Steve Lawson interacts with some comments made by Joel Osteen on Larry King Live. I don’t think Lawson will be on Larry King Live anytime soon, but then again…
CBTS Faculty fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession of Faith, hold an advanced
degree in their field of instruction, and possess significant pastoral experience.
Sign up to get notified of new CBTS Blog posts.
In this post I want to respond to the criticisms of presuppositionalism based on the fascination with Aquinas among some contemporary Reformed scholars. I will point out several misguided and unhelpful directions that are being taken in the current discussion of Aquinas and Christian Apologetics.
Before critiquing theonomy, we need a good definition. Some people today who use the word “theonomy” don’t mean anything more than “God’s law” because the etimology of the word theonomy is “theos” which means God, and “nomos” which means law. They only want to affirm that God’s law is supreme over man’s law. And they’re right about that. God’s transcendent moral law is the norm that norms all norms. Governmental laws should always be consistent with God’s law and human law must never violate God’s law.
But in this post, I’ll be using the word “theonomy” in a more technical sense, which is rooted in the historic usage of the term.
It is always a humbling and learning experience to read the responses to a blog series on a controversial subject. Iron does sharpen iron, as the Bible says, and I learn much from those responses. Some postmils have taken a little umbrage at my description of Postmillennialism as a millennium involving a distinct, golden age following the one in which we live.