Reformed Theonomists?

John Frame has some sensible things to say about the highly polemical debate between Theonomists and other Reformed theologians here. He argues that theonomy and a more conventional Reformed third use of the law approach – what is the catchy title for that view, by the way? - are points on a spectrum of how commandments are to be applied today.

Here are some useful bits:

Theonomy can be defined simply as adherence to God's law, which would make all Christians, especially Reformed Christians, into theonomists. Here I define the term more narrowly as a school of thought within Reformed theology which prefers literal, specific, and detailed applications of Mosaic civil laws to modern civil government. The word "prefers" gives us some leeway. At points, the theonomists, like the rest of us, apply the law only in general and non-literal ways….

Clearly theonomy so defined is not a clear-cut hermeneutic which prescribes the answer to every exegetical question. Theonomists differ much among themselves as to how the civil laws are to be applied. …the difference between theonomists and more conventional Reformed thinkers is not sharp but fuzzy. Rather, theonomy as defined above is an emphasis, a tendency….

Historically, Reformed thought has shown elements of both relatively theonomic and relatively non-theonomic emphases. I do not believe that either approach may claim unequivocally to be "the Reformed position." Of course, Reformed people are not antinomian. They believe that Christians are governed by God's law, and that includes the Old Testament. But Reformed exegetes including Calvin have varied greatly as to how literally and specifically they apply the details of the Mosaic legislation to their own situations.

Both Bahnsen [Theonomist] and Kline [more conventional view] make broad, bold programmatic statements which they modify considerably in their detailed discussions. This happens to such an extent that in my opinion their bold programmatic statements do not really or fairly represent the views they are presenting. In actual fact, they are much closer together than their rhetoric would suggest.

I’m not so sure Frame is right when he suggests that:

I suspect that few of us would disagree with theonomy if it were simply presented as a future ideal. Sure: if the postmilennial hope is realized and the world-society with its institutions becomes largely Christian, then most of us would find very attractive the prospect of living under something like the Mosaic civil law.

No doubt we would all say we want to see the social justice witnessed to in the Mosaic law implemented, but I imagine Reformed Postmillers might differ very considerably over how "like the Mosaic civil law" the ideal statute book will be. Even if we follow Frame’s advice, cut out the insults and accept the clarity of his fuzzy-thinking, there’s still a debate to have.