are by and large more liberal than moderates outside the West. It has been astonishing for me to see how LGBTQ issues for example are tolerated even within conservative Christianity in the West, but I digress.
Jesus said we are to love each other. Evidently, when it comes to Dr. Strachan, that commandment does not apply. After Strachan posted a perfectly fine tweet, uncontroversial in most places outside the Western world, some smart alec 'Reformed' guy decided to attack it, making changes to the sentences in his effort to "correct" them. Now, I do not know whether John Reasnor is the one who has created this hack job. But he tweeted it, and evidently think this is some knock-down argument against the supposed 'Pelagian heresy' of Dr. Strachan.
It is perfectly clear by anyone who has passed reading comprehension in high school and college that Dr. Strachan is talking about it in the context of human society. To use theological jargon, the context of what he has tweeted is in the area of Practical Theology or Pragmatics, on the same level as the household codes. In other words, these are sentences meant to be applied in interpersonal relationships. That this is true is confirmed by the author himself as follows:
Another way of saying this:
— Owen Strachan (@ostrachan) March 30, 2022
Christ is the spiritual foundation of everything and men are the anthropological foundation of all these institutions.
In Christ, men hold fast to--and are head of--one wife & family; men lead the church as elders; men must lead in public (Is. 3:12).
It is abundantly clear what Dr. Strachan has said. Anyone with even the slightest amount of comprehension skill should be able to pick up on the context of the tweet. However, this is to misjudge the opposition. It seems that for many people, lying is a perfectly legitimate tool when it comes to fighting who one deems the enemy. Unfortunately, this includes John Reasnor, who through his "edits," made it seem as if Strachan is claiming that Man, the male species, is the foundation and savior of the human race. To make such an obvious error of comprehension smacks of malice, because it is just impossible for anyone to read what Strachan has said and think he is talking about salvation. This is especially so for John Reasnor, who is "founder and editor" at a website promoting Theonomy (LambsReign), and "is a former cohost of the Cross and Crown Radio podcast and has contributed his writing to Christian worldview websites such as The New City Times."
I find it hard to believe anyone who claimed to have done theological podcasts and contributed articles on theological topics has a lower reading commprehension level than a 12 year old. Whether through idiocy or malice, what Reasnor has done is a sin. It is a violation of the 9th commandment. Now, does this mean that Strachan is beyond correction, or that one is to agree with him on all things? No, but the bare minimum for Christian engagement is to tell the truth. Disagree with Strachan as you please, but lying about what he has said, and doing so when it is abundantly clear what Strachan meant, is despicable. Those who created this libelous edited picture, as well as those who share them, are to repent of their lies against another Christian brother. Again, you are NOT asked to agree with Strachan's view, but at the bare minimum, tell the truth!
As for John Reasnor, I find it interesting that Lambs Reign is essentially the "ministry" of "public theologian" Joel McDurmon. I have not examined enough about the issues, but for some time now, something smells real bad on Theonomy mountain (that is, besides the obvious error of Theonomy). I truly wonder whether theonomists think that breaking the 9th commandment is acceptable when done "against the enemy."
7 comments:
There is no one definition of Theonomy. So the issue is which one did you mean? It seems as though you are going on R. J. Rushdoony's funny definition.
There is no one definition, if by that you mean people use the term in a variety of ways, then yes.
However, the term is specifically linked to the thought of Greg Bahnsen and those in his circle, or influenced by that peculiar way of thinking about the law of God.
For example, Joel McDurmon, the late Gary North, and so on have a different definition to that of Greg Bahnsen and R. J. Rushdoony. I don't even think Greg Bahnsen and R. J. Rushdoony had exactly 100% the same definition (but on that one I might be wrong). I regard theonomy to be one and the same as 'the all sufficiency of the Bible' doctrine in all areas of life and human existence. If Greg Bahnsen and R. J. Rushdoony had just stick to that definition there wouldn't of been this confusion on what Theonomy means.
So when one critiques or tries to discredit theonomy the question becomes which form, or version, or definition of Theonomy that that person is critiquing or discrediting, because they are not all the same.
I need to find the quote, but a good definition of theonomy is to claim that there is no real distinction between the moral law and the civil law, and therefore the Law of God is merely divided into moral and ceremonial law.
Joel McDurmon in his two books 1. "The Bounds of Love: An Introduction to God's Law of Liberty", 2. "A Consuming Fire: The Holy of Holies in Biblical Law", has made it clear that the civil law has a moral and ceremonial divide, and unlike the ceremonial divide the moral aspect is for today. I fully agree with Joel McDurmon on this, I'm sure Gary DeMar and the late Gary North agree with Joel McDurmon on this issue. Vern Poythress, gave "A Consuming Fire: The Holy of Holies in Biblical Law" high marks.
Like many things in Theology you can also find different beliefs in Theonomy. Those who hold to "that there is no real distinction between the moral law and the civil law, and therefore the Law of God is merely divided into moral and ceremonial law" are very inconsistent at best.
I made an error when I said, "Vern Poythress, gave "A Consuming Fire: The Holy of Holies in Biblical Law" high marks." Actually I should of correctly said that it was Dr. John M. Frame who was the one that gave the book high marks.
Post a Comment