These kind of questions give Eastern Orthodox apologists all the ammo they need against Calvinists. The problem with the post-Bahnsenian theonomists is that they will scour church history for examples of “theonomy.” Rushdoony really wasn’t as bad on this point as people will think (more later). In order to prove church history is on their side, Young Turk theonomists will read church history sources and look for guys teaching theonomy. The question then becomes, “What does theonomy mean?” Does it mean some form of God-oriented social order which takes account of the law of God? If so, then most everybody in church history is a theonomist. It’s hard to see why Bahnsen even got in trouble. Heck, RTS-Jackson even believes that (kind of).
That’s cheating, though. Joseph Farrell has pointed out that everyone, even the pagans, believed in theo-krasia. But theonomists will quickly rebut, “We see church fathers employing the judicial laws as still valid.” Technically, that’s true. They did employ some judicial laws. My question is “Did they adopt the Bahnsenian hermeneutics that the judicial law in exhaustive detail is binding”? The answer is clearly no. Eastern fathers have a theoretical antinomian streak (2nd Commandment, anyone? footnote1). True, we do see some fathers like Gregory the Great arguing for the Sabbath, but that’s unremarkable on anyone’s gloss.
The problem is that Church Fathers were more interested in Christology, Trinity, and monasticism than they were in the social functions of the law of God. To read otherwise is to commit the worst of anachronistic fallacies.
Footnote 1: There actually might be more of a parallel. Theonomists for the most part reject the practical applications of the 2nd Commandment, too!