No Other Standard:

Theonomy and Its Critics,

by GregL. Bahnsen, Ph.D.; published
by The Institute for Christian
Economics, Tyler, Texas; xvplus 345
, pages; $ 9.95. Reviewed by Rev. W.
Gary Crampton, Th.D.
sandy soil of pragmatic and relativistic
theories (Mt. 7:26,27). Bahnsen's
position, of course, is no novel thesis.
Itisonewhichh<ls beensanctionedby
numerous Reformed theologians for
centuries. Calvin, for example, roundly
endorsed the basic premise set forth
bypresentdayreconstructionists. The
Wesuninster divines, as clearly seen
in the Confession of Faith, were
likewise advocates of theonomic ethics
(cf. chapters XIX and XXIII). This
first defines the position Imown as
"theonomy," giving us the
"distinctives" to which its advocates
adhere. The author then goes on to
address the various criticisms which
have been lodged against the "system"
asdefined.Sadly,muchofthecriticism
is 'spurious," "misleading and
misconceived" (e.g., that theonomy
advocates "population control" and
"capital punishment for drunkards").
It is all too often "fabricated," set forth
in uncareful, vitriolic assertions
I t has been said of Jonathan
Edwards, that once he had finished
debatingwithhis opponents,notonly
had he annihilated their arguments,
but he had also dusted off the spot
where they had once stood.
This is the covenant
After reading No Other
(e.g., that theonomy is a
moderndayPhariseeisrn .
andit"Judaizes"theNew .
Testament). Bahnsen
disposes of these
quickly.
Standard, one gets this
same impression of
Greg Bahnsen. In this
book, as the subtitle
suggests, the author
interacts with critics
of the theonomic
world view.
(Theonomy is the
belief that "the moraJ
standards Qaws) of the
Old Testament are
authoritative today, along
with New Testament
teaching," Bahnsen, No Other
Standard, pg.3). And with
careful, logical precision, heteduces
the opposing theories to the level of
absurdity, _ and then "dusts off the
spot" where they were previously
standing. u r t h e r ~ he does so in an
irenic spirit, with hUmility and
courtesy, which are all too frequently
missing in "reconstuctionist" circles.
According to Dr. Bahnsen, the
theonomist bows before God's Word
as thesolefoundation upon which all
of life is to be based (Mt. 7:24,25; 2
Tim. 3:16,17). The opposing world
views, on the otherhand,buildonthe
latter fact, which is admitted even by
major adversaries of theonomy (e.g.,
Meridith Kline), hardly speaks well of
the (so called) Reformedserninariesof
our day that have black balled Dr.
Bahnsen (as well as other theonomic
teachers) and his biblical and "fully
confessional" world view.
No Other Standard is divided into
15 chapters, followed by two
Appendices. After he h<ls introduced
the debate in chapter one, Bahnsen
8 f TIlE COUNSEL of Chalcedon f February, 1992
,
Next the author '
deals with the "logical
and theological
fallades" foundinsome
of his critics. Here he
points out the obvious,
i.e., that the infallible,
inerrant Word of God is
never to be tested by extra-
biblical standards, by"appealing
to subjectivism," andlor by
"arguing from silence.'" Rather,
Christian theology is to be governed
by the Reformational principle of sola
Scriptura, i.e., by Scripture alone.
Bahnsen then considers the
Dispensationalist critics, both full-
fledged and latent alike (i.e., not only
those within the Dispensationalist
camp, but also those who would
"radically" separate the Ten
Commandments and the explicatory
case laws, as well as those who would
"overdo" the uniqueness of old .
Testament Israel as a theocracy).
Dispensationalism in virtually any
1
form, of course, cannot (logically)
adopt a theonomic ethic and world
view, because the "two positions are
logically incompatible in their
hermeneutic" (p. 76) (Hermeneutics
is tile study of principles of Bible
interpretation). Dispensationalism
necessarily emphasizes the
discontinuity (non-continuation)
between theOldandNewCovenants,
virtually abolishing the
law of Moses in its
these laws have been abolished by the
work of Christ or the coming of the
Holy Spirit" (p. 99).
Further, theonomy, as a system
(Le., not necessarily certain errant
theonomists), fully recognizes the
distinctiveness ofIsrael as a theocratic
nation. Bahnsen writes: "Plenty of
thingswereuniqueaboutlsrael. .. [e.g.,]
private and public, found between
Israel and the nations. Here Dr.
Bahnsen approvingly quotes
Christopher Wright: "Though we
cannot address secular society in the
terms God addressed Israel, nor
presuppose a covenant relationship,
it is nevertheless valid to argue that
what God required ofIsrael as a fully
humansociety,isconsistentwithwhat
He requires of all men. It
entirety. Theonomists,
on the other hand, being
Covenantal and Re-
formed, while fully
aware of the obvious
discontinuities, empha-
size the continuities of
the Covenants.
(We sfwu[J presume that oU
is therefore possible to
use Israel as a paradigm
for social ethical
objectives in our own
society" (p. 130).
As far as those who
would excessively
dichotomize (separate)
the Ten Command"
ments and the case laws
rJestament standing faws
continue to be moraf{y binding
in the g{fw rJestament, unfess
they are rescinded or 11Wdlfiei
Oncehaving"cleared
the air" of these fallacies,
Dr. Bahnsen con-
centrates on theonomic
etllics as applied in the
political arena. Here, as
elsewhere, states the
author, the basic
covenantal henne-
are concerned, Dr.
by further revefation. "
Bahnsen would reply
that whereas the New
Testament does most
certainly teach the
'13ah.l1SW, 'JI/jJ OtherS tal1rfanf p. 12
neutical principle must
apply: "We should
presume that Old
Testamentstandinglaws
continue to be morally
binding in the New
ceremonial laws of the Old Testament
reached their climax in Christ, (Gal.
2:3; 3:23-4:7; 5:2,6; Col. 2:16,17), it
nowhere does so for the judiciaVcase
laws. In fact, the New Testament
frequently appeals to the use of these
caselaws, applying the "general equity"
foundtherein(Mt.15:4; IS:16; 1 Cor.
9:9; 1 Tim. 5:1S). "The New
Testament," says Bahnsen, "cites tile
judicial laws of the Old Testament too
often, and without apology or
disclaimer, to accept at face value tile
bald claim of theonomic Clitics that
Israel alone received the 'ceremonial
law' for her salvation." Too,
"Theonomy nowhere asserts an
eqUivalency between Israel's king and
all other civil magistrates" (pp.
115,l1S).
Yet, the Bible clearly teaches that
all the nations, having received God's
law by means of general revelation
(Rom. 1:1S-21; 2:14,15), are held
accountable to tllat law (Dt. 4:5-S;
Lev.1S:24-30; Gen. 19 -Sodomand
Gommorah). Thus, there is a
continuity of etllical standards, botll
Testament, unless they are rescinded
or modified by further revelation" (p.
12).
First, Bahnsen responds to
cliticisms having to do with the
separation of church and state. Here
some critics charge the author with
seeing no difference between the
church-state relationsllip in the Old
and New Testaments. This, however,
is merely another caricature of Ins
position. For example, in his By This
Standard, Bahnsen writes: "Of course
there were many unique aspects to
February, 1992 'I THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 'I 9
the situation enjoyed by the Old
Testament Israelites. In many ways
theirsocialarrangementwasnotwhat
ours is today. And the extraordinary
character of Old Testament Israel may
well have pertained to some aspect of
the relation between religious cult
and dvil rule in the Old Testament"
(pp. 288,289).
Yet, Israel was clearly not a fusion
of church and state, as
maintained by other
Rather, it is once the Kingdom has
come, in Christ's first advent, that all
dvil magistrates are to seek to enforce
the King's law in their lands. After all,
Christ is the true King, whose wrath is
kindled when earthly kings seek to
overthrow His law and opt for their
own (d. Psalm 2).
The real issue here, however, is
"Theonomy's point...that God does
theonomy claim that the civil
magistrate today should rule by
"conscience," as govemed by natural
law and common grace. But$cripture
would teach us that the so called
natural law which is given to all men,
which is impressed upon the
conscience, by God's common grace,
is nothing other than God's law. Not
only were the "oracles" given to Israel
by means of special revelation (Rom.
3:2), but they were also
made known to all men
critics who seek to
radically bifurcate the
Old and New Testament
ages. For instance, the
king of Israel (who was
to be from the line of
Judah) was never to
involve himself in the
dutiesof thepriests( who
were to be from the line
of Levi), nor vice-versa.
King Uzziah is a case in
point (cf. 2 Orr. 26:16-
21).
67heonomys point is that God does
not have a double standqrd of
justice in society. . Rape is wrong
J
whetherin Israe/J Nineveh, orNew
York. And punishing rapists too
leniently or too harshly is wrong
. .
by means of general
revelation (Rom 1: 18-
32; 2:12-15) . The
problem, however, with
relying on God's oracles
given in general
revelation alone, apart
from the "spectacles"
(Calvin) of special
revelation, is "sin." The
sin-obscurednaturallaw
simply will not do. That
for magistrates
J
whether in Is- '
Neither do
theonomists deny that
redeemed Israel was
typologicalofthechurch
of Christ (which
rae/
J
NinevehJor New York. If God
has not revealed objective stan-
dards of justice for crime and
punishment
J
then magistrates
cannot genuinely he avengers of
Ged's wrath against evildoers.'"
. is why Paul asserts that
God's dvillaw is to be
used as a restraining
influence on sin (1 Tun.
1 : 8 ~ 1 O .
. (Bahnsen, No Other Standard, p.140)
(N.B.: according to
Paul [1 Tim. 4:2] and
John 11Jn. 3:18-22], the
consdenceoffallenmanissearedand
untrustworthy without special
revelation. The Jiminy Cricket
theology - "let your conscience be
your guide" - of some non-
theonomists, is altogether negated by
theNewTestamentrevelation-WGC)
according to other critics
militates against a theonomic ethic).
But this fact hardly eliminates "the
Old Testament interest in having
righteousnesspervadealldepartments
of life, nor does it necessarily alter
God's standard of righteousness" (p.
142).
Andfinally, theonomy, asasystern,
doesnotteachthatthedvilmagistrate's
enforcement of the Old Testament
judidallaws "brings in the Kingdom"
(another slanderous accusation).
not have a double standard of justice
in sodety. Rape is wrong, whether in
Israel, Nineveh, or New York. And
punishing rapists too leniently or too
harshly is wrong for magistrates,
whether in Israel, Nineveh, or New
York" (p. 140). Is this not obvious
enough for the critics?
Other critics seek to restrict theuse
Second, Bahnsen addresses the of the law of Godin the New Testament
criticismsregardingtheOldTestament era by relegating it to those crimes
law and its use in modem civil which are not "religious" in nature.
government. Various critics of That is, only the second table of the
10 ~ '!HE COUNSEL of Chalcedon ~ February, 1992
law is binding on present day dvil
governments. ButwheredoestheNew
Testament give us such a spedal
category? Arenotall crimes "religious"
in the sense that they are primarily
against God? Is not the second table
Qfthelawpredicatedon the first table?
And, for instance, was not Herod, in
his capadty as dvil magistrate, struck
dead by God for not upholding the
first table ofHis law (Acts
12:21-23)?
Further, there is
additional confUsion
manifested here with
regard to the roles of the
church and state.
According to the Bible,
the former uses the Word
of God in dealing with
sin, whereas thelatteruses
the Word of God in
dealing with crime. The
Church is a ministry of
grace aiming at the
salvationofsinners; while
the state is a ministry of
justice aiming at the
restraintandpunishrnent
of lawless behavior. The job of the
civil magistrate is not redemptive in
import;rather,asGod'sminister(Rom.
13:4,6), it is "for the pUnishment of
evildoers and the praise of those who
do right" (lPet. 2:14). This,ofcourse,
likewise shows a false notion of the
secular/sacred dichotomy, which is
so terriblyprevalentin Christian circles
today.
It is interesting, as Dr. Bahnsen
points out, thattheauthorofHebrews,
in2:1-3 andlO:28ff., uses ana fortiori
(from the lesser to the greater)
argument to show that apostasy (a so
called "religious" crime) has not been
revoked in the "gospel age." Says consistent), as well as Christianity.
Bahnsen, ''Hebrews argues that we Accordingto Bahnsen,suchpluralisrn
need to give 'greater heed' today,forif is "neither faithful to Scripture, nor
even the (lesser) law demanded just even logically cogent" (p. 192). First,
recompenseforoffenses, the Cgreater) Psalm 2:10,11 teaches that all dvil
gospel will all the more do so - there magistrates are to serve the God of
will be no escape from God's wrath SCripture. Second, to adopt the
(2:1-3) .. .50 the Old Testament dvil prindpled pluralism position is to
penalties are not being set aside but subtract civil commandments,
rather established by this line of without warrant, from Scripture in
th01.1ght - established as the premised
foundation for the justice and
inevitability of eternal punishment
for apostates [10:28.1. It is precisely
because those (lesser) civil sanctions
are valid and just that one must see
that the (greater) eternal sanctions
will be valid and just. The eternal is
not put in place of the civil; it is argued
on the basis of the civil" (p. 179).
Then time are the "principled
pluralists." They maintain that the
state ought to honor and protect all of
the "religious" perspectives of the
nurnerousreligious groups, e.g., Islam,
Judaism, and Satanism (if they are
violation of Deuter-
onomy4:2. And third, if
pluralism were accep-
table, it would lead to
irreconcilable
contradictions in the
various world views.
Wherever the world
viewsdiffer,forexample,
over crimes or punish-
ments for crimes (e.g.,
the penalty for murder),
equal honor and
protection cannot
possibly be given by the
civil magistrate to both
views.
Did not Jesus say,
"he that is not for Meis
against Me" (Mt. 12:30)? Religious!
Ethical neutrality is a myth. The
fact that some modem societies
(e.g., the U.SA.) have adopted a
pluralistic stance in civil
government does not please God.
Thequestionisnotwhatispresendy
the case, the question is what
"ought"to be the case. God'sWord
alone is the authority that validates
alltheologicalandetbicalprinciples.
The Bible is to be our guide in
personal and public morality. There
isnootherstandard. Thereissimply
no way that pluralism can be
biblically defended.
February, 1992 l' THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon l' 11
And third, Bahnsen speaks to the
issuewhich brings thegreatestconcem
among theonomic critics: the penal
sanctions (civil punishments). (As the
author himself says: "Here's the Rub"
[po 211).) Those who deny the basic
biblical principles of theonomy (Le.,
God's law as the standard for every
area of life, every institution, etc.), of
course, are appalled at the thought of
the binding nature of the biblical penal
sanctions. Herein, at least, they are
consistent in their (erroneous)
thinklng.
Otherscholars,however,whohave
taken sides with theonomy in
practically every other way, hesitate at
this point Here they are inconsistent.
If Jehovah is Lord over all nations and
kings, and all are under His law, as has
already been shown (Lev. 18:24-30;
Ps. 2; Is. 24:5; Rom 3:19), where is
theprobleminasserting thatHispenal
codes are likewise paradigmatic (to be
used as models) for all kings and.
nations? Is this not simple biblical
logic? Wherein God has given man
civil laws by which to live in society,
doesHegivemantherighttoarbitrarily
determine how to punish theviolators
of these laws? Of course not! And for
some critics to claim that the Old
T estarnent penalsanctionswereoverly
harsh, and thusarenottobecontinued
in our age, does not speak well of the
God of Israel. After all, these penal
sanctions beihg ridiculed as "harsh"
are God's sanctions.
And in the New Testament age in
which welive, should wenotpresume
continuity rather than discontinuity
with regard to these Old Testament
laws of penology (the study of civil
punishment)? When Jesus, in
Matthew 15:4 openly endorses the
penology of the Old Covenant, and
then commissions us to "observe all
whichIcomtnandedyou" (Mt. 28:20),
what are we to think? Too, the author
of Hebrews (10:28) teaches us that
anyone who had violated the law of
Moses was to die "without mercy on
the testimony of two or three
witnesses," withoutso much as a hint
thatsuchpenologyhasbeenabrogated
in the New Covenant. Further, to
relegate the penal sanctions of Israel
only to the church in the New
Testament age, as some critics would
have us do, is onc.e again to confuse
sins arid crimes and the church-state
relationship - a problem which the
author has dealt with earlier.
Dr. Bahnsen then concludes the
major section of his book by asking
his critics to carefully consider what
has been said in No Other Standard.
No criticism gives us any reason to
abandon the basic principles set forth
in a biblically based theonomic ethic.
In fact, the opposite is the case. If not
. God's law, then what? What other
standard would a Christian prefer to
havesocietygovemedby?Whatother
standard carries God's direction and
sanction? Nonel
The two Appendices are jewels.
Appendix A deals with the exegetical
details of Matthew 5:17-19. Here
Bahnsen methodically reveals the
faultyinterpretationsofpaul B. Fowler
(a Refonned theologian) and Gary
Long (a Dispensationalist). Appendix
B, on the other hand, addresses a
recent book by Vern Poythress: The
Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses.
Although Poythress seems to be in
"fundamental agreement" with the
theonornic camp, says Bahnsen, it is a
"weakened version of theonomy" to
12 TIlE COUNSEL of Chalcedon February, 1992
be sure. In the present reviewer's
opinion, Poythress'smulti-symbolism,
multi-perspectiva!ism approach to
hermeneutics leaves him
hermeneutic-less. Onthisfoundation,
olle can make the Bible say practically
ar/ry'thing he wants it to say.
As publisher Gary North has said,
Bahnsen's opponents can run, but
they cannot hide. "One by one,
Bahnsen takes his critics' arguments
apart, showing that they have either
misrepresented his position or
misrepresented the Bible. Line by line,
point by point, he shows that they
have not understood his arguments
and have also not understood the
vulnerability of their own logical and
theological positions."Thespotwhere
the critics were previously standing
has been (irenic ally) "dusted off."
Typically Bahnsen, No Other Standard
is very much worth reading.a