Theonomists in the 1990’s and 2000’s were not a continuation of Rushdoony’s Reconstruction project.
Men like Chilton and Bahnsen held to a “regulative principle of the state”. Huge difference. Rushdoony battled the Post War consensus—including immigration. On the other hand, Chilton’s “regulative principle” led to his mistaken opposition to immigration laws. That was absolutely foreign to Rushdoony. He held instead to a sphere view that began with God’s law in scripture but dwelt comfortably also in the realm of wisdom, prudence and God’s law in creation.
By “regulative principle of the state” I mean the idea that civil power is limited to what God delegates to the state in scripture either explicitly or by deduction. This contrasts with a sphere view where each covenant institution (church, state, family, individual) is constrained first by its delegated responsibilities in scripture and then by a hard limit such that it may not infringe on authority God delegates to other covenant institutions. Scripture does not address every detail of civil life. There is room left, indeed there is a need for, Christian prudence and wisdom.
If you would like a copy of Rushdoony’s “Institutes of Biblical Law”, drop me your name, address and phone in DM.
I do this as book ministry. It is a book that grounded me greatly in younger years for family building and for life.