Yuku free message boards

I was at RTS/Jackson (the only RTS that existed) from 75-78, the same three years Greg Bahnsen (and Jim Jordan) were there. The big issue then was theonomy. DISCLAIMER: I was fully in line with the basic theonomic perspective (Bahnsen/Rushdoony/North) at the time, and still lean heavily that way, although I've been influenced a lot by Frame and Poythress.

Looking back on things, I think there were problems on both sides of the debate. The anti-theonomists regularly misunderstood (or purposely misinterpreted) theonomists, saying things like "Theonomists want to bring in the Kingdom of God at the point of a sword," or "Theonomists want to stone their 5-year-old when he talks back to his mother," or "Theonomists don't believe in salvation by grace." No theonomist ever said any such thing, and they regularly went to great lengths to correct such misinterpretations. But those accusations persisted, both at RTS and elsewhere (such as in the pages of the "Presbyterian Journal").

However, the theonomists had their (our) own problems. One big one was an arrogance and unhealthy dogmatism. "I don't care what the commentators say about Matt. 5:18 -- Christ was saying that He came to put the Mosaic Law into full force, not to bring it to an end." If anyone differed with us on our interpretation/application of a specific case law, we accused them of implicitly being antinomians. We liked Van Til's quote that "there is no alternative except theonomy or autonomy" (sorry, I don't have the exact words), and then pouring our own particular interpretation of "theonomy" into that statement. We started getting a bunker mentality -- it's us against the nominally-Reformed world.

So neither side can really look back and claim the high road in that issue. There was little love and grace shown on either side, but a desire to harden the lines and defend one's own position to the death. (I can say that Greg Bahnsen, before his death, exhibited a great deal of grace and love, and showed real godliness in his life.)

Another controversy at RTS was between the TRs (Totally or Truly Reformed) and the other side (didn't really have initials, but those of us on the TR side called them "BRs" for "barely Reformed"). The TRs were adamant on upholding all of the Reformed faith, refusing to compromise (or even discuss) with the non-Reformed, looking down on the "church growth" folks, etc. The BRs emphasized the need for evangelism, even sometimes using Arminian techniques (modified altar calls, maybe using Campus Crusade's 4 Spiritual Laws). They may have (grudgingly) believed in the 5 points, but didn't believe they should be proclaimed publicly.

This division kind of cut across the first one. All the theonomists were in the TR camp, but not all TRs were theonomists. None of the BRs would be theonomists.

Again, there were problems on both sides. Arrogance, again, with the TRs. The BRs really didn't see value in the Reformed faith, and at times truly took an "end justifies the means" approach to some degree -- if people come to Christ through altar calls, then how can we criticize using them?

Now, I look back on that as a time of my own immaturity. I turned people off through my arrogance, and I believe the way these debates were handled caused long-lasting problems in the church, especially in the PCA. I fear that the same thing, though, has happened with the Federal Vision stuff -- different cast of characters, different setting for the play, but the same plot and (unfortunately) the same ending.

As for GPTS, I was not familiar with how it came about. However, it seems to me they fit pretty much theologically in the non-theonomist TR camp, but without the arrogance.