- Theonomy
- Principled Pluralism
- Christian America
- National Confessionalism
Greg L. Bahnsen advocates the theonomic position.
From Goodreads:
Originally delivered at a consultation on that topic, each of the four major papers is presented by a leading representative of that view and is followed by responses from the three other perspectives. The result is a vigorous exchange of ideas aimed at pinpointing areas of agreement and disagreement and equipping God's people to serve him more effectively in the political arena.
2 comments:
I suppose that in this book "National Confessionalism" is the position according to which only one precise church-body should be legal in a particular realm (like Presbyterianism in Scotland from 1560 to circa 1650), and that in this book "Theonomy" would be the position according to which multiple protestant church-bodies could be legal in a particular realm, as long as they maintain minimal orthodoxy (like under Cromwell's Commonwealth).
If I am correct, it is the "state church" versus "state religion" model. An intermediate position between these two would be a realm where one particular church-body would be priviledged while the other protestant groups would be legal but disadvantaged (like Anglicanism in England form 1689 to 1848 and some American colonies/states from the mid-1600's to the early 1800's, i.e. Congregationalism in Massachussetts & Connecticut, Low-Church Episcopacy in Virginia & Maryland).
I currently don't see any biblical warrant for the state to favor Presbyterian government via sanctions, even though I hold to it. However, Popery (aside from its heresies, which the state should suppress) and potentially prelacy oppose the biblical church/state distinctions, and thus should be opposed by the state.
Post a Comment