Imagine a scenario. You and the pastor disagree on one point. What are your options? Split the church and have a martyr-complex, obviously. Attack him.
Or maybe not.
I am trying to let theonomists know that it’s okay to disagree with someone and let that disagreement be just that. What does “acting like a theonomist” in the church actually mean? No one has given a clear answer to that. People say, “Accepting the Word of God.” Yeah, that means nothing. Quakers claim they do that. I kept asking theonomists for clear, concrete details on what this actually looks like. I haven’t gotten any.
As I’ve told theonomists,
Bahnsen was irenic. Bahnsen was a good churchman. Unlike another prominent Reconstructionist, Bahnsen didn’t sever himself from the church for 8 years and serve himself communion. That’s because Bahnsen knew that theonomy is theonomy *in* Christian ethics, not as. That means one can disagree on theonomy and the gospel, the Reformed, witness, and Confessionalism is not threatened. Bahnsen knew that.