Embers of a Dying Fire: My Thoughts on the Great Theonomy Debate

Theonomy 1.0 is dead, but Theonomy 2.0 is here. This might help you think through it.

In 2014, I engaged in a moderated debate with Joel McDurmon, Gary North’s son-in-law and director of American Vision. The debate was between two conservative Christians, with my opponent believing that the Civil Code given to ancient Israel - including the Mosaic penologies - was still in force, while I took the position in keeping with the Westminster standards, that only the aspects of the Civil Code that were moral and universal (known as the “General Equity” was still in force.

You can see that debate below.

Not long after the debate, McDurmon put out a new books, The Bounds of Love, in which he recanted his previous theonomic position on Mosaic Penology. As I pointed out at the time in the article Ding. Dong. The Onomy is Dead, you don’t have Theonomy (at least, the classical kind of Theonomy, which I’ve been calling lately Theonomy 1.0, the type held by Rushdoony, Bahnsen, and North) without the Old Testament penologies.

Little did I realize that McDurmon would soon devolve into a social justice warrior, round about the time #MeToo began. Within a short time, McDurmon would be rubbing shoulders with Kyle J. Howard and basically anybody else whose Christianity was as questionable as their background as an undercover battle rapper in the Crips.