We were having some server issues with one of our audio hosts.

sorry, maybe it is my end. today I am able to listen to recorded program.

I wonder if we might be able to set something up with Google Hangouts, if not in person.

The theonomy debate was interesting back in the 70s and 80s and maybe a bit in the 90s, but its been decades and simply stated their arguments never caught traction. They tried to establish institutes and publish works, but they were never widely read or many of those institutions either changed focus in order to survive or closed down. As a movement, it fused maybe a little fire into the religious right, but I think it is safe to call it dead. The reasons may be complex, but its end results were they had to settle with joining religious american evangelical conservatives and even there, it is arguably a dying cause also. They maybe had a couple of congressman elected, but it produced no sustainable fruit worthy of mention.

Justin: You are incorrect in stating theonomy is a system aimed only at the civil realm. All spheres of life, every area of life certainly includes the Church. From the website you supply, the opening paragraphs state:

Theonomy Resources exists to equip the church with material for applying God’s law to every area of life. Jesus is Lord over all, and as such, His law applies to all of life’s spheres.

While this site’s main focus is on biblical civil law (among the most neglected areas of God’s law today), we also promote material applying biblical law to such spheres as worship, family, and relationships.

It is instructive that Abraham Kuyper was as interested in all areas of life as anyone (any movement) might be, and yet his approach was most definitely an agenda to repristinate the Israelite civil system. Listen to program 305, interview with James Bratt on his biography of Abraham Kuyper (http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/podcasts/ctc305/)

It is naive to claim Theonomy has no interest in affecting or influencing the Church, the lives of prominent Theonomists and the history of numerous congregations would tell us otherwise. As a former card-carrying theonomist, I have first hand knowledge of the movement. My parting with theonomy was untouched by any quarrels, and I remained close and friendly with prominent theonomists (now in glory).

-=Cris=-

I found multiple review of Hamilton’s BT book and he also apparently defines BT in terms of the worldview and understanding of previous scripture primarily from a human perspective rather than as first of all as divine revelation. That would be distinct from Vos.

Here is a quote from a review GC.

“Hamilton defines biblical theology as “understanding and embracing the worldview of the biblical authors,” by which he means that the writers of Scripture have a framework through which they interpret and describe the world and the events taking place within it (15). This interpretive framework is informed by earlier Scriptures familiar to the biblical authors. The writers often assume associations and connections between truths and events; while at times these connections are explicit, they are more often subtle and implied. It is the task of biblical theology to expose those assumed connections. This short book does so masterfully.”

http://theonomyresources.blogspot.com/p/about.html

I haven’t read any of Hamilton’s BT but I think there are some real potential dangers in failing to recognize a proper connection between BT and ST (a la Vossian) and one of the places one seems to find this is with those presenting BT as “story.” Revelation may be analogous to story but it is much more than that. After all, only God can tell story in objective historical events.

I was surprised to hear Jim Hamilton downplay (at last that is the way I took it) the important role of systematic theology in one of these videos (can’t remember which one it was).

Scott Hahn is a popular Roman Catholic BT guy and a proponent of Maryology, and of course there is BT that is not orthodox. Some of the things to appreciate about Vos is his understanding of revelation, BT as a hermeneutic, and the vital relationship between BT and ST.

The study of Biblical Theology and redemptive history, I believe, keeps one from going too far on things, as I believe Rome has. For example, pertaining the perpetual virginity of Mary. Not withstanding the problem that arises by trying to show that Mary and Joseph did not consummate their marriage for at least 12 years after the birth of Jesus, the other question is “Does Mary remaining a virgin or not affect, in any way, Jesus’ role as Prophet, Priest, and King?” The answer is a clear “No.”

Justin,

No, we don’t have a transcript. Perhaps a group of people might pitch in to create one.

Camden

This was a very exciting episode and idea. Providentially I just finished reading the first chapter of Grace and Glory. It was really impressive, even lyrical, but I must admit that I’m more of a systematic guy, so it is a bit of a challenge. And Camden’s remarks vis-a-vis progressive catholicism and the role of the magisterium were very interesting. The Kantian divide plays a major role in much contemporary Catholic theology.

Thank you for everything you are doing.

Best regards,

BLS