Wilson a Theonomist?

Recently over at Mark’s blog a conversation started that at some point asked if Doug Wilson and Moscow consider themselves theonomists. I just received the new Credenda/Agenda and in an editorial about this whole heresy thing, Wilson writes of points of agreement between himself and the RPCUS, “Both sides of this dispute hold to some variation of postmillenial, Calvinistic, presbyterian, VanTilian,theonomic, and reformed thought…”
Just a minor point I guess, but I definitely think Moscow is theonomic.


OLD COMMENTS
Post 1:
I suppose it depends a bit what “some variation” means. If you believe the whole Bible is relevant for ethics today, you could be said to believe in “some variation of theonomy,” I suppose.
As I pointed out on Mark’s blog, Steve Schlissel has said that he isn’t a theonomist — at least, not one of the Bahnsenian variety.
And for the record, I’m not a theonomist (though I do believe the whole Bible has relevance for life today).
by: John (URL) on 2002-09-15 11:00:08
Post 2:
Wilkins takes Jordan’s theocratic view…which isn’t the same as Bahnsenian theonomy.
by: Rick (URL) on 2002-09-16 12:01:33
Post 3:
I wasn’t talking about everyone, just Wilson. I think saying theonomy equates to the whole Bible being relavent for life today would make much of Christianity theonomist, and would water the term down. I’m sure that’s not what Wilson has in mind. I’d read his recent story “Red Barn” in Credenda and all the past writing in there to come to a conclusion.
by: Joel W (URL) on 2002-09-17 11:43:21
Post 4:
You may be right. Wilson may be a theonomist of the more Bahnsenian type, though he certainly doesn’t seem to make much of it if he is. (Nor does that mean the whole congregation in Moscow is.)
by: John (URL) on 2002-09-17 12:39:55

The Prophets

The Prophets (Hebrew, nebi’ im) are the second section or “book” in the three sections of the Old Testament canon. Though we may be unfamiliar with the shape of the OT canon, a quick look at the NT will show us that this division was well known to the later authors of the NT. The three-fold division of the OT can be clearly seen in Luke 24:44:

Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.

The Law of Moses or Book of Moses is the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, the Prophets were the middle section of the canon, and the Psalms, or writings were the third division of the canon.
The books in the Hebrew canon are in a different order than what we currently have in our Old Testaments. This may not seem important, but actually I would argue that the intentional placing of the books in the order they were in taught a theological message, one that is harder to see in the now disjointed form of our current OT canonical order. The Prophets were reckoned as eight books in the following order:

1. Joshua
2. Judges
3. I & II Samuel
4. I & II Kings
5. Isaiah
6. Jeremiah
7. Ezekiel
8. The Twelve (the minor prophets taken as one book)

The hand of a later editor or editors at work in the shaping of the Prophets and the canon as a whole is wonderful to behold. Stephen Dempster has admirably demonstrated the thematic unity is this section of the canon , he writes:
Joshua 1:1–9 functions as an introduction to the book of Joshua but also to this section of the canon. The two-fold reference to the death of Moses (1:1, 2) not only continues Deuteronomy but also signifies the end of an era. The expression ‘Moses, my servant’ occurs twice in this text (1:2, 7). The only other time this expression is used in the entire TaNaK is at the end of this section of the canon (Mal. 4:4).
In other words, at the very beginning of this “book” of the Prophets in Joshua and at the very end in Malachi are references to “Moses, my servant” included with a call to observe the Torah he had given. The success or failure of Israel would be only judged by its following the Torah of Moses. And just as the land of Canaan was put under “the ban” in Joshua’s day (Joshua 6:18) so the Lord threatens to come to Israel and smite the land with a “ban of destruction” (Malachi 4:6).
Malachi in ending the Prophets and transitioning to the Writings (which begin with the book of Psalms) asks about distinguishing between “the righteous and the wicked” (Heb. rashaim and zedekim) in Malachi 3:18. This question is immediately picked up in the next section of the canon, Psalm 1, which distinguishes the righteous from the wicked once more in terms of meditation on the Torah. Thematic unity overarches the entire canon, what a glorious book we have in our possession!
OLD COMMENTS

Post 1:
I see no reason to posit an editor.

1. either its the work of the Holy Spirit

or

2. Malachi could have written with some undertsanding of matching up with Joshua
by: Officer p-duggie (URL) on 2002–12–10 17:02:07
Post 2:
I think the hand of the editor is all over the OT canon teaching in the ‘seams’ a distinct message. I think the consensus is pretty large on the end of Malachi being an add on. The way Malachi and Joshua answer each other in their final canonical shape are amazing, as is the lead in to the Psalms and on and on. The material was put into its’ current shape at some point certainly. Read Dempster, Stephen (1998). An ‘Extraordinary Fact’: Torah and Temple And the Contours of the Hebrew Canon, Part 1. Tyndale Bulletin, Vol. 48, no. 2.
Excellent summary.
by: joel w (URL) on 2002–12–10 17:20:44
Post 3:
I guess I’d never be able to demonstrate or provide evidence for some aspect of the coherence of the bible as evidence of its divine origin or inspiration.
by: pduggie (URL) on 2002–12–11 00:49:17
Post 4:
I absolutely agree with divine inspiration. What the author says/God says, no difference. You don’t see editorial activity as opposed to inspiration do you?
by: joel w (URL) on 2002–12–11 01:28:15
Post 5:
Have you ever looked at Beckwith’s The OT Canon of the NT Church? It does some interesting stuff with the formation of the OT canon.

by: garver (URL) on 2002–12–13 09:48:00
Post 6:
I haven’t read Beckwith’s book yet, but I’ve heard of it and plan on reading it. Thanks for the reminder. Lots of good stuff out there, I’m reading some Brevard Childs stuff now.
by: joel w (URL) on 2002–12–13 21:52:08

The Prophets

The Prophets (Hebrew, nebi’ im) are the second section or “book” in the three sections of the Old Testament canon. Though we may be unfamiliar with the shape of the OT canon, a quick look at the NT will show us that this division was well known to the later authors of the NT. The three-fold division of the OT can be clearly seen in Luke 24:44:

Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.

The Law of Moses or Book of Moses is the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, the Prophets were the middle section of the canon, and the Psalms, or writings were the third division of the canon.
The books in the Hebrew canon are in a different order than what we currently have in our Old Testaments. This may not seem important, but actually I would argue that the intentional placing of the books in the order they were in taught a theological message, one that is harder to see in the now disjointed form of our current OT canonical order. The Prophets were reckoned as eight books in the following order:

1. Joshua
2. Judges
3. I & II Samuel
4. I & II Kings
5. Isaiah
6. Jeremiah
7. Ezekiel
8. The Twelve (the minor prophets taken as one book)

The hand of a later editor or editors at work in the shaping of the Prophets and the canon as a whole is wonderful to behold. Stephen Dempster has admirably demonstrated the thematic unity is this section of the canon , he writes:
Joshua 1:1-9 functions as an introduction to the book of Joshua but also to this section of the canon. The two-fold reference to the death of Moses (1:1, 2) not only continues Deuteronomy but also signifies the end of an era. The expression ‘Moses, my servant’ occurs twice in this text (1:2, 7). The only other time this expression is used in the entire TaNaK is at the end of this section of the canon (Mal. 4:4).
In other words, at the very beginning of this “book” of the Prophets in Joshua and at the very end in Malachi are references to “Moses, my servant” included with a call to observe the Torah he had given. The success or failure of Israel would be only judged by its following the Torah of Moses. And just as the land of Canaan was put under “the ban” in Joshua’s day (Joshua 6:18) so the Lord threatens to come to Israel and smite the land with a “ban of destruction” (Malachi 4:6).
Malachi in ending the Prophets and transitioning to the Writings (which begin with the book of Psalms) asks about distinguishing between “the righteous and the wicked” (Heb. rashaim and zedekim) in Malachi 3:18. This question is immediately picked up in the next section of the canon, Psalm 1, which distinguishes the righteous from the wicked once more in terms of meditation on the Torah. Thematic unity overarches the entire canon, what a glorious book we have in our possession!
OLD COMMENTS

Post 1:
I see no reason to posit an editor.

1. either its the work of the Holy Spirit

or

2. Malachi could have written with some undertsanding of matching up with Joshua
by: Officer p-duggie (URL) on 2002-12-10 17:02:07
Post 2:
I think the hand of the editor is all over the OT canon teaching in the ‘seams’ a distinct message. I think the consensus is pretty large on the end of Malachi being an add on. The way Malachi and Joshua answer each other in their final canonical shape are amazing, as is the lead in to the Psalms and on and on. The material was put into its’ current shape at some point certainly. Read Dempster, Stephen (1998). An ‘Extraordinary Fact’: Torah and Temple And the Contours of the Hebrew Canon, Part 1. Tyndale Bulletin, Vol. 48, no. 2.
Excellent summary.
by: joel w (URL) on 2002-12-10 17:20:44
Post 3:
I guess I’d never be able to demonstrate or provide evidence for some aspect of the coherence of the bible as evidence of its divine origin or inspiration.
by: pduggie (URL) on 2002-12-11 00:49:17
Post 4:
I absolutely agree with divine inspiration. What the author says/God says, no difference. You don’t see editorial activity as opposed to inspiration do you?
by: joel w (URL) on 2002-12-11 01:28:15
Post 5:
Have you ever looked at Beckwith’s The OT Canon of the NT Church? It does some interesting stuff with the formation of the OT canon.

by: garver (URL) on 2002-12-13 09:48:00
Post 6:
I haven’t read Beckwith’s book yet, but I’ve heard of it and plan on reading it. Thanks for the reminder. Lots of good stuff out there, I’m reading some Brevard Childs stuff now.
by: joel w (URL) on 2002-12-13 21:52:08

Accupuncture

Some guys at work were discussing going to get acupuncture that claims to be able to eliminate your food allergies. I have always opposed acupuncture as a sort of opening to the demonic, but I don’t have any solid text to go to. I searched the web a bit, but haven’t found any real good articles, I just find things decrying relying on the spirit world in general, which make sense. I’ve always held the same opinions regarding yoga, TM, etc. It does amaze me how accepted these eastern spiritual practices are now on a practical level.

Sanders Book

I got two great books at the local university library last night, one being Judaism Practice and Belief by E.P. Sanders where I read something interesting: in the first century, the Pharisees, Saducees, and Essenes together had only several thousand adherents total. Most of the Jews were simply people, living within their religion. I always had the impression that everyone belonged to one group or the other.

Sanders Book

I got two great books at the local university library last night, one being Judaism Practice and Belief by E.P. Sanders where I read something interesting: in the first century, the Pharisees, Saducees, and Essenes together had only several thousand adherents total. Most of the Jews were simply people, living within their religion. I always had the impression that everyone belonged to one group or the other.

I Preached

I preached for the first time ever this past Sunday. Leading up to the actual day I was at times terrified and feeling very stupid and inadequate, but I was ok when the time came. My biggest problem was that it was short, I thought it would be longer, so I need more material next time. The whole process made me much more dependent on the Spirit of God for insight and strength, and gave me a newfound respect for those who do this week in and week out. It’s very easy to cast stones at preachers and be a conniseur of sermons, but it is quite a load to bear in one sense.
I preached on Ps. 73, envying the wicked vs. realizing the presence of God with us and in us *is* our reward in this life and the next.

I Preached

I preached for the first time ever this past Sunday. Leading up to the actual day I was at times terrified and feeling very stupid and inadequate, but I was ok when the time came. My biggest problem was that it was short, I thought it would be longer, so I need more material next time. The whole process made me much more dependent on the Spirit of God for insight and strength, and gave me a newfound respect for those who do this week in and week out. It’s very easy to cast stones at preachers and be a conniseur of sermons, but it is quite a load to bear in one sense.
I preached on Ps. 73, envying the wicked vs. realizing the presence of God with us and in us *is* our reward in this life and the next.