This article represents part 1 in a short series of a brief-but-sound refutation of what Lee Iron's calls his 4-page "cheat sheet" dubbed "Some Common Theonomic Arguments." The operative word here is "cheat." So I have broken down the arguments from his site as Mr. Irons has stated them (prefixing his name to them), and then posted a response from me and "the Theonomic brethren," here known as "us." Some of Lee's arguments have been abbreviated for the sake of literary sanity, but I have made every effort to leave out nothing relevant to the core argument expressed in his article. You can find it at: http://www.upper-register.com/theonomy/commonargs.html. Let the exchange begin.

Lee: It is hoped that the brief responses given here will enable the non-theonomist to hold his own in future discussions and debates when he or she encounters those of the theonomic persuasion.

Us: Hope springs eternal.

Lee: 1. The [Theonomic] 'No other standard' argument Where else can we find God's standards for socio-political justice, except in Scripture, particularly, the Mosaic civil legislation? If we reject the divinely-revealed civil law, we are left with no other standard, condemned to wander in a fog of personal bias and subjective relativism.

One way to respond to this argument is to question the assumption that Scripture is a sufficient source of guidance for societal and political questions.

Us: This response falsely assumes that "political questions" are NEVER ALSO ethical questions (like "Should Christians vote against abortion laws?"). This is called the "either-or fallacy" in informal logic. Since the Word of God is sufficient to answer all ethical questions and has the "consent of all the parts," this makes denying the Bible's "political or societal" sufficiency an implicit denial of biblical sufficiency per se. Fun for Romanists, but not a biblical option -- see Psalm 19:7ff., 2 Tim. 3:16.]

Lee: No doubt the Bible contains many general principles that are to be observed, but why should it be regarded as a detailed blueprint for society?

Us: We'll just take a wild stab at this one. Maybe because:

1. Another term for "detailed blueprint for society" is "code of law," and the Scripture regularly self-refers as the law of the Lord (Ps. 19:7; 119), an international law code. And law codes are necessarily "detailed bluleprints for society." The Bible says "the law of the Lord is perfect." Psalm 119 elaborates on the "perfect" law as "graciously sufficient, adequate, lacking nothing, powerful, efficacious." This detailed blueprint for national and social justice takes the form of legal documents called Testaments (i.e. inscripturated Covenants).

2. Scripture has detailed commands about all sorts of things, including how folks may or may not dress, and how kings must judge. Each king of Israel was required to study the law of the Lord daily that he might "do justice" in his nation.

3. God commands all nations (societies) to obey him (Prov. 14:34), not merely individuals. God commands all kings to do justice in their nations, and nations have to do "detailed things," like collect and account for taxes, and administer justice in their courts. Anyone who thinks this is not a detailed business need only read the U.S. Internal Revenue Code to become overly-convinced.

4. All Christians are "kings and priests to our God" (Rev. 1:8), and thus must study and follow the example of the good kings of Israel, insofar as their station in life and calling permit it. Moreover, they must call upon others in their nation to do likewise -- including the civil magistrates (as did John the Baptist, and the other prophets). For it says: "Rebuke your neighbor frankly, do not share in his sin."

5. God gave special revelation to Israel AS A NATION, so it would be a royal priesthood and "holy nation." This is now true of the Church, and of those nations where the saints of God live. 'Royal priesthood' means "priests and kings."

6. Detailed Blueprints for nations are inevitable and inescapable. Legal codes are not an option, but a necessity, for every nation. It is never a question of detailed blueprint vs. no detailed blueprint, only WHICH detailed blueprint (law code) God requires nations to follow in order to obey Him.

7. The contrary to theonomy is impossible. Notice Lee has not refuted the point in question by offering an alternative, equally detailed blueprint sufficient for social and national justice; he has simply denied that one exists by challenging (unsuccessfully) the only game in town -- biblical law. This ignores the first principle of debate: You cannot beat something with nothing.

Lee: After all, we don't go to the Bible to find specific directions for other equally important human endeavors, such as art and architecture, literature, the culinary arts, medicine, technology, etc.

Us: Surely you jest. Administering justice -- the duty of the civil magistrate -- is NOT "equally important" with pizza baking or artfully sculpting pottery. The former is a holy duty, and the latter is common. This is why one must be "sworn in" (take an oath of office) as the civil magistrate who is "God's deacon" (Rom. 13). No one may properly require an oath to join the Iron Chef Association. Unjust verdicts can destroy people's lives, unlike flawed desserts. Okay, unlike MOST flawed desserts.

Lee: The Westminster Confession acknowledges that there are areas of life "which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed" (WCF I.6).

Us: The immediate context of WCF I.6 relates only to affairs "common among men," not holy matters. This adiaphora clause ends in "general rules of the Word." Even here written revelation, not the light of nature, is the final standard. Affirming the specific application of such general rules remains consistent with the Thenomic position. Here, Lee pretends to offer a counterinstance to that view, but does nothing of the kind.

Moreover, the Westminster divines practiced what is known as the "regulative principle of worship" in their churches. This is a minimalist principle which says that in holy matters (such as oath-taking), whatever God has not commanded (explicitly or implicitly), God forbids. And the Westminster confession affirms that all oaths -- like the ones a man must take to hold either a civil or ecclesiastical office -- are A MATTER OF WORSHIP.

Thus, WCF I.6 does not apply to the administration of justice, but to common matters only. God has but one, holy standard by which he will judge men on Judgment Day, which is the same single standard by which He judges nations now. Nations do not exist in eternity, so if God will judge them at all -- and the entire body of literature attributed to the prophets says He does -- He must do so within the bounds of what we consider ordinary human history. Lee has left unanswered the obvious rejoinder: By what standard does God judge nations? If not by God's law, then by whose?

Lee: The "No other standard" argument assumes that special revelation in Scripture is the only divinely-approved standard for questions pertaining to civil government and legislation. Any other standard would of necessity involve a reliance on mere human ideas instead of God's, and that is nothing less than autonomy.

Us: Untrue. The N.O.S. argument is no assumption, but rather a conclusion from 1. the exegetical details of numerous biblical passages (and what these entail), and 2. A good and necessary implication from the biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Lee: The difficulty with this assumption is that it proves too much. If autonomy is narrowly defined as the use in any sphere of ideas not specifically revealed in Scripture, then we will be paralyzed by inaction, since the Scripture simply contains very little information about vast areas of human thought and action.

Us: This is another straw man. No Theonomist defines autonomy this way. Theonomists are Trinitarians, which shows that they believe that what Scripture IMPLIES is as much the Word of God as what the Word says "explicitly." And Lee knows this, ergo the "cheat sheet" reference.

Moreover, if the Bible were as non-comprehensive as Lee insists, God could have said it in 3 chapters. Scripture treats the ethical aspects of every possible human endeavor so thoroughly that it specifies the limits and requirements needed to perform every human activity RIGHTEOUSLY (the ethical aspects of each activity) -- so as to please the Lord in the doing (or in avoiding the doing) of it.

Lee: Scripture is not sufficient for the art of cologne and perfume manufacture, although one particular recipe is given in the Mosaic law (Exod. 30:23-25). Does that mean we should only make the Levitical perfume? Are all other non-Biblical scents autonomous and sinful? .... Examples such as these could be multiplied.

Us: This is getting silly. The Bible is not a perfume-makers success manual. It promises, that if it is obeyed, it will make you righteous, not well-scented. This would imply limits on including chemicals in the colognes to which some persons (being allergic to them) might be harmed, or would at least require the maker to post a warning label on the bottle, and other such ethical matters related to perfume making and selling. It IS sufficient for its intended purpose, which Lee has here ignored.

Lee: It seems too obvious to point out, but the Bible was never intended to provide specific information and guidance regarding the vast majority of human spheres of thought and action. These common grace spheres belong to the natural order and are pretty much up to us to figure out on our own using the common sense, reason, and scientific abilities that God has given to mankind.

Us: It seems too obvious to point out that there are no "common grace spheres," because reality does not come to us in mislabeled sections with some assembly required. The Bible never speaks this way either, though it does speak of matters holy, and others which are common. For more on this, see Carson's article, "Critical Thinking To Go: Dodging the Pepperoni Pizza Fallacy."

As far as common grace spheres (the vast majority of epistemological real estate) being "pretty much left up to us to figure out" -- how does this NOT sound like an excuse for imposing one's "autonomy"' The original Theonomic challenge (N.O.S.) argument says "Reject the biblical standard and all you have are arbitrary ones. Then you come along saying, "Standards? We don't got to show you no stinking standards! We'll just make it up as we go and call it "common sense," "reason," or "science." Doesn't that ILLUSTRATE -- rather than refute -- the N.O.S. argument?

Besides, natural revelation (the "light of nature") contains far less information than written revelation. So any diminution of the comprehensive character of written revelation bodes even WORSE for any view that depends on "nature's light" for its ethical standard -- which Lee's view in fact does.

Lee: It is not denied that the Bible contains general principles that apply to all areas of life - the most important being, "Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:31). But the Scripture is not sufficient to provide practical, detailed guidance for the sphere of common grace; that sphere is to be guided by "the light of nature."

Us: Oh, we get it now. The Bible is foggy and says almost nothing. But thankfully we have this extraordinarily comprehensive, detailed, and crystal clear "natural revelation," so that we never needed the Old Testament in the first place. This is both an inversion of what the Bible actually teaches about the relationship between general and special revelation, and the flagship of Dispensational thought. You say "Titanic," we say "Iceberg." A few brief points:

1. The Old Testament was given by God so that the fall (having marred the clarity of natural revelation) could have its obfuscating effects "progressively undone" as redemptive history moved forward with the growth of the canon. Lee wants this progress REVERSED, favoring the natural revelation, which is less clear and comprehensive than the written revelation, over the more clear and comprehensive. We call this, "making room for autonomy."

2. The case laws of the OT are regularly cited by Jesus and the apostles as binding under the new covenant, including labor laws like Deut. 25:4 (Do not muzzle the ox while it treads out the grain, 1 Cor. 9, 1 Tim. 5), judicial due process requirements like Deut. 18 (that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses, 2 Cor. 13:1), etc., etc.

Lee's view cannot tolerate these passages, which shows thereby that his is not the New Testament view of the OT either.

Lee: Properly defined, the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture states that the Bible is "the only rule of faith and obedience," (WLC # 3), directing us "how we may glorify and enjoy" God (WSC # 2). The Scriptures "principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man" (WSC # 3). In other words, as Paul states, the primary purpose of Scripture is to "make us wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15).

Us: Yes, but the biblical view of salvation is more than merely justification. It necessarily includes SANCTIFICATION, for "without holiness no one will see the Lord." And since Christians will be kings in the resurrection, reigining on earth, what detailed law code (blueprint for society) will God expect them to use to make righteous judgments (as Christian judges must do even today? Whole-life holiness requires a comprehensive and detailed ethical standard not offered by common sense, reason, science, or the light of nature. If this is not found in the canon (OT and NT), then where? This kinda puts us back at question #1.

-- To Be Continued --