Appendix A: Affirmations and Denials

Introduction and Purpose

Philonomy articulates the common ground historically shared by Reformed Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Baptists with respect to the continuing relevance of God’s law. If a general-equity theonomist looks at philonomy and says, “That’s just a hermeneutic for general-equity theonomy,” we would count that a success. Philonomy is not a position between camps; it is the ground on which multiple camps can stand together.

Theonomy, as commonly articulated in the modern era, often arrives bundled with additional theological commitments—such as postmillennial eschatology, strong covenantal continuity, and paedobaptism—that are not universally shared within the Reformed tradition. In particular, the Baptist covenantal position often described as 1689 Federalism does not permit many of the assumptions that typically accompany Theonomy proper.

Nevertheless, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Savoy Declaration, and the Second London Baptist Confession all affirm the continuing validity of the general equity of the judicial law. This shared confessional claim suggests a meaningful theological overlap that has not been adequately defined in modern discussion. Philonomy is an attempt to articulate that overlap clearly and constructively.

Etymologically, theonomy simply means “God’s law,” and in that sense every Bible-believing Christian should be theonomic. Philonomy embraces this insight while distinguishing itself from Theonomy as a full system. A philonomist is, therefore, a lowercase-t theonomist, though not necessarily an uppercase-T Theonomist.

Ideally, a Theonomist proper would agree with the affirmations and denials that follow, even while concluding that philonomy does not go far enough. Likewise, those concerned by the antinomian tendencies prevalent in Western Christianity—but hesitant to adopt Theonomy wholesale—may find in philonomy a principled alternative.

Philonomy encourages the use of the careful exegetical and historical work of theonomic thinkers, standing on their shoulders while seeking to articulate the continuing Lordship of Christ over every sphere of life.

The Name Philonomy

Philonomy means “love of the law.”

The term intentionally evokes Psalm 119, especially Psalm 119:97: “Oh how I love your law!”

It draws from:

Philosophy, in opposition to autonomistic (self-law) approaches to reality apart from divine revelation
Theonomy, in its insistence that all of life is subject to the Lordship of Jesus Christ

Affirmations and Denials

A. Law, Love, and Christ

We affirm that the greatest summary of the law is love—love for God and love for neighbor.

We deny that the word love alone is sufficient to define God’s character or the concrete obligations He requires.

We affirm that the fullest revelation of God’s character is found in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as revealed in Holy Scripture.

We deny that the law can be properly understood apart from Christ.

B. Salvation and Obedience

We affirm that justification is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

We deny that any personal obedience is meritorious in God’s sight.

We affirm that the Christian loves the law of God and desires to obey Him in every sphere of life.

We deny that the moral law of God has been annulled for the Christian as a rule of life.

C. The Moral Law and the Ten Commandments

We affirm that the Mosaic law reveals God’s eternal moral character, ultimately disclosed in Christ.

We deny that New Testament ethics can be fully understood apart from the whole counsel of Scripture, including the Mosaic law.

We affirm that the Ten Commandments are unique within the Mosaic law as a summary of the moral law written on the human heart and are binding in all times and places when properly interpreted.

We deny that the abrogation of the Mosaic covenant nullifies their binding authority.

We affirm that the Ten Commandments contain typical and ceremonial elements that must be rightly interpreted to discern their enduring moral substance.

We deny that any commandment is wholly ceremonial or entirely abrogated.

We affirm that laws whose moral substance is grounded in the creation order – the image of God, the distinction of kinds, the institution of marriage – possess enduring moral force that does not depend on multi-epoch textual attestation.

We deny that the absence of explicit pre-Mosaic or post-Mosaic restatement renders a creation-grounded prohibition morally uncertain or non-binding.

D. Case Law and General Equity

We affirm that the Mosaic law contains multiple forms of legislation beyond the Decalogue.

We deny that these other forms are irrelevant or unhelpful in explicating the moral law.

We affirm that categorizing Mosaic legislation can be complex and that individual laws may contain mixed elements.

We deny that this complexity excuses neglect of the law’s moral instruction.

We affirm that Mosaic case law provides authoritative examples for understanding the moral requirements of the Ten Commandments.

We deny that Israel-specific forms are morally binding, while insisting that their underlying moral reasoning must be carefully examined and applied where appropriate.

We affirm that the identification of general equity involves both synchronic analysis (examining a law’s presuppositions, form, function, and Decalogue mapping within the Torah itself) and diachronic analysis (tracking the formal reason across redemptive-historical epochs), and that these approaches are complementary, not competitive.

We deny that either synchronic or diachronic analysis alone constitutes a complete hermeneutic for identifying general equity in every case.

We affirm that New Testament citation of a Mosaic law is confirmatory evidence of that law’s general equity, demonstrating that the apostles themselves recognized its enduring moral substance.

We deny that New Testament citation is constitutive of general equity, as though a law’s moral substance depends on apostolic restatement; the binding force comes from the law’s relationship to the Decalogue, not from its reappearance in the epistles.

E. Civil Authority, Natural Law, and General Equity

We affirm that the civil magistrate is subordinate to God’s moral law and should govern in light of the full breadth of divine revelation.

We deny that judicial and casuistic law is relevant only to the civil sphere; its moral instruction applies to all areas of life.

We affirm the reality of natural law as God’s moral law written on the human heart, so that all men possess an innate awareness of right and wrong sufficient to render them without excuse before God.

We deny that natural law, though real, remains undefaced by sin or sufficient in itself to guide fallen man aright in matters of truth, justice, and civil order.

We affirm that general equity requires the application of the underlying moral principles of Mosaic judicial law, discerned through careful exegesis and illumined by the whole counsel of Scripture.

We deny that general equity reduces to natural law reasoning alone, as though Scripture adds nothing essential to what unaided reason might discover.

We affirm that Scripture is necessary for rightly understanding and applying justice in civil affairs, providing what natural law obscured by sin cannot.

We deny that civil magistrates may govern justly while ignoring or setting aside the moral instruction of God’s written Word.

F. Authority, Neutrality, and the Lordship of Christ

We affirm that Scripture alone provides the ultimate presuppositions by which all knowledge and ethics are rightly understood.

We deny that any hermeneutic or philosophical system may stand logically prior to Scripture.

We affirm that there are only two postures a creature may take toward God: submission to His law or rebellion against it.

We deny the existence of any neutral ground between the City of God and the City of Man.

We affirm that Jesus Christ is Lord over all creation.

We deny that any domain exists over which He does not exercise rightful authority.

G. The Church and Civil Justice

We affirm that the church, as the pillar and ground of the truth, is called to teach, clarify, and apply the moral principles of Scripture, including those bearing upon public justice.

We deny that the church possesses civil legislative authority or may wield the sword entrusted to the magistrate.

We affirm that the church’s interpretation and application of Scripture in matters of morality and justice belongs to its prophetic office, exercised under the authority of Christ alone.

We deny that civil authorities possess jurisdiction over the church’s interpretation of Scripture or its proclamation of divine law.

We affirm that the church must not remain silent when matters of public justice require a prophetic word, for silence in the face of injustice is itself a failure of love.

We deny that the church’s calling to preach the whole counsel of God permits withdrawal from engagement with the moral questions facing civil society.

We affirm that the church speaks the whole counsel of God to all of life (personal, familial, ecclesiastical, and civil), for Christ is Lord of every sphere, and His Word addresses every human endeavor and institution.

We deny that the church “meddles in politics” when she proclaims what God’s Word says about justice, rulers, laws, and the duties of magistrates; such proclamation is not overreach but obedience to her prophetic calling.

We affirm that the church’s prophetic voice includes both law and gospel, both the thunderings of Sinai and the tender mercies of Calvary, and that the gospel is her greater gift, for she would rather see sinners saved than merely condemned, and souls won for eternity than merely reformed for time.

We deny that faithful political witness requires the church to mute her gospel proclamation, for the same Word that commands magistrates to kiss the Son also pleads with rebels to be reconciled to God.

We affirm that the church must jealously guard against the temptation to trade her birthright for a mess of political pottage, becoming so consumed with earthly victories that she forgets her citizens are enrolled in heaven, so enamored with temporal power that she neglects eternal souls, so busy reforming culture that she ceases calling sinners to repentance.

We deny that the danger lies in the church speaking to political matters (she must, and woe to her if she does not), but rather in forgetting that her political speech flows from her greater mission: to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them and teaching them to observe all that Christ commanded (all of it, including what He commands of rulers and nations).

We affirm that when the church keeps her eyes fixed on eternity, her voice to earthly powers grows stronger, not weaker, for she fears no tyrant who can only kill the body, flatters no party that promises worldly influence, and speaks with the freedom of those whose treasure is laid up where moth and rust do not corrupt.

We deny that seeking first the kingdom of God and His righteousness diminishes the church’s cultural impact; rather, it is precisely this eternal orientation that has, throughout history, most powerfully transformed civilizations, not by grasping for power, but by faithful witness unto death.

H. Response to Unjust Law

We affirm that Christians are bound by Scripture to submit to governing authorities as ministers of God for good, rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.

We deny that this submission is absolute or unlimited, for we must obey God rather than men when human commands contradict divine law.

We affirm that Christians may and should resist unjust laws through lawful and peaceable means: petition, protest, interposition by lesser magistrates, and the faithful proclamation of God’s Word.

We deny that revolutionary violence or armed insurrection against lawful authority is ordinarily sanctioned by Scripture as a means of redressing injustice.

We affirm that passive acceptance of manifest injustice, when lawful means of resistance remain available, may constitute a failure to love one’s neighbor and uphold righteousness.

We deny that quietism or withdrawal from civil engagement fulfills the Christian’s calling to seek the welfare of the city and pursue justice for the oppressed.

We affirm that the doctrine of the lesser magistrate, whereby subordinate authorities may lawfully interpose against tyrannical acts of superior authorities, has a legitimate place in Reformed resistance theory.

We deny that private individuals possess authority to take up arms against the civil power apart from the sanction and leadership of duly constituted lesser magistrates.