Westminster's Confession: The Abandonment of Van Til's Legacy

by Gary North

In the final days of October, 1990, the long-predicted book by the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary finally appeared: Theonomy: A Reformed Critique. In response comes Westminster's Confession. It is both a negative and a positive statement. Theonomists believe that "you can't beat something with nothing." It is not enough to demonstrate that someone is wrong; you must also show what is correct. Cornelius Van Til made this principle the bedrock application of his apologetic method. It was not enough to demonstrate that his opponents' systems of thought were internally inconsistent; he also showed why Christianity is the only logical alternative. But, he left an incomplete legacy. He refused to offer an explicitly biblical alternative to the natural law theory that he had refuted. His system created a judicial vacuum. Into that vacuum have come two rival factions: the political pluralists and the theonomists. The battle is now engaged.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Nonfiction, Christianity

385 pages, Hardcover

First published December 1, 1991

About the author

Gary North received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Riverside. He served on the Senior Staff of the Foundation for Economic Education, in Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, and was the president of the Institute for Christian Economics. Dr. North’s essays and reviews have appeared in three dozen magazines and journals, including The Wall Street Journal, National Review, The American Spectator, and others.

Reviews

[Shea Stacy · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book responding to a book that is critiquing a movement (but primarily one specific book in that movement). I haven't read the book this is critiquing or the book that that book is critiquing. So why did I read this book?

Good question.

Greg Bahnsen wrote "Theonomy in Christian Ethics" based on his Th.M Thesis which Westminster accepted in 1973, 17 years later the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary joined forces to write "Theonomy: A Reformed Critique," espousing firm disagreement with Bahnsen's position. And then a year later Gary North responded with this volume. The central idea of the Reconstructionist/Theonomists (Bahnsen, Rushdoony, North) was that Van Til's complete rejection of Natural Law and proof that there is no neutrality anywhere naturally led to their position of the necessity and continuing validity of God's Law for today. The authors of TaRC seem to want hold on to Van Til's legacy, but North argues convincingly that they have fundamentally rejected his conclusions and have not followed his insights.

While having not read all the source material I believe that North demonstrated well that Westminster did not bring a convincing case against Bahnsen and in many cases had blatantly false or pathetic scholarship on the topic. A continuing statement was that "you can't beat something with nothing." And the opponents of theonomy didn't have a clear alternative that gave answers to how Christians are to live today. This continues to be a tension in evangelicalism today. The draw of men like Wilson, Driscoll, Sauve, Deevers and Webbon is that they speak clearly and believe that God's word provides clear answers to how to be men and women, husbands and wives, citizens and politicians. Obviously these men don't all agree (just as the Recons didn't all agree) but they stand in contrast to men like Chandler, Keller, Ortlund and the SBC who can't speak clearly and authoritatively on much practical living, but rather qualify and nuance, or are blown around by the whims of the culture (SBC).

There is no neutrality that Christians and pagans can come together and create a wholesome society from. It is as the ol man from Moscow says "Christ or Chaos." I'm not sure if the Recons had everything right, but I pray we can have more men who are going to work as hard as they did to provide clear answers and a way forward for the Christian to disciple the nations!

"Therefore, Westminster could not hire Bahnsen and had to fire Shepherd."



PS: For the nature of the topic this book was surprisingly funny. North might outmatch DW in his satiric bite.

[Zach McDonald · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow. North basically sets out to prove that the contributors (especially the editors) of "Theonomy: A Reformed Critique" are guilty of "judicial agnosticism," poor scholarship, and, in the case of some, blatant transgression of the ninth commandment. In all three, North proposes that Westminster Seminary has abandoned both Machen and Van Til. The authors of "Theonomy: A Reformed Critique," says North, basically unified around one open ended thesis . . ."we don't like theonomy," but they failed to offer an alternative - so North, "you can't beat something with nothing." Likewise, their actual critiques were more often than not half-hearted, poorly researched, and, at times, outright misrepresentations and lies. North looks at each essay - acknowledges when they were right (which was actually nice to read) and destroys when they were wrong.

According to other reviewers, this book was never responded to. If this is true, and if North's critique is accurate, this book is a juggernaut against Westminster and especially against particular contributors of the critique. I am usually not a fan of hard language and polemics (thus four stars), but if North's observations are correct perhaps it was called for - plus it offered a few laughs and gasps. Need to actually go read "Theonomy: A Reformed Critique" now to get the other side of the story. Maybe I will come back and re-rate this book - five stars or three. . .

See www.reconstructionistradio.com for a free audio download of the book.

[Benjamin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Probably closer to 3.5. I enjoyed this very much, it was more along the lines of a historical narrative on all that happened at Westminster seminary since the great Cornelius Van Til left the school. It really does seem like the seminary had an intent on not continuing the legacy of Dr.Van Til. I would recommend this work to all of those who are trying to understand the reconstructionist movement better from a theological and historical perspective, it’s a shame that many of these men were treated the way that they were treated in particular, Dr. Greg,Bahnsen, and Dr. Norman Shepherd. A lot of Dr. North’s cultural commentary on the deficiency of the Westminster staff, is right on for the early 1990s and I would say it is still largely relevant for today.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

NORTH'S SHARP RESPONSE TO WESTMINSTER'S "THEONOMY" BOOK

Gary Kilgore North (born 1942) is head of the Institute for Christian Economics, and a prominent Christian Reconstructionist, who has written widely on many topics (including postmillennial eschatology).

He wrote in the Foreword to this often sharply-worded 1991 book, "This book is a refutation of Theonomy: A Reformed Critique... My book is what some people will call a 'quickie.' The Westminster book is, too, but it took about five years to get it into print... In short, I did not devote my full attention to writing this book... So it is hardly a great book. It does not have to be a great book. It just has to be better than 'Theonomy: A Reformed Critique.' ... What I neglect will be covered by Greg Bahnsen in the book I commissioned him to write, No Other Standard: Theonomy and Its Critics..."

He asserts, "(Westminster is) no longer willing to defend without qualification Cornelius Van Til's absolute rejection of natural law theory, both ancient and modern. Here is Westminster's dilemma: it had to break publicly with Van Til's philosophy in order to justify its rejection of theonomy. It had to reject his monumental legacy to the Church. Yet even now, the faculty has refused to admit openly that most of them have made this break. This is the thesis of my book." (Pg. xxii)

He points out, "Rousas Rushdoony does not belong to a local church, nor has he taken communion in two decades, except when he is on the road, speaking in a church that has a policy of open communion or is unaware of his non-member status. He has not spoken with (North or Bahnsen) for many years. But this is Rushdoony's problem, not ours... Several Christian leaders have attempted to get me and Rushdoony to sit down and discuss our problems. I have in every case agreed, even flying to Washington, D.C., in 1981 to meet with him. He backed out of his agreement when I walked in the room, and he has refused all mediation ever since." (Pg. 80-81)

He further reveals about his famous disagreement with his father-in-law, "The time has come to stop covering up what really is going on... I submitted to (Rousas J. Rushdoony's) Chalcedon Report my monthly essay... Rushdoony sent it back and insisted that I rewrite it, saying that it was heretical, and even worse. I refused to rewrite it. I did not insist that he publish it; I just refused to rewrite it... he submitted a protest to our church elders informing them of our heresy, and asking them to discipline us (North and James Jordan) both... they replied that (the article) was somewhat peculiar but certainly not heretical... (Rushdoony) then publicly fired me and Jordan from the Chalcedon Report... What is this disagreement all about? It is (local church) Tyler's disagreement with Mr. Rushdoony about the requirement of local church attendance and taking the Lord's Supper..." (Pg. 334-336)

This book will be "must reading" for people wanting "in-depth" information about the Christian Reconstruction/Theonomy debate.

[Josiah Richardson · Rating 3 out of 5]

North responds to Westminster's publication, Theonomy: A Reformed Critique. He does this point by point, by first making the case that Westminster put out their critique as a cover for removing Bahnsen from the faculty. He argues that once Van Til left, Westminster had no interest in pursuing Theonomy, Postmillennialism, or Partial Preterism and they were basically sweeping out the seminary.

I think North does an adequate job of responding to the Faculty, especially Tim Keller's piece, but he asserts that they have effectively ignored all that the theonomist movement put out in terms of books, lectures, and debates. I think to this point he may be asserting too much. I really don't think that Westminster seminary thinks about Theonomy as much North thinks Westminster seminary thinks about Theonomy. I wasn't there, obviously, so my speculation is simply based on what I've read and heard from both sides of the argument. I also have yet to read the critique of Theonomy, so this admittedly a response from where I stand now on the issue.

If Van Til's legacy really hinges on theonomy and the nature of God's law, then that is bad news for Van Til. Presuppositional apologetics will be Van Til's legacy and Theonomy will continue to be a tertiary issue in my opinion. Not because theonomy is right or wrong, but because Van Til simply did not write on it like he did other things, such as presuppositional apologetics, Calvinism, and Biblical ethics.

In any event, North does quote extensively from the critique of his position and, giving North the benefit of the doubt on intellectual honesty here, a lot of the Critiques were unfounded or were simply ignorant of the theonomist position, despite the ample amount of literature readily available. I plan on reading the Critique and then revisiting this work in the future for a fuller picture of the whole fiasco.

[Bryan Kuranaga · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book has made me more aware of just how much holding Reconstructionistic views puts one in the minority. It's a real shame that many of the theologians we hold in high regard have failed to read the literature that has been put forth by Reconstructionistic authors and have failed to engage with it with integrity. There may be some affirmations of some points made, but they are schizophrenic when it comes to their interpretation and application of God's Law. On a different but similar note, it was neat to hear how Calvin was likely postmillennial in his eschatology. Like others, however, Calvin said many schizophrenic things pertaining to eschatology and even his view of the Law. His Institutes of the Christian Religion would seem to condemn theonomy, but his sermons on Deuteronomy would seem to affirm it. Similarly, he, in his commentaries, has said conflicting things regarding eschatology. It does, however, seem that the bulk of his material would favor a more optimistic view of the end times.

[Josiah Russell · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is 🔥🔥🔥
Gary North doing what Gary North does best. Brick by brick North tears down ‘Theonomy - A Reformed Critique’ and lays out the alternative “If not Gods law then what!”. Definitely recommend this book.

[Christopher Brehm · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very Good

[Austin Cox · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hilarious and polemical. Not the best book to read if you are looking for an exegetical case for theonomic ethics, but it is well worth reading.

[M P · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dont really know the whole background but some good points

[Damos · Rating 3 out of 5]

Much more useful to you if you're a theonomist of some form but an interesting read none the less

[Scott Guillory · Rating 3 out of 5]

A 30+ year old call out of the Westminster crew on their polemic against theonomy. North felt they had to write against theonomy to justify themselves in not hiring Greg Bahsen to take Van Til’s spot at the Seminary. Gary North is a thorough educator and vigorous defender of theonomy. I learned a lot.

[Daniel · Rating 2 out of 5]

I liked his defense of using impolite language in times of heated controversy; it's a Reformed Tradition.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am no longer a theonomist, but I've probably read more literature on the subject than most. This is the best book defending the theonomic perspective. It is also the funniest book. I remember literally rolling off of my bed in my seminary dorm crying from laughing so hard. Here's the sad part: this book was NEVER ANSWERED by the Reformed Academic Community. Gary North won by technical knock-out. (It didn't help that North himself said as much in the same book).

North reduced all questions to the "by what standard" query. His larger point was that if van Til's epistemology is true, and should be applied to all of life, then the only real answer is theonomy. Well....yes and no. It is true that if Van til is true then neutrality is impossible (thus negating 20th century Reformed political theory), but the specific exegetical theonomic thesis--ala Bahnsen on Matthew 5:17--does not follow. Bahnsen may in fact be correct, but simply positing Van Til does not justify the exegesis.

Anyway, the book is the best on the subject and is worth the price for a week's entertainment.

[Ryan Watkins · Rating 1 out of 5]

This books is Gary North's response to the book Theonomy: A Reformed Critique written by the faculty at Westminster Seminary. Considering that Van Til wasn't a theonomist and didn't want to be associated from the movement, the title is a misnomer. This book is really a defense of Norman Shepherd and theonomy. Little has anything to do with scripture and most is ranting about the internal conflicts within Westminster Seminary.

[Jared Lovell · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a thorough demolition of the essays compiled in the book "Theonomy: A Reformed Critique". It has never been answered by the Reformed Academic Community. North is straight forward and ever his witty polemical self.

[Dayo Adewoye · Rating 4 out of 5]

A witty and lively defence of the Christian Reconstruction movement, as well as a brilliant response to the attacks of mostly Reformed critics.

[Wade Stotts · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read in 2016 and again in 2017.