# Postmill - Theonomy - Presuppositionist Distinctions



## Robin

My theology teacher responded to my question: is there a connection with Postmillennialism, Theonomy and Presuppositional apologetics?

He explained that most Postmillennialists are not Theonomists; but Theonomists must be postmillenial and that connection necessarily creates a relation to presuppositional apologetics. Another distinction made was that though certain Theonomists may recoil from strong Reconstructionism, Theonomy still reconstructs God's law in some sense - so in its basic design, all theonomy is reconstructionistic: mild or strong.

Only dispensational and amillennial views look forward to Christ intervening a rescue in His Second Advent. The fork in the road for traditional Postmillennialism and modern Amillennialism is the same as for Theonomy: both PM and Theonomy see Christ arriving/returning to a world where God's law will have already transformed it to some degree. The Amill have never held that lack of a transformed earth equates with the failure of the Gospel - but that the transformation of the world is via the Gospel (not law) in the hearts of men and that the success of the Gospel looks different to the naked eye - Christ's return will be a rescue (as was His first Advent.)

My hope is that this information incites some reflection, useful questions and perhaps conversation about (what I think are) important ideas. Eschatology drives theology whether we are conscious of it or not. in my opinion, it is worthwhile work of maturing Christians to know what they believe and why they believe it.

(For the record, though I've joked about it, I don't desire competition or contention. I know why I hold to an Amill stance --- thinking it makes the best sense of the Biblical data. I also remember from whence I came (dispensational roots.) 

I am wondering if a meaningful conversation can be had about the above issues using Scripture only - not the works of the teachers of the eschat camps?



Robin

[Edited on 8-9-2005 by Robin]

{edited title for spacing}

[Edited on 8-12-05 by pastorway]


----------



## RamistThomist

I refuse to debate this subject again, but suffice a few comments:



> but Theonomists must be postmillenial and that connection necessarily creates a relation to presuppositional apologetics.



There is no necessary connection between a millennial view and theonomy. Bahnsen went to much pained lengths to point this out, especially in God and Politics: Four Views (response to the National Confessional response to Theonomy). One of the more polished theonomists, the unfortunate as of late Craig Sowder, was firmly amillennial.

I do think that theonomists are presuppositonalists. What other standard is there but God's word? I tried to read Lee Irons's quick critique of theonomy at upper-register, but when he said that "One way to respond to this argument is to question the assumption that Scripture is a sufficient source of guidance for societal and political questions." I didn't know if I was reading a Catholic or a liberal at that point. 

I don't think you are combative or competive; I just don't think you have taken the time to learn the "other side's view." Yes, I know that you said taht you studied Bahnsen's stuff, but I haven't seen that in the forums, practically speaking.



> I am wondering if a meaningful conversation can be had about the above issues using Scripture only - not the works of the teachers of the eschat camps?



Sure, but all facts are interpreted within a worldview and that is the heart of the matter. I can quote scripture after scripture, yea, even from the New Testament that shows victory for God's people. You will doubtless respond with Paul's suffering passages, but that causes me no worry. I have never said that victory is easy; therefore, the Pauline suffering passages don't hurt my system.


----------



## Myshkin

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> I am wondering if a meaningful conversation can be had about the above issues using Scripture only - not the works of the teachers of the eschat camps?
> 
> 
> 
> Robin



 I hope that this comes to fruition.


----------



## wsw201

> There is no necessary connection between a millennial view and theonomy. Bahnsen went to much pained lengths to point this out, especially in God and Politics: Four Views (response to the National Confessional response to Theonomy).



Though this may be true, but in all practicality, virtually all Theonomists are Postmil


----------



## crhoades

Curious question...would everyone here consider themselves presuppositional in their apologetic outlook?


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Curious question...would everyone here consider themselves presuppositional in their apologetic outlook?



Well, Chris...while I believe presuppositional has an awful lot going for it...I'm not a full-presupp. I also think evidential has some merit...but am not devoted to it. As I reflect, it's probably not possible to codify what "method" I use - It's really not a method, but more after the examples in the New Testament - and has a lot to do with the catechisms (Belgic/HC.)

r.


----------



## Robin

As an aside....and I don't know if it matters, my theology teacher is Professor Ken Samples. His credentials are attached. The point is the assessment comes from no amateur source. 

http://www.christreformed.org/about/index.shtml?main#ks

Faith seeking understanding....

r.


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Curious question...would everyone here consider themselves presuppositional in their apologetic outlook?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Chris...while I believe presuppositional has an awful lot going for it...I'm not a full-presupp. I also think evidential has some merit...but am not devoted to it. As I reflect, it's probably not possible to codify what "method" I use - It's really not a method, but more after the examples in the New Testament - and has a lot to do with the catechisms (Belgic/HC.)
> 
> r.
Click to expand...


Just a clarification of your post...what are your conceptions of full-presup and evidential? Full-presup has no problems using evidences...


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> There is no necessary connection between a millennial view and theonomy. Bahnsen went to much pained lengths to point this out, especially in God and Politics: Four Views (response to the National Confessional response to Theonomy).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though this may be true, but in all practicality, virtually all Theonomists are Postmil
Click to expand...


[personal bio - I'm not settled on the a/post debate. I have much reading to do. Just trying to ensure that this discussion is on a fair footing without strawmen]

As far as theonomist's view of ethics and eschatology...Here is an excerpt that was Bahnsen's reply to an article critiquing his book Theonomy in Christian Ethics. This was written in 1978. That was 27 years ago. This type of stuff is contained in his lectures, books, and as everyone can see here - his articles. 

People are wanting to stick with the Scriptures and I admire that. So did Bahnsen: that is why there are over 18 pages of double column references in his appendix in TiCE. But where the theonomic views are misrepresented, and especially where it has been clearly articulated by the major proponents, there is something else here. Take a moment to read this excerpt or even better - the whole article. This topic has been  here. This very excerpt and topic of the post/theonomic link has been discussed here before...

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe041.htm
PE041

(distributed by the Session of St. Paul Presbyterian Church, Jackson, MS, 1978), 
taken from: 
God´s Law and Gospel Prosperity: A Reply to the Editor of the Presbyterian Journal
Rev. Greg L. Bahnsen, Th.M., Ph.D.

*The Coming of the Kingdom*

Let me now change the subject completely and turn to a consideration of the editor´s remarks about postmillennialism (9-6). Again, certain misleading descriptions and weak criticisms call for a response so that readers will have an adequate basis on which to evaluate and study this important millennial position, either negatively or positively.

When Jesus our Lord ministered among men, he made it dramatically clear that the kingdom of God had arrived (Mk. 1:14-15; Lk.4:16-21; Mt. 12:28). The inauguration of that kingdom was also a theme of the apostles (Acts. 2:25-36; 20:25; 28:23,31; Heb. 12:28; Rev. 1:5-6). The kingdom of Jesus Christ is here, established, and a functioning reality. Nevertheless, Jesus taught his disciples to pray "œThy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth" (Matt. 6:10), and the apostles anticipated future developments for the kingdom (Rom. 1:4-5; I Cor. 15:24-28; Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 1:3-29; Heb. 2:8-9; Rev. 10:7; 11:2, 8, 13, 15; 19:11-21; 20:4-6). The kingdom is developing, growing, and will not be consummated until the end of history. Postmillennialism is particularly concerned with this dynamic element of growth and development for Christ´s kingdom before the final judgment of mankind (after which, of course, the kingdom does not increase but is complete).

The Bible teaches us that although the kingdom starts out small like a mustard seed, it will grow to large proportions (Mt. 13:31-32). Like a divinely cut stone which consumes the world empires, Christ´s kingdom will grow to be a mountain filling the whole earth (Dan. 2:31-45). All nations will flow into God´s exalted house and be instructed in His law (Isa. 2:2-4), so that of the increase of Christ´s kingdom there will be no end and justice will be established in the earth (Isa. 9:7). The earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea (Isa. 11: 1-10), with appropriate effects being felt throughout the various departments of life "“ every common thing will be devoted to the Lord´s service (Zech. 14:20-210. There will be, to speak in hyperbole, no need to evangelize because all men will already know the Lord (Jer. 31:34); from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same God´s name will be great among the nations (Mal. 1:11). Christ shall have dominion "“ with its appropriate effects in the daily and social affairs of men "“ from sea to sea, with all nations serving Him, and his enemies licking the dust (Ps. 72). The uttermost parts of the earth will be His possession (Ps. 2:7-9) as He rules in the midst of His enemies and makes them His footstool (Ps. 110:1-3). All the ends of the earth will thus come to praise and reverence Him (Ps. 67). He will not fail to establish justice in the earth (Isa. 42:1-4), meaning that He will send forth judgment unto victory as the Gentiles hope in His name (Mt. 12:17-21). Presently the Lord is reigning; He is progressively subduing every enemy so that He will be Lord over all (I Cor. 15:24-28; Col. 1:18). All nations are being brought to the obedience of faith (Rom. 1:4-5) because Satan has been bound (Rev. 20:1-3). Since all power and authority in heaven and earth belong to Christ, who is with the church continuously, He has commissioned it to make all nations His disciples and to teach them to observe whatsoever He has commanded (Matt. 28:18-20).

The postmillennialist believes that these things will surely be accomplished in the power of God´s Spirit prior to the great apostasy at the very end of history which will trigger the Lord´s return in fiery judgment (Rev. 20:7-10; 2 Thes. 1:7-10; 2 Peter 3:3-13). There will be no time or opportunity given for evangelism, conversion, or kingdom growth after that time; therefore, since no word of God can fail of accomplishment, the kingdom will increase in the ways described above prior to the Lord´s return. In broad strokes, this is the postmillennial confidence. We would gladly hear the Spirit´s word to the churches, beckoning them to "œbe victorious (or, overcome)" and thereby have an open door to missionary success (e.g., Rev. 3:7-13) and to ruling with Christ over the nations (Rev. 2:26-29; 3:21-22). God´s "œkingdom of priests," the church (I Peter 2:9), reigns upon earth with Christ (Rev. 5:9-10; 20:4-6); following her Lord, the church will conquer the nations with the preaching of the gospel (Rev. 19:11-21). The kingdoms of this world will indeed become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ (Rev. 11:15). The Great Commission is not a futile or impossible task laid on the church by her Lord; it will be accomplished in covenant blessing upon "œall the ends of the earth," who "œshall remember and turn unto Jehovah; and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee" (Ps. 22:27). The conversion (or "œturning") of the nations cannot take place after the Lord returns in final judgment, for that day itself will settle the final destiny of all men (Mt. 25:31-46).

With this brief sketch of postmillennialism (and some of its biblical under-pinning) in mind now, we can reply to the editor´s comments about it. The first and most important misconception that I wish to set straight is the editor´s claim that, for the theonomist and postmillennialist, "œGod´s law (is) the dynamic means of grace for the transformation of the nations" ((-6, p. 14c). Elsewhere he claims that for theonomic ethics, "œThe vehicle to accomplish God´s ultimate purpose for humanity on earth is God´s law" (9-13, p. 9c); in particular, alleges the editor, the carrying out of the law´s penal code by the state "œis how the whole world ultimately will become obedient to God" (9-13, p. 9b). But this is a grotesque counterfeit of the actual position of theonomists and postmillennialists. It is so patently false that it can be disproved by simply looking at one of the editor´s quotations from me in his own article: I have clearly stated in print that "œthe church triumphs in the preaching of the gospel and discipling the nations through the supernatural agency of the Holy Spirit," and the editor has quoted me to that end (9-6, p. 9c). Moreover, in my book Theonomy in Christian Ethics I have gone to lengths to make explicit that the law of God is itself impotent to accomplish God´s saving purposes or to bring about obedience in us (chapter 4 is entirely devoted to those truths). The editor´s claims are so terribly mistaken, I will take the space to quote some relevant points from Theonomy so as to eradicate completely this false picture. I have written: "œOnly the Holy spirit of God can bring power to obey to the sinner, and that Holy Spirit was received not by law-works but by faith (Gal. 3:2). The law is simply not a quickening power; it is without power because of sin (Rom. 8:3), and therefore unable to impart life and righteousness (Gal. 3:21) . . .. Grace grants the power which the law fails to provide. "˜But now we have been released from the law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter´ (Rom. 7:6). Because of the weakness of sinful human nature the law could not overcome sin´s power, but in the believer the power of the Holy spirit frees him from the power of sin unto death, thereby enabling him to accomplish what the law demands (Rom. 8:1-4). The conclusion of the mater, then, is that a man must trust in God´s grace and Christ´s righteousness rather than his own works, which only condemn him under the law´s curse; the letter is unto death, but the Spirit gives new life and spiritual power" (Theonomy, pp. 132, 135). The same gracious truths are reaffirmed throughout chapter 7, whose title itself tells the story: "œSanctification by the Holy Spirit"; one subtitle in that chapter itself declares, "œGod´s Spirit as the Dynamic of Sanctification."

It is a basic falsification to say that theonomic ethics or postmillennial eschatology teaches that God´s law is a transforming means of grace or vehicle for the coming of Christ´s kingdom to the nations. I have taught contrary to that portrayal in many of my publications. The power for changing the hearts of men resides in the Holy spirit of God (Jn. 3:3-8; Ezek. 11:19-20; Titus 3:3-7). The agency by which the nations will be converted and believe the gospel will be, not God´s law, but the pentecostal Spirit of power (Acts 2:1-47; I Cor. 2:4, 14-16; I Thes. 1:5). Revival is prerequisite for men to come to a saving knowledge of Christ and thereby expand His kingdom; men must be born again. And the law cannot accomplish that: "œthe letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor. 3:6). There has never been any legitimate question about this conviction of those who advocate theonomic ethics. The editor´s unguarded and irresponsible misrepresentation is a real low point that prejudices readers (quite understandably) against those of us who nevertheless praise God for His grace in our salvation and the salvation of others (even the nations of the world eventually). The law is not, for the theonomist or postmillennialist, a transforming means of grace for the bringing in of Christ´s kingdom.

Furthermore, the way that the world becomes obedient to God is not, as the editor alleges, by the state enforcing the penal sanctions of the Old Testament. While there might well be some favorable influence on it as a pedagogical device, evangelism does not accomplish its goals through the state´s use of the sword. Paul states quite directly that "œthe weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh" (2 Cor. 10:4), for we rather advance Christ´s kingdom with "œthe sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Eph. 6:17). This truth is again belabored in my book, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (see, for instance, pp. 1415 with its discussion of "œThe Two Swords"). I believe that the editor is responsible to be familiar with positions which he criticizes and ought not to paint such an obviously inaccurate picture of them as we find here. Nowhere do I claim that the world will become obedient to God through the use of the Old Testament penal sanctions.

The state´s endorsement and use of those sanctions is the result of Christ´s kingdom spreading throughout a nation and it striving to live in obedience to the king "“ not the cause for such advance. One almost gets the picture from the editor´s portrayal that theonomists would bring in the kingdom by violent means, harshly imposing an external law-code on an enemy people who resist it in a widespread and vigorous way; they are then dealt with according to the law´s penal sanctions. However the picture is pure fiction and a complete reversal of the truth. *The penal sanctions of God´s law will only be enacted in a country where there has already been widespread turning to the gospel and an appropriate nurturing period of personal and social sanctification; those penalties are enforced (and can be enforced) only by a populous that loves the Lord and His blessed direction for its well-being.* That is, the theonomist believes that there must be revival and pervasive success in evangelism; then those who are believers will more and more attempt to live obedient lives in gratitude to their Savior, and in time that sanctification will also be seen to call believers to a distinctive and righteous lifestyle in social and political matters. Eventually, graciously, and willingly the sanctions of God´s law will come to be obeyed, just as faithful believers will desire to obey all of God´s commandments. This will not be harsh eternal imposition (although criminals will always make such self-serving claims) but the natural outworking of an internal commitment and dynamic.

When and if Christians have the positions and influence necessary to bring about social change and establish public policy, they will naturally desire to gain as much guidance as is available from God´s inspired word. Only at that point "“ at the end of a period where God´s gracious Spirit has brought about kingdom growth and its subsequent strengthening in righteous living "“ will the sanctions of God´s law be popularly endorsed and enforced. *The kingdom eventually brings obedience to the penal sanctions; obedience to those sanctions does not bring in the kingdom.* The Great Commission requires us to work toward the day when the nations will have been discipled to Christ and taught to observe whatsoever He has commanded, and as I have said above as well as in many publications the Great Commission depends for its success on the gracious and powerful work of God´s Holy Spirit.

The editor´s contrary representation is a serious and disheartening misconstrual of the theonomic position "“ a misleading error that could have and should have been avoided. To use but one ready example from Theonomy, note that a fair reading of the book would have disclosed this and other statements: "œThe serious alternative which the church offers to a dying world is to turn in faith to Christ and keep His commandments; both elements are demanded by the great commission. As obedience to it is empowered by the Holy spirit, the law of God establishes righteousness in human affairs and human hearts" (p. 489). Or again: "œThe day is coming when, in the power of the Holy Spirit, all citizens and relatives, from the small to the great, will know the Lord . . .. The great commission will one day be fulfilled, a day in which all nations (not just representative individuals in them) shall have been disciplined . . .. The great commission includes the first mentioned provision of the New Covenant as well: All nations are to be taught to observe Christ´s commandments, in other words, all the law of God (Matt. 28:19f.; cf. Matt. 5:17f.). The power and presence of Christ is the seal and guarantee of the great commission´s success . . .. The New Covenant will bring with it the power to convert sinners to God; its prosperity will be overwhelming "“ such is God´s promise, and if the Spirit can convert one individual sinner, why should we hesitate to see Him having the power to effect a world-wide revival?" (pp. 192-193). There is nowhere to be found even a hint of the editor´s violent picture of imposing the penal sanctions of the law and thereby advancing Christ´s kingdom; such a representation is unfair to the thoroughly Spiritual character of the theonomic position.

*Distinguishing What Will from What Ought to Happen*


The second mistake in the editor´s description of theonomic ethics and postmillennial eschatology is his assertion that the two perspectives require each other. According to him theonomy and postmillennialism go "œhand in hand" (9-6, p. 3a) and are "œindispensable to each other" (9-6, p. 14b). Of course, if both positions are scriptural, then they would naturally complement and strengthen each other as part of a unified system of truth (just as do, for instance, the doctrines of sin and redemption). However such a harmony between the two positions does not mean that people must choose them in tandem or reject them as a pair. Logically there is a distinction to be drawn between what will in fact happen and what ought to happen. Let me illustrate. Someone can readily believe that Congress will increase the Social Security Tax, and yet not at all believe that Congress ought to do so. On the other hand, someone could believe that the church ought to develop a deaconal system for relieving the poor, and still not believe that the church will actually do it. What will happen, and what should happen are (unhappily) very often quite contrary to each other. Accordingly the editor has committed a logical lapse in saying that postmillennialism and theonomic ethics are indispensable to each other. Postmillennialism says that the nations of the world will be converted and come to enace God´s law in their societies, while theonomic ethics maintains (among other things) that nations ought to enact God´s law in their societies. One can believe one totally without the other. Someone might believe that nations ought to enforce God´s law, but never will do so. Someone else might believe that nations will enforce God´s law, but ought not to do so. Therefore, the two positions of theonomic ethics and postmillennial eschatology are logically separate from each other. They are also psychologically separate from each other, for as a matter of fact some postmillennialists are not theonomic in their ethical outlook "“ just as some theonomists are not postmillenial in their eschatological outlook. Many people come to these positions separately, as did myself, without the one suggesting or influencing the other. Again, I feel that there is a beautiful harmony between the two positions, for I believe that they are both the teaching of God´s word. But logically and psychologically a person can surely hold to one without the other.

Another passing indication that postmillennialism and theonomic ethics do not require each other is the existence of varying schools of postmillennial eschatology. Roughly speaking I can delineate at least four distinct options proposed through history which might be (with greater or lesser accuracy) designated "œpostmillennialism." (1) Some have held that the gospel will prosper throughout the world, bringing widespread revival so that the large majority of people are believers; such gospel prosperity, with Christian nurture over time, is bound to have public consequences (cf. "œYe are the salt of the earth . . .. Ye are the light of the world"). Thus revival will eventuate in Christ´s commandments being obeyed in all walks of life. This is, I believe, the classic Reformed version of postmillennialism (as evidenced in my article in the Journal of Christian Reconstruction, Vol. III, No. 2). (2) Others have maintained that the coming of Christ´s kingdom is to be identified with social progress, public reform, and better relations among all men; such goals will be accomplished through humanistic but peaceful means of persuasion and reform movements. Here we have the typical "œsocial gospel" version of postmillennialism "“ a secularization and truncating of the Reformed perspective. (3) Still others have laid their stress on social reformation, but have advocated the means of violent revolt, overt warfare, and external imposition of new social conditions. This might be deemed a kind of Anabaptist version of postmillennialism, sometimes expressed in the Reformation period and condemned by many Calvinists as "œsecitious" or "œstupid." (4) Finally we can mention the view that many people around the world will come to believe the gospel so that our churches will be overwhelmingly filled with Christians and the nations of the world will worship God aright; however (amazingly) this gospel prosperity will not have distinctive and positive consequences for social and political righteousness. It is hard to find a fair, descriptive label for this position since it seems to me to truncate the Reformed view, to represent a retreat from a scriptural world-and-life-view, and to be biblically implausible; thus to label it pietistic postmillennialism or "œpurely revivalistic" postmillennialism simply reflects an adverse personal evaluation "“ and does despite to the full-orbed Reformed position by suggesting that it might be disinterested in piety or that genuine biblical revival could be restricted to internal matters of the heart and at best the church. So recognizing the inherent problem in choosing a fair designation, I will be content to call this fourth option ecclesiastical postmillennialism.

Thus it is manifest that for the editor to make theonomic ethics and postmillennialismindispensable to each other is unfair to those versions of postmillenialism which "“ in contrast to the Puritans, who were vitally interested in missions and the social use of God´s law "“ are indifferent to the public consequences of Christian belief (ecclesiastical postmillennialism), are indifferent to the revivalistic foundation of social reform (the social gospel), or are interested in altering social conditions in an antinomian fashion (Anabaptist postmillennialism). Not all postmillennialists would want to be affiliated with the position of theonomic ethics. This is not the place to critique such versions of postmillennialism (which I find biblically and theologically weak or inconsistent), but simply to make the relevant observational point. Therefore, on logical, psychological, and dogmatical grounds we must separate our consideration of theonomic ethics from that of postmillennialism eschatology. In what follows I will be defending postmillennialism in response to the editor´s critique of it; what I say will not be directly germane to theonomic ethics as such.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> There is no necessary connection between a millennial view and theonomy. Bahnsen went to much pained lengths to point this out, especially in God and Politics: Four Views (response to the National Confessional response to Theonomy).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though this may be true, but in all practicality, virtually all Theonomists are Postmil
Click to expand...


Granted, but practically being postmillennial and necessarily being so are two different horses.


----------



## Answerman

I see a connection, they are all necessary consequences of the overarching principle of sola scriptura.:bigsmile:

In Christ,
David


----------



## Robin

Some clarifications of terms:

*Theonomy*: Theos/God nomis/Law - the definition is interchangeable with reconsructionsim.

*Reconstructionism*: in the latter church-age, the Church is so victorious in the world that the impact will require society to reconstruct its legal system after the Law of God.

*Postmillennialism*:

The church will be so victorious in the world before Christ's Second Advent, essentially converting the nations, that society must reconstruct its legal system after the Law of God - which leads to a strong emphasis of:

*Presuppositionalism*:

Frequently emphasizes 2 points: 1. human-beings are fallen, therefore their thinking/reasoning is distorted/unreliable ... therefore requires:

2. man must rely on the the Law of God

Though there are variations of Postmillennialists (some OPC vigorously opposed to Theonomy) the above 3 ideas fit hand in glove.



r.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Anyway, I know amill guys who are theonomic.



Interesting, Paul....I'm going to ask about this. I can't guess how that would work. Maybe, theonomic is different than theonomist?

I know I have a very strong devotion to theonomic principles....



r.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Some clarifications of terms:
> 
> *Theonomy*: Theos/God nomis/Law - the definition is interchangeable with reconsructionsim.
> 
> *Reconstructionism*: in the latter church-age, the Church is so victorious in the world that the impact will require society to reconstruct its legal system after the Law of God.
> 
> *Postmillennialism*:
> 
> The church will be so victorious in the world before Christ's Second Advent, essentially converting the nations, that society must reconstruct its legal system after the Law of God - which leads to a strong emphasis of:
> 
> *Presuppositionalism*:
> 
> Frequently emphasizes 2 points: 1. human-beings are fallen, therefore their thinking/reasoning is distorted/unreliable ... therefore requires:
> 
> 2. man must rely on the the Law of God
> 
> Though there are variations of Postmillennialists (some OPC vigorously opposed to Theonomy) the above 3 ideas fit hand in glove.
> 
> 
> 
> r.



Presuppositionalism ought to be your premise, not your conclusion. Quite a number of presuppositionalists are vigorously opposed to theonomy. So your argument should read like, presuppositionalism could (lessen the degree of potentiality) lead to theonomy; but obviosuly does not (cf., Van Til, Vern Poythress, John Frame, and Andrew Meyers for one  ). Now we can all argue whether the above are being consistent, but that is a different debate for a different day.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Anyway, I know amill guys who are theonomic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, Paul....I'm going to ask about this. I can't guess how that would work. Maybe, theonomic is different than theonomist?
> 
> I know I have a very strong devotion to theonomic principles....
> 
> 
> 
> r.
Click to expand...


Again, it all depends on your definition of theonomy and how you would apply it to society.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> There is no necessary connection between a millennial view and theonomy.



Here's an "owie" Jacob  Please explain HOW this works given the definition of Theonomy/Reconstructionism (below.) But, I guess I'm aghast at this comment, given your reputation for thinking clearly - I expect better from you.

(If I'm off, you may hit me with the Nerf-bat.)

Seriously, though, please state your definition of Theonomy, OK? And/or does yours match with the one I posted?

??



.r


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> Presuppositionalism ought to be your premise, not your conclusion.



FTR, this is not a syllogism - but merely demonstrates the necessary- connected parts.

r.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> There is no necessary connection between a millennial view and theonomy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an "owie" Jacob  Please explain HOW this works given the definition of Theonomy/Reconstructionism (below.) But, I guess I'm aghast at this comment, given your reputation for thinking clearly - I expect better from you.
> 
> (If I'm off, you may hit me with the Nerf-bat.)
> 
> Seriously, though, please state your definition of Theonomy, OK? And/or does yours match with the one I posted?
> 
> ??
> 
> 
> 
> .r
Click to expand...


Your definition:



> Theonomy: Theos/God nomis/Law - the definition is interchangeable with reconsructionsim.
> 
> Reconstructionism: in the latter church-age, the Church is so victorious in the world that the impact will require society to reconstruct its legal system after the Law of God.
> 
> Postmillennialism:
> 
> The church will be so victorious in the world before Christ's Second Advent, essentially converting the nations, that society must reconstruct its legal system after the Law of God - which leads to a strong emphasis of:



I would define theonomy as the continuing validity of Old Testament laws (moral/case/judicial), properly interpreted in their Old Covenant context and rightly applied with their New Covenantal conditions (this is Ken Gentry's definition). Your definition isn't wrong, per se, it is just incomplete.

Theonomy states what civil magistrates (among others) ought  (normative) to do. Postmillennialism (or a corrollary of it, anyway) states what society will look like (descriptive).

They usually go together; they explain each other rather well, but I see no logical connector between the two.

[Edited on 8--9-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## RamistThomist

For instance, many postmillennialists: RC Sprouls Sr and Jr, John Jefferson Davis (what a wonderful name) and others of that stripe are not theonomic (holding to some form of natural law).


----------



## JohnV

Personally, I don't see that there has to be an either/or choice between the evidential and presuppositional approaches to defending the faith. As someone said, Presuppers have no problem using evidences. And I'm not a Presupper, and I have as much problem with the way some are approaching evidences as they do. It doesn't have to be either/or. 

What is trickier is the escatology. It is quite unusual to think of them in the same way, that there doesn't have to be an either/or. There are some mutually exclusice tenets there. But I believe that it has to come at the end of theology, not theology be based on it. It is speculative, and if theology is based on it, then it is not based on certainty as it should be. That takes discipline, to carefully separate the one from the other, so that your millennial view does not drive your theology. There is nothing so plain a give-away as to say that eschatology ( read: your millennial view ) drives your theology.

[Edited on 8-9-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## JohnV

To the original question, that there is a direct tie between the "isms" named, I think that this is just answering like to like. There were some who were all these, and stuck their necks out. A lot of that has been alleviated by good accounting. Those who put them together to form a particular form of Reconstructionism have become strangely silent as of late. I think their pretence has been exposed, and more thoughtful Theonomists also distance themselves from that. It is to no purpose to continue to critique Theonomy in that way, since the better Theonomists have taken over the cause.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Amillennialism: the belief that we should spiritualize everything, if we an.
> 
> Gnosticism: the belief that the spiritual is more important than the material.
> 
> So, amillennialism has a necessary connection to gnosticism.
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 8-9-2005 by Paul manata]



It needs to be said for the benefit of the post that my definition is sound. (They are NOT a syllogism.) The definitions are upheld by the solid Reformed scholarship, including WTS. For crying-out-loud, Wikipedia even gets it right! (Whoo-Knoo?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theonomy

Anyway... I think it's interesting to probe past one's own sphere of convictions and knowledge. (I hold no hostility or frustration.) Some would say Theonomy is "heresy"...but I'm not ready to do that, yet. I think it's one alternative, not quite fitting the plain reading of Scripture.

WTS, would criticize T more vigorously...for sound reasons. (Paul, maybe that's why passion on the matter is elevated? I don't know.)

Meanwhile, I'm surprised to read the above definition for Amill are mis-represented - ad hominum attack, unworthy of Christian character. 

I still hope a wise, patient and considerate dialog may be had between those of different viewpoints. 

At the end of the day, is impatience or anger a sign that our theology is in line with God's Word? I mean, the fruit of the Spirit is peace, isn't it? 

Christians have good reasons they become Amill; Postmill; Preterist, Etc. I should hope that it's "safe" in Christ's Church to explore the differences.

To Paul, I cordially invite you to come down to one of our forums and offer your objections to Riddlebarger or Samples. We have stimulating discussions with an open floor - no hostility, and lots of great questions. I admire your work, Paul...I think your contributions would be valued. Just a thought (no reply necessary.) 

In Christ,

R.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Amillennialism: the belief that we should spiritualize everything, if we an.
> 
> Gnosticism: the belief that the spiritual is more important than the material.
> 
> So, amillennialism has a necessary connection to gnosticism.
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 8-9-2005 by Paul manata]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It needs to be said for the benefit of the post that my definition is sound. (They are NOT a syllogism.) The definitions are upheld by the solid Reformed scholarship, including WTS. For crying-out-loud, Wikipedia even gets it right! (Whoo-Knoo?)
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theonomy
> 
> Anyway... I think it's interesting to probe past one's own sphere of convictions and knowledge. (I hold no hostility or frustration.) Some would say Theonomy is "heresy"...but I'm not ready to do that, yet. I think it's one alternative, not quite fitting the plain reading of Scripture.
> 
> WTS, would criticize T more vigorously...for sound reasons. (Paul, maybe that's why passion on the matter is elevated? I don't know.)
> 
> Meanwhile, I'm surprised to read the above definition for Amill are mis-represented - ad hominum attack, unworthy of Christian character.
> 
> I still hope a wise, patient and considerate dialog may be had between those of different viewpoints.
> 
> At the end of the day, is impatience or anger a sign that our theology is in line with God's Word? I mean, the fruit of the Spirit is peace, isn't it?
> 
> Christians have good reasons they become Amill; Postmill; Preterist, Etc. I should hope that it's "safe" in Christ's Church to explore the differences.
> 
> To Paul, I cordially invite you to come down to one of our forums and offer your objections to Riddlebarger or Samples. We have stimulating discussions with an open floor - no hostility, and lots of great questions. I admire your work, Paul...I think your contributions would be valued. Just a thought (no reply necessary.)
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> R.
Click to expand...


Whether they are a syllogism or not, they are formed as an argument and are dealt with as such. No, they aren't major premise, minor premise, conclusion, but the skeleton is there all the same. While wikipedia might be okay, it is more scholarly to quote the big dogs on theonomy, mainly Bahnsen--chapter and page number.

Paul's passion is probably similar to my own: it gets really annoying (and to your credit, your arguments against theonomy are sounder now than they were 4 months ago) to see your position portrayed as "almost heresy" while the position being portrayed is not yours at all.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Personally, I don't see that there has to be an either/or choice between the evidential and presuppositional approaches to defending the faith. .....
> 
> What is trickier is the eschatology. ... it takes discipline, to carefully separate the one from the other, so that your millennial view does not drive your theology. [Edited on 8-9-2005 by JohnV]



 Heavy, on the discipline point, John!

It came as a surprise though, in a Berkof class of all things, to learn that aware of it or not, eschatology necessarily drives theology. Example: Genesis 3:15 is a pregnant eschatological declaration. How one interprets the value of it will affect everything else. Now, it doesn't appear to have an impact on Last Things in general....but ponder it a bit. Then there's the increasing progression of eschatalogical language in the OT as Redemptive history travels through human events....which ties-in with the nature of the Kingdom; what it is; is not. Etc. I've always wondered at the strange tone of Christ's statements -- He seems to be implying deeper things in many of the confrontations He had with the pharisees; disciples, et al.



curiouser and curiouser


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Anyway... I think it's interesting to probe past one's own sphere of convictions and knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Personally, I don't see that there has to be an either/or choice between the evidential and presuppositional approaches to defending the faith. .....
> 
> What is trickier is the eschatology. ... it takes discipline, to carefully separate the one from the other, so that your millennial view does not drive your theology. [Edited on 8-9-2005 by JohnV]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heavy, on the discipline point, John!
> 
> It came as a surprise though, in a Berkof class of all things, to learn that aware of it or not, eschatology necessarily drives theology. Example: Genesis 3:15 is a pregnant eschatological declaration. How one interprets the value of it will affect everything else. Now, it doesn't appear to have an impact on Last Things in general....but ponder it a bit. Then there's the increasing progression of eschatalogical language in the OT as Redemptive history travels through human events....which ties-in with the nature of the Kingdom; what it is; is not. Etc. I've always wondered at the strange tone of Christ's statements -- He seems to be implying deeper things in many of the confrontations He had with the pharisees; disciples, et al.
> 
> 
> 
> curiouser and curiouser
Click to expand...


First, Robin, your opinions are not respectable unless you do go beyond your own spehere of convictions. Discussing or debating with those who cannot see, or believe there is not, a world beyond their own views is a waste of time. Truth does not stop with one individual. To pursue truth is to reach out beyond yourself. And those who do pursue truth progress toward grasping God's revelation to us of Himself, both in general revelation and in special revelation. 

On the Berkhof class, there is a note of truth to that. However, it is not our eschatological views, but God's. We would put it much plainer if we called God's plan of salvation. There is no warrant here, however, to form our theology on our millennial views. Our millennial views can never be more than speculative because so much its meaning depends on the time of fulfilment. The cultural givens, the historic situation, or a host of other major and minor effects can and will play a part in how these prophecies will be fulfilled. We are called to faith, hope and love. That is our driving force in our theology. 

These will also make a difference in how we approach defending the faith, and how we view the place and role of the law. The last thing we want to do is cite Jesus' criticism of the Pharisees and Saducess, only to become modern manifestations of them ourselves. If by Theonomy we mean legalism, and if by Presuppositionalism we mean that the whole of truth has to be diagnosed through our opinions, then we've become nothing but noisy gongs. I'm not saying that these are what Theonomy or Presuppositionalism are, but some make it depend on themselves far too much instead of upon the self-evident truth itself.

What I was trying to say was that your professor's critique may or may not be accurate; it doesn't matter because it does no good either way. He has to go to the heart of the matter, not negating the truth that is there, even if the proponents of certain views are, to his understanding, wrong. If they're wrong, he won't help the situation by taking that approach.


----------



## Robin

I think the burden of proof is on Paul to demonstrate my definition of Theonomy is incorrect. Though, as I recall, I started this post, asking that a civil dialog be pursued. So far, I'm _hearing_ that Paul is devoted to his system with a zeal so intense he is willing to slander and boast. Or am I mistaken? I might ask, how can Paul know that he knows more about a thing than a theologian with a degree in apologetics; on the WTS staff -- who he does not know personally? You should be ashamed at the arrogance and pride, Paul. I never said my definition was Riddlebarger's. All I could add is, I think Kim's stance would be more critical (perhaps?) as his is consistent with WTS. So are you also saying WTS is wrong, too?

The definitions that I wrote and agree with were written by a personal friend/colleague of Bahnsen.

To John, you missed my point entirely, I think. I've travelled a long way from whatever it was I held to over 6 years ago to this moment. This includes studying material by those with opposing view points, carefully. (Unlike Jacob's former comment about not even finishing Iron's material.) I know Lee Irons...he is not Catholic nor liberal. How very sad that one's zeal for eschatology would close a heart or mind toward a brother without knowing the particulars of the case.

Among many reasons...here is a quote from Church History that leans me away from Theonomy:

"The state of the monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth, for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth and set upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called gods."

King James I circa 1611 (the acts of this King speak volumes) I wonder what King James eschatology was?????



r.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Curious question...would everyone here consider themselves presuppositional in their apologetic outlook?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Chris...while I believe presuppositional has an awful lot going for it...I'm not a full-presupp. I also think evidential has some merit...but am not devoted to it. As I reflect, it's probably not possible to codify what "method" I use - It's really not a method, but more after the examples in the New Testament - and has a lot to do with the catechisms (Belgic/HC.)
> 
> r.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a clarification of your post...what are your conceptions of full-presup and evidential? Full-presup has no problems using evidences...
Click to expand...


This best describes my stance:

Arguments are useful, but are not themselves salvific.

There is common ground of some sort between believers and unbelievers, but not neutral ground

Sin has so darkened the mind and heart that we all, by nature, suppress the truth; and the Law of God is written on the hearts of all men

There is a place for reason, evidences, and Scripture in apologetics 

Only by the proclamation of Christ in the Gospel does one actually come to faith

Robin


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> For instance, many postmillennialists: RC Sprouls Sr and Jr, John Jefferson Davis (what a wonderful name) and others of that stripe are not theonomic (holding to some form of natural law).



I know of these...and agree! I suppose I'm akin to the natural law idea in ways....There is quite a variety of postmillenialists who are not Theonomists --- 

But Theonomists MUST be postmillennial....I found that intriquing when I heard about it. And no matter what one claims, they simply cannot be Amillennarian....it defeats the Theonomic premise.  Unless, somehow, they're shifting over to another side, perhaps unaware of the change at present?


----------



## pastorway

{Admin stepping in}

I guess we just cannot discuss apologetic methods, eschatology, or Theonomy with any sense of love, mercy, gentleness, or longsuffering. How many times have we proved that point? 

Pity that a discussion of "Scripture" is so not bearing the fruit of the Spirit.....

Phillip


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Some clarifications of terms:
> 
> *Theonomy*: Theos/God nomis/Law - the definition is interchangeable with reconsructionsim.
> 
> *Reconstructionism*: in the latter church-age, the Church is so victorious in the world that the impact will require society to reconstruct its legal system after the Law of God.
> 
> *Postmillennialism*:
> 
> The church will be so victorious in the world before Christ's Second Advent, essentially converting the nations, that society must reconstruct its legal system after the Law of God - which leads to a strong emphasis of:
> 
> *Presuppositionalism*:
> 
> Frequently emphasizes 2 points: 1. human-beings are fallen, therefore their thinking/reasoning is distorted/unreliable ... therefore requires:
> 
> 2. man must rely on the the Law of God
> 
> Though there are variations of Postmillennialists (some OPC vigorously opposed to Theonomy) the above 3 ideas fit hand in glove.
> 
> 
> 
> r.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. your definition of theonomy is false since you said it is interchangable with your definition of reconstructionism.
> 
> 2. Your definition of postmillennialism beggs the question against non-theonomic postmillennialist.
> 
> 3. Your definition of presuppositionalism is very odd??? First off, point one sounds like total depravity. But then you throw in the "unreliable" aspect of man's reasoning.
> [Edited on 8-9-2005 by Paul manata]
Click to expand...


Paul, I hope this won't take too much time....but, since you made these points, I ask (politely) to demonstrate that my first point is wrong. I mean, please show how Theonomy differs from Reconstructionism in a classic, basic description, OK? So are you saying Theonomy does not require society to redo thier laws to fit God's? And for #2. Begs what question? Posmillennialism, at the bare-bones says this: the church will be so victorious that society will transform thus adjusting its legal system to coincide with God's Laws. Right? Explain how this begs a question to any postmillennialist that is not a Theonomist? And for #3. Well, pretend that _unreliable_ isn't there, OK? What's left? *IS* man's thinking distorted to the point of requiring man's dependance on God's Law? What does that look like?

I hope this clarifies my position.

(Pssst...of course I knew the Amill remark was bogus. It's the spirit of it that was beneath virtue. I think you know my struggles with these ideas are sincere and respectful.)

For the record....I have no problem whatsoever being corrected. If the reasons for my convictions are off-track, I want to know about it. I think there's enough evidence out-there to find it.



r.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> {Admin stepping in}
> 
> I guess we just cannot discuss apologetic methods, eschatology, or Theonomy with any sense of love, mercy, gentleness, or longsuffering. How many times have we proved that point?
> 
> Pity that a discussion of "Scripture" is so not bearing the fruit of the Spirit.....
> 
> Phillip



Phillip, you're speaking my heart here!! But, somehow (maybe I'm a blockhead?) I hold-out hope....

I brought up the subject because I know there are those out-there wrestling with these issues alone...longing for expression, of some of the points, from different sources than the pat/pop writers.

I can fully assure anyone who cares to know, that 1. my teacher is not hostile about discussing these issues 2. does know all sides of the subject, well and is not being irresponsible or punitive....with that, I wondered if I could re-state a discussion we shared, with PB. 

I am glad to attempt to answer any question I can; and if I don't have an answer, I'll try to get one. I don't know everything and care about studying --- another thing...I have no interest in "winning arguments." Thinking God's thoughts after Him is more my aim...



Thanks, Phillip for a Pastor's good and caring counsel....

Robin


----------



## RamistThomist

I have nothing to add to what Paul said. 
This isn't hard (sorry to temporarily engage in footnote refutation but its necessary). 

1) Read some book on presupp by a presupp (if Bahnsen is too radical, read John Frame's Apologetics to the Glory of God)

2) Read a short book on theonomy, like By This Standard (it can be read in two nights).

3) Quote from said books when making a case against said positions.

4) Go to a lot of Craig Sowder's old posts on millennial issues and theonomy and you will see an amillennial theonomist.

I am done here. Paul's arguments were not dealt with; there is nothing meaningful left to say.


Your King James remark had nothing to do with theonomy, but rather divine right of kings (which, oddly, seems to be your position on Romans 13).


----------



## Robin

Well, in relation to the King James comment...I was pointing to an awareness that each and every time in history where (any) government got the notion that it was imbued by God, things eventually went awry. (Why don't we want to learn from mistakes in history?) Obviously, there are both Christian and secular examples. I can see parallels in the pharisees holding to theonomy; a type of postmill- expectation with what could be considered presuppositional reasoning as they opposed the doctrines of Jesus. To me, some more clues pointing to a connection between the basic ingredients of Theonomy, Postmillennialism and Presuppositionalism.

Yes, Romans 13 is true. But it is an unfortunate excess to link God's Kingdom with the world. The Amillenarian says God's Kingdom is in the world but not of it.

Technically, amillennialists share in a postmillennial understanding of the millennium - but there is a difference centering on the starting point, nature and duration of the millennial age.

Amillennial Christians view the millennium as covering the entire time between the first and second advent of Christ - which is a period of *both* triumph of the spiritual kingdom of God while in the midst of the rise of evil, as it opposes Christ and his kingdom.

_Postmillennialism_ derives from the belief that Jesus Christ returns to earth after the millennium to judge the world, raise the dead and make all things new. Different from Amill, most all modern postmills interpret the millennial age beginning at some point during the present age. The kingdom of God triumphs over the nations, culminating in significant economic, political and cultural prosperity. Christ returns to a saved earth - the kingdoms of this world, having become Christianized. There are other variations of postmill, too.



R.

[Edited on 8-10-2005 by Robin]


----------



## JohnV

> _from Robin_
> To John, you missed my point entirely, I think. I've travelled a long way from whatever it was I held to over 6 years ago to this moment. This includes studying material by those with opposing view points, carefully. (Unlike Jacob's former comment about not even finishing Iron's material.) I know Lee Irons...he is not Catholic nor liberal. How very sad that one's zeal for eschatology would close a heart or mind toward a brother without knowing the particulars of the case.


My apologies, Robin. I was building on a point I had made, and should have stuck with the one you were making.


----------



## Robin

Hey Paul,

I certainly appreciate your patience and attempt at clarifying.

Obviously, I agree that the other side should not be misrepresented. 

My first points were NOT total, nor a syllogism, nor promoting a method... yet they DO put forth core elements as laid-out. I'm confused though, if Theonomists are OK with God's Law not manifesting in the civil system why is it called "theonomy"? I'm sure you'd agree that for any civil legal system to change for the better, they'd in fact, be reconstructing to fit with Biblical law, in many noticable ways. (Not all ways, of course....which is odd because, why the framentation? Confusing...)  

Non-theonomist Postmillenarians are not in trouble because as I formerly explained, both Amill and Postmill share in the millennium understanding. Our differences have to do with the: when; quality and length of the millennium. I suspect both our camps recoil from Theonomy because we recognize (in various ways) covenant-historical differences between typology and semi-realized eschatology. On the other hand, I think it is the "lead-footedness" or emphasis that presuppositional methods impose in conjunction with the other two ingredients, that have an impact. Maybe a bad analogy...but it's like baking soda and vinegar, so to speak. Anyway...that is what I mean to say....

Some things I notice when thinking about theonomic leanings: one of the consequences of anyone affirming the need to apply and enforce the Old Covenant typological sanctions in the New Covenant period in the same way that they were applied in the Old Covenant situation, actually is denying that Christ has fulfilled the eternal reality to which the Old Covenant sanctions pointed. In other words, he has missed the covenant historical differences between typology and semi-realized eschatology. I think this is important because following to a logical conclusion, even if the theonomist does affirm Christ has borne the eternal sanctions which Old Covenant sanctions typified (which we suppose he must affirm), he does not see the anti-type replacing the type. This makes the theonomic position parallel to a position which would advocate the continuing validity of typological animal sacrifices in spite of the fulfillment of those sacrifices in the anti-typical sacrifice of Christ. (A disturbing problem.)

I know you'd disagree....but these are just a few of my thoughts as I continue to attempt to understand things for myself.

I'm against "personality cults" (1 Cor. 1:10-17)...but it is right and proper to honor one's pastor. I don't agree with everything in "lock-step"...but wholeheartedly submit to the Three Forms and am a registered member under the care of the URC. FTR, I heartily uphold the honor, accountability and support of demonimational, ordained pastors and elders (church discipline in general) -- being self-consciously against an un-biblical idea of "individualistic, self-appointed, parachurch, theological experts" per se'. (No implications...just clarifying my position.)

Again, no reply necessary, Paul.....thank you for the input and willingness to see past differences!

PS. I thought debating Bahnsen a completely different thread....which I'm not up to now. However, having a fairly large Bahnsen library...I know what I've said engages his position...though, I imagine he'd be saddened at the emphasis and ferocity in defending his Theonomy when what he cared about more was the Gospel. But that's just my opinion.



Robin


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> 
> _from Robin_
> To John, you missed my point entirely, I think.
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies, Robin. I was building on a point I had made, and should have stuck with the one you were making.
Click to expand...


Hey, no problem, brother  I'm sure I come-off fuzzy more than a few times! (Lord, have mercy...)



r.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Hey Paul,
> 
> I certainly appreciate your patience and attempt at clarifying.
> 
> Obviously, I agree that the other side should not be misrepresented.
> 
> My first points were NOT total, nor a syllogism, nor promoting a method... yet they DO put forth core elements as laid-out. I'm confused though, if Theonomists are OK with God's Law not manifesting in the civil system why is it called "theonomy"? I'm sure you'd agree that for any civil legal system to change for the better, they'd in fact, be reconstructing to fit with Biblical law, in many noticable ways. (Not all ways, of course....which is odd because, why the framentation? Confusing...)
> 
> Non-theonomist Postmillenarians are not in trouble because as I formerly explained, both Amill and Postmill share in the millennium understanding. Our differences have to do with the: when; quality and length of the millennium. I suspect both our camps recoil from Theonomy because we recognize (in various ways) covenant-historical differences between typology and semi-realized eschatology. On the other hand, I think it is the "lead-footedness" or emphasis that presuppositional methods impose in conjunction with the other two ingredients, that have an impact. Maybe a bad analogy...but it's like baking soda and vinegar, so to speak. Anyway...that is what I mean to say....
> 
> Some things I notice when thinking about theonomic leanings: one of the consequences of anyone affirming the need to apply and enforce the Old Covenant typological sanctions in the New Covenant period in the same way that they were applied in the Old Covenant situation, actually is denying that Christ has fulfilled the eternal reality to which the Old Covenant sanctions pointed. In other words, he has missed the covenant historical differences between typology and semi-realized eschatology. I think this is important because following to a logical conclusion, even if the theonomist does affirm Christ has borne the eternal sanctions which Old Covenant sanctions typified (which we suppose he must affirm), he does not see the anti-type replacing the type. This makes the theonomic position parallel to a position which would advocate the continuing validity of typological animal sacrifices in spite of the fulfillment of those sacrifices in the anti-typical sacrifice of Christ. (A disturbing problem.)
> 
> I know you'd disagree....but these are just a few of my thoughts as I continue to attempt to understand things for myself.
> 
> I'm against "personality cults" (1 Cor. 1:10-17)...but it is right and proper to honor one's pastor. I don't agree with everything in "lock-step"...but wholeheartedly submit to the Three Forms and am a registered member under the care of the URC. FTR, I heartily uphold the honor, accountability and support of demonimational, ordained pastors and elders (church discipline in general) -- being self-consciously against an un-biblical idea of "individualistic, self-appointed, parachurch, theological experts" per se'. (No implications...just clarifying my position.)
> 
> Again, no reply necessary, Paul.....thank you for the input and willingness to see past differences!
> 
> PS. I thought debating Bahnsen a completely different thread....which I'm not up to now. However, having a fairly large Bahnsen library...I know what I've said engages his position...though, I imagine he'd be saddened at the emphasis and ferocity in defending his Theonomy when what he cared about more was the Gospel. But that's just my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> Robin



We don't advocate applying OT typological sanctions to New Covenantal conditions. If you had read Bahnsen you would know that he spent several lengthy chapters arguing for the abrogation of OT typological sanctions. In fact the strentgh of the preterist view is that it argues the typological system was DESTROYED in 70 AD. 

Secondly, you appear to be equivocating on typological sanctions and sanctions. There is a difference. Also, I would like examples from Theonomy in Christian Ethics where Bahnsen does this.



> though, I imagine he'd be saddened at the emphasis and ferocity in defending his Theonomy when what he cared about more was the Gospel.



Frankly, I would rather talk about the gospel and the Bible's plotline and stories all day long, but when people who do not understand theonomy/presuppositionalism/postmillennialism erect straw men and hint that this position is "almost heresy", then I get really annoyed and have no choice but to make sure my teacher isn't slandered.


----------



## Robin

As I said before...I will not quarrel about Bahnsen...but I did wish to demonstrate that he indeed misrepresents the Amillennial position; does violence to the context of Scripture (prooftexting) having to do with Christ's first and second advents. Much can be said, but I think his flaws stem from a failure to distinguish clearly between typological and semi-eschatological categories in covenant history.

Confidence About the Earthly Triumph of Christ's Kingdom
By Dr. Greg Bahnsen 

"The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He shall reign forever and ever" (Rev. 11:15). The Messiah's reign has been established on earth (Matt. 12:28; 28:18). He need only ask the Father, and the nations will be given to Him for His inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for His possession (Ps. 2:8). With that end in mind Christ commissioned the church to make all the nations His obedient disciples (Matt. 28:19-20). Having bound Satan so that He is restrained from deceiving the nations (Rev. 20:2-30, Christ is now despoiling Satan's house (Matt. 12:29). This is why the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the onslaught of Christ's church (Matt. 16-18). Crowned with glory and honor (Heb. 2:9), Christ has been enthroned at God's right hand "henceforth expecting his enemies to be made the footstool of His feet" (Heb. 10:13).

Do we expect what Christ expects to take place in history? Is His expectation that all nations and all enemies shall be won over to Him which is an expectation based on the Father's promise, nothing more than wishful thinking? No Bible-believing Christian would say that. 

However, many would postpone the fulfillment of Christ's expectation to after His second coming - despite the "realized" nature of the preceding Bible passages (their clear application to this present age). Premillennialists postpone Christ's triumph to a future millennial age, while amillenialists postpone it to the future new heavens and earth. Postmillennialists, as genuinely "realized millennialists," expect Christ's subduing of his enemies to be accomplished before the second coming. So did Paul. "For He [Christ] must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet; the LAST enemy that shall be abolished is death" (1 Cor. 15:25-26) - pointing to the resurrection of believers "at His coming," which brings "the end" (vv. 23-24). All other enemies will be put under Christ's feet, therefore, prior to His coming (prior to the end).

This is the postmillennial confidence we should all share. It is not enough to be an "Optimistic amil" who believes that widespread triumph for Christ's kingdom is possible and who personally _hopes_ it will take place. The Bible message about Christ's kingdom is stronger and more definite than that. "Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from henceforth and forever. The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will perform this" (Isa. 9:7). God's kingdom shall grow from a stone to be a mountain that fills the earth, and "the dream is certain" (Dan. 2:35, 44-45). The confidence of the prophets was that all nations would flow into the church to be nurtured by God's word, live by His just standards and learn peace (Isa. 2:2-4; Micah 4:1-3). "In His days shall the righteous flourish, and abundance of peace until the moon be no more. He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth ... And His enemies shall lick the dust ... All nations shall serve Him" (Ps. 72:7-11). "All the ends of the earth shall turn unto Jehovah" (Ps. 22:27), and then shall "the earth be full of the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters cover the sea" (Isa. 11:9).

How shall this be accomplished? The New Testament clearly points us to the enabling presence of Christ with the church, the preaching of the gospel (Matt. 28:18-20), and the powerful work of the Pentecostal Spirit (e.g., Acts 2:32-41). With such resources the kingdom of Christ will be characterized by surprising growth (Matt. 13:31-33). Christ shall draw all men to Himself (John 12:32) and "lead justice unto victory" (Matt. 12:20). The preaching of the gospel - the sword from Christ's mouth - shall utterly conquer the nations (Rev. 19:11-16). The fullness of the Gentiles shall be brought in, provoking even the Jews - all Israel - to be received again and saved, signifying veritable "life from the dead" for the world (Rom. 11:11-15, 25-26). We should conclude, then, that Christ has set before His believing and persevering church "a door opened which none can shut" - consequently, that even the most antagonistic opponents shall bow down, and Christ's church shall enjoy with Him authority over the nations (Rev. 3:7-9; 2:25-27; 20:4). That is not just a vain hope, but the promise of God.

PT074
Journey 3:2 (March-April, 1988) Â© Covenant Media Foundation

Robin  

I will not respond to further yammering about Bahnsen  Unless, it relates to honestly clarifying a point or question (his amill references are straw-men, btw.)

r.

[Edited on 8-11-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Myshkin

Are there any prominent (or otherwise) christian leaders who are theonomists and not presuppositionalists also?

In other words, not all presupps. are theonomists, but are there any theonomists that are not presupps.? If so, who?


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> Are there any prominent (or otherwise) christian leaders who are theonomists and not presuppositionalists also?
> 
> In other words, not all presupps. are theonomists, but are there any theonomists that are not presupps.? If so, who?



Long have I wondered that; I would venture a guess to say no. This will be very simplistic and at the risk of generalizing, presuppositionalists reject natural law (in its humanistc form, certainly; most would reject the compromising Christian forms of it as well). No Christian can affirm a positivistic view of law (unless of course, a Christian can be Darwinian).

However, the Vision Forum's Witherspoon School of Law and Public Policy has speakers who are not theonomic (or presuppositionalist, per se), but hold to a quasi-theonomic view of Law and Social morality. I think of Dr Paul Jehle, Judge Roy Moore, Ed Vierra, etc.

Furthermore, RC Sproul Jr has admitted to not being a theonomist or a presuppositionalist, yet he is a savage (and quite delightful critic) of positive law, statism, and tyranny. 

To answer your question, if you can show me (and it might be doable) a non-presuppositonalist who rejects natural law consistently, then Iwould say yes. Actually, I would say it is possible only I just haven't see it done.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> Are there any prominent (or otherwise) christian leaders who are theonomists and not presuppositionalists also?
> 
> In other words, not all presupps. are theonomists, but are there any theonomists that are not presupps.? If so, who?



Wow, that's a great question, Allan!  I don't know the answer....but will try to find something out.

Jacob, would it be clear to pose the question like: CAN a theonomist exclude presuppositionalism from his worldview/apologetic? 

Also, what do you mean by a "non-presuppositionalist who rejects natural law consistently?" What would that look/sound like? 



r.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by RAS_
> Are there any prominent (or otherwise) christian leaders who are theonomists and not presuppositionalists also?
> 
> In other words, not all presupps. are theonomists, but are there any theonomists that are not presupps.? If so, who?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that's a great question, Allan!  I don't know the answer....but will try to find something out.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, what do you mean by a "non-presuppositionalist who rejects natural law consistently?" What would that look/sound like?
> 
> 
> 
> r.
Click to expand...


Granted, the phrase is murky because I haven't seen too many non-presuppositionalists reject natural law consistently. Say it another way: Presuppositionalists, among other aspects, teach that man's reason is fallen (which is a cardinal point of Calvinism) and MUST have divine revelation to interpret nature rightly. Natural law theory, depending on which version, claims that man's reason has not been corrupted by sin and can read nature aright. Man, so the NLT reasons, can rightly discern a penal system by looking at the stars and mountains. Man, so NLT, by watching the conjugal habits of dogs can establish the principle of monogamy, etc.*

Now, can a non-pressuppositonalist, reject natural law consistently? In terms of actuality (can he do such in real life) I guess he can. But that begs the immediate question, by what standard will he make moral judgments? This brings us back to the original question of authority and ultimate commitments. If he rejects natural law theory (as he must) but also rejects presuppositional epistemology, then what other standard of reason, of authority does he hold to? 

Allan asked a wonderful question. I maintain that the non-presup could do so in real life, but he must show me what standard, what authority, what ultimate commitment he holds to.

*That was _reductio ad absurdum_.


----------



## Robin

Well, J...

I'm just going to have to hand your description to my teacher....I don't want to try to translate it. My pea-brain isn't quite there. ??? I am intriqued by the question, though... So, I'll see what Professor Samples says about it this Sunday.

Stay-tuned for more Theonomy-thrill-packed adventures! _Keep your hands and arms inside the vehicle at all times!_


r.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Well, J...
> 
> I'm just going to have to hand your description to my teacher....I don't want to try to translate it. My pea-brain isn't quite there. ??? I am intriqued by the question, though... So, I'll see what Professor Samples says about it this Sunday.
> 
> Stay-tuned for more Theonomy-thrill-packed adventures! _Keep your hands and arms inside the vehicle at all times!_
> 
> 
> r.



By all means give him the description; I am not worried about his response. I have taken all my stuff from Bahnsen's Theonomy in Christian Ethics and the Van Til Reader. I know that I have described theonomy fairly. The burden of proof is not on me to fairly describe theonomy in this situation. but I have lost interest in the subject. We are treading old water. You mentioned theonomists who only talk about theonomy as opposed to the gospel. I pray that such is not me. However, I felt compelled to dispel false accusations and caricatures against the positons. So, you really left me with little choice.

Quite frankly, the debate is dead to me. I know where I stand and when the day comes when Christians are called upon to make judicial and legislative decisions, my people will be ready. Until then, my thoughts will be on the bible's plot line and how to apply that to the unbelieving mind via narrative fashion (in other words, what CS Lewis did.).

That being said, to the extent that Christians further natural law and positive law theories, they impotentize themselves for any real effectivness.

You can post his response if you like, but I probably won't answer it. With all due respect...

To quote the country/western song by Montgomery Gentry,

"You do your thing, I'll do mine."

Except, when they sing it it takes about three seconds to sing the whole line and it sound something lke this,

" You do yawre thang, I'll do mine."

[Edited on 8--13-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## Robin

Except, when they sing it it takes about three seconds to sing the whole line and it sound something lke this,

" You do yawre thang, I'll do mine."

  (too bad we don't have cowboy hats)

Hey, that's cool  I'm not seeking a debate, btw...just dang curious  I just wanted to be extra careful to not misrepresent anything.

r.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Robin, have you read _Theonomy in Christian Ethics_?

[Edited on 8-13-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## Ex Nihilo

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Well, J...
> 
> I'm just going to have to hand your description to my teacher....I don't want to try to translate it. My pea-brain isn't quite there. ??? I am intriqued by the question, though... So, I'll see what Professor Samples says about it this Sunday.
> 
> Stay-tuned for more Theonomy-thrill-packed adventures! _Keep your hands and arms inside the vehicle at all times!_
> 
> 
> r.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By all means give him the description; I am not worried about his response. I have taken all my stuff from Bahnsen's Theonomy in Christian Ethics and the Van Til Reader. I know that I have described theonomy fairly. The burden of proof is not on me to fairly describe theonomy in this situation. but I have lost interest in the subject. We are treading old water. You mentioned theonomists who only talk about theonomy as opposed to the gospel. I pray that such is not me. However, I felt compelled to dispel false accusations and caricatures against the positons. So, you really left me with little choice.
> 
> Quite frankly, the debate is dead to me. I know where I stand and when the day comes when Christians are called upon to make judicial and legislative decisions, my people will be ready. Until then, my thoughts will be on the bible's plot line and how to apply that to the unbelieving mind via narrative fashion (in other words, what CS Lewis did.).
> 
> That being said, to the extent that Christians further natural law and positive law theories, they impotentize themselves for any real effectivness.
> 
> You can post his response if you like, but I probably won't answer it. With all due respect...
> 
> To quote the country/western song by Montgomery Gentry,
> 
> "You do your thing, I'll do mine."
> 
> Except, when they sing it it takes about three seconds to sing the whole line and it sound something lke this,
> 
> " You do yawre thang, I'll do mine."
> 
> [Edited on 8--13-05 by Draught Horse]
Click to expand...


I think the Beatles' "We Can Work It Out" is the most appropriate theme song for this thread.

_Try to see it my way,
Do I have to keep on talking till I can´t go on?_ 

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/beatles/14263.html


----------



## JohnV

Robin:

What exactly do you see wrong with Bahnsen's representation of the Amil and Premil positions? And could it be that the difficulty of the relationship of Postmil, Presup, and Theonomy is not their direct relationship, but the fact that defenders of these views use Bahnsenisms, since Bahnsen is identified with each one of them? Is that a possibility, instead being related in and of themselves? Or was Bahnsen right in approving of all three and tying them together? 

Just thinking out loud.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Robin, have you read _Theonomy in Christian Ethics_?
> 
> [Edited on 8-13-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]



Been there, done that, bought the tee-shirt.

r.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Robin:
> 
> What exactly do you see wrong with Bahnsen's representation of the Amil and Premil positions? And could it be that the difficulty of the relationship of Postmil, Presup, and Theonomy is not their direct relationship, but the fact that defenders of these views use Bahnsenisms, since Bahnsen is identified with each one of them? Is that a possibility, instead being related in and of themselves? Or was Bahnsen right in approving of all three and tying them together?
> 
> Just thinking out loud.



I think Bahnsen does not get the distinctions right. He misunderstands/misrepresents Amill (according to his descriptions, which are different from a sound definition on what the Amill position is.) He also proof-texts; mishandles apocalyptic literature by ignoring it's double-fulfillment quality. Theonomy denies that prophecy has multi-fulfillment traits related to Christ's covenant fulfillment...whereas, even a cursory reading in (for example) Baker's Theological Encyclopedia "prophecy" explains the OT precedent of double-fullfillment which also applied to the NT writers, since they interpret the OT.

I think the connection between T, presupp and postmill has much to do with "unconscious" blend and usage of these world-views driven-by emotional zeal that can indeed (as it does for us all) obscure a sound interpretation of Scripture. Couple prooftexting; the very real problem of civil injustice; and the truly engaging personality of an expert that incites enthusiasms resonant with one's own personal needs...Voila' we have a movement (a group of adherents) going in a direction somewhere different than Holy Scripture. Somehow, this works with the necessary ingredients of all three. I'm still working on understanding it.

John, re-read Bahnsen's description of Amillennialism and compare it to my former post description. He wrongly assumes many nuances.

Yes, your point (I think)....many devoted to B teachings will not "hear" the other sides correctly so as to discover truth. Rather, assertions are ignorantly repeated, one of which is Amillennialsim is "pessimistic" (an ad-homonym term - like saying hyper-Calvinist can be.) Those with strong-emotions in favor of theonomy have a "presuppositional lens" which they see other positions. We all have presupps. btw, but apparently some presupps are so powerful....only those willing to consider this (objectively) will benefit from different knowledge than they are devoted to.

As I sensed I had moved closer to Amillennialism...I thought, the scenario was consistent with God's overall style of how he redeems....through suffering and death, he rescues a people for himself. In God's economy, the design is: the first shall be last; the weak are strong; evil is conquered by suffering and dying, in order that God's name be glorified. (Not our names. I'm always cautious when folk begin to ascribe strong admirations to a teacher over the teachings of Jesus or Paul, et al.)

I think Theonomy emphasizes the victory of the CHURCH before Christ's glorious return; the physical world will show this-- urgent to see it.

But Amillennialism emphasizes Christ is the victor IN THE MIDST of this present evil age, while Christ's enemies attempt to thwart the Gospel. It doesn't look like Christ is winning (much like it didn't when He died on the cross.) But our hope is in Christ by faith, not by sight. Resting in confidence yet watching and engaging the culture with the Gospel, not methods. The eschatological idea of "spiritual" has specific relation to the phenomenon of the saints "already" being in the heavenly courts (Eph 1) and "not yet" receiving full glorification, but suffering what looks like defeat. So, we trust Christ is even now, triumphing...which may/may not and probably not include my personal triumph over evil. I am called to die for my Lord.

I've often wanted to ask "what IF" it IS God's plan for all Christians to suffer and die to demonstrate God's glory and triumph in the world? Are we OK with that concept? The apostle Paul seemed to expect his death -- being told in advance by Christ it was imminent. I wonder what Paul thought? I don't know that I would be OK with God declaring that in order to glorify Him, I'd be unjustly arrested and executed. Btw, I'm not OK with the idea of God ordaining my demise amongst evil mockers in order to glorify Him. I'd much rather be part of a physically glorious end. That way, my enemies would know I was right all along. 

My awkward blatherings on the subject are poor re-statements of what Luther, Calvin, Augustine, et al, have already contemplated. No serious reader/student of the Apostle Paul is going to dare consider escape from the present evil age a concept taught in Holy Scripture. If Scripture is not enough proof....look to history and Fox's Book of Martyrs. My old apologetics professor (a Baptist) used to say: "why do we expect to be spared the fate the entire Church met: persecution; ridicule; weakness; rejection; hardship and finally death?
When Paul was led to execution, did he think his Gospel prevailed? Was Paul pessimistic?"

Uncomfortable but worthwhile reflections, I think. (I think about the latter all the time....especially as our culture continues eroding.)



R.

[Edited on 8-13-2005 by Robin]


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Robin:
> 
> What exactly do you see wrong with Bahnsen's representation of the Amil and Premil positions? And could it be that the difficulty of the relationship of Postmil, Presup, and Theonomy is not their direct relationship, but the fact that defenders of these views use Bahnsenisms, since Bahnsen is identified with each one of them? Is that a possibility, instead being related in and of themselves? Or was Bahnsen right in approving of all three and tying them together?
> 
> Just thinking out loud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Bahnsen does not get the distinctions right. He misunderstands/misrepresents Amill (according to his descriptions, which are different from a sound definition on what the Amill position is.) He also proof-texts; mishandles apocalyptic literature by ignoring it's double-fulfillment quality. Theonomy denies that prophecy has multi-fulfillment traits related to Christ's covenant fulfillment...whereas, even a cursory reading in (for example) Baker's Theological Encyclopedia "prophecy" explains the OT precedent of double-fullfillment which also applied to the NT writers, since they interpret the OT.
> 
> I think the connection between T, presupp and postmill has much to do with "unconscious" blend and usage of these world-views driven-by emotional zeal that can indeed (as it does for us all) obscure a sound interpretation of Scripture. Couple prooftexting; the very real problem of civil injustice; and the truly engaging personality of an expert that incites enthusiasms resonant with one's own personal needs...Voila' we have a movement (a group of adherents) going in a direction somewhere different than Holy Scripture. Somehow, this works with the necessary ingredients of all three. I'm still working on understanding it.
> 
> John, re-read Bahnsen's description of Amillennialism and compare it to my former post description. He wrongly assumes many nuances.
> 
> Yes, your point (I think)....many devoted to B teachings will not "hear" the other sides correctly so as to discover truth. Rather, assertions are ignorantly repeated, one of which is Amillennialsim is "pessimistic" (an ad-homonym term - like saying hyper-Calvinist can be.) Those with strong-emotions in favor of theonomy have a "presuppositional lens" which they see other positions. We all have presupps. btw, but apparently some presupps are so powerful....only those willing to consider this (objectively) will benefit from different knowledge than they are devoted to.
> 
> As I sensed I had moved closer to Amillennialism...I thought, the scenario was consistent with God's overall style of how he redeems....through suffering and death, he rescues a people for himself. In God's economy, the design is: the first shall be last; the weak are strong; evil is conquered by suffering and dying, in order that God's name be glorified. (Not our names. I'm always cautious when folk begin to ascribe strong admirations to a teacher over the teachings of Jesus or Paul, et al.)
> 
> I think Theonomy emphasizes the victory of the CHURCH before Christ's glorious return; the physical world will show this-- urgent to see it.
> 
> But Amillennialism emphasizes Christ is the victor IN THE MIDST of this present evil age, while Christ's enemies attempt to thwart the Gospel. It doesn't look like Christ is winning (much like it didn't when He died on the cross.) But our hope is in Christ by faith, not by sight. Resting in confidence yet watching and engaging the culture with the Gospel, not methods. The eschatological idea of "spiritual" has specific relation to the phenomenon of the saints "already" being in the heavenly courts (Eph 1) and "not yet" receiving full glorification, but suffering what looks like defeat. So, we trust Christ is even now, triumphing...which may/may not and probably not include my personal triumph over evil. I am called to die for my Lord.
> 
> I've often wanted to ask "what IF" it IS God's plan for all Christians to suffer and die to demonstrate God's glory and triumph in the world? Are we OK with that concept? The apostle Paul seemed to expect his death -- being told in advance by Christ it was imminent. I wonder what Paul thought? I don't know that I would be OK with God declaring that in order to glorify Him, I'd be unjustly arrested and executed. Btw, I'm not OK with the idea of God ordaining my demise amongst evil mockers in order to glorify Him. I'd much rather be part of a physically glorious end. That way, my enemies would know I was right all along.
> 
> My awkward blatherings on the subject are poor re-statements of what Luther, Calvin, Augustine, et al, have already contemplated. No serious reader/student of the Apostle Paul is going to dare consider escape from the present evil age a concept taught in Holy Scripture. If Scripture is not enough proof....look to history and Fox's Book of Martyrs. My old apologetics professor (a Baptist) used to say: "why do we expect to be spared the fate the entire Church met: persecution; ridicule; weakness; rejection; hardship and finally death?
> When Paul was led to execution, did he think his Gospel prevailed? Was Paul pessimistic?"
> 
> Uncomfortable but worthwhile reflections, I think. (I think about the latter all the time....especially as our culture continues eroding.)
> 
> 
> 
> R.
> 
> [Edited on 8-13-2005 by Robin]
Click to expand...


Mere Assertions. Anyway, I am done here, save to give the link to the song I mentioned;

Montgomery Gentry videos


----------



## Ex Nihilo

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> I think the connection between T, presupp and postmill has much to do with "unconscious" blend and usage of these world-views driven-by emotional zeal that can indeed (as it does for us all) obscure a sound interpretation of Scripture.



Whatever may be said about theonomists, presupps, and postmills, I don't think "emotional zeal" is at all characteristic of the movement as a whole.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> I've often wanted to ask "what IF" it IS God's plan for all Christians to suffer and die to demonstrate God's glory and triumph in the world? Are we OK with that concept? The apostle Paul seemed to expect his death -- being told in advance by Christ it was imminent. I wonder what Paul thought? I don't know that I would be OK with God declaring that in order to glorify Him, I'd be unjustly arrested and executed. Btw, I'm not OK with the idea of God ordaining my demise amongst evil mockers in order to glorify Him. I'd much rather be part of a physically glorious end. That way, my enemies would know I was right all along.



The possibility of suffering for the gospel is something that all of us should be prepared for, but postmills are by no means attempting to escape this. Yes, they may see their present suffering as mitigated by the certainty of future victory, but postmills certainly do not count on living to see the triumph of the gospel and its manifestations in this world. It is felt that this hope gives meaning to persecution.

It's manifestly clear from reading Paul's epistles that he saw the tension between the "present evil age" and the triumph of the age to come, which had already begun to break into this age. His honest recognition that he still lived within an evil age does not, however, show that he believed that the present evil age would last for the duration of history.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> I've often wanted to ask "what IF" it IS God's plan for all Christians to suffer and die to demonstrate God's glory and triumph in the world? Are we OK with that concept? The apostle Paul seemed to expect his death -- being told in advance by Christ it was imminent. I wonder what Paul thought? I don't know that I would be OK with God declaring that in order to glorify Him, I'd be unjustly arrested and executed. Btw, I'm not OK with the idea of God ordaining my demise amongst evil mockers in order to glorify Him. I'd much rather be part of a physically glorious end. That way, my enemies would know I was right all along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's manifestly clear from reading Paul's epistles that he saw the tension between the "present evil age" and the triumph of the age to come, which had already begun to break into this age.
> 
> His honest recognition that he still lived within an evil age does not, however, show that he believed that the present evil age would last for the duration of history.
Click to expand...


Hi Evie...  to the first point. And I'm intrigued by the second point....tell us more, OK? I mean where does Paul teach that the present evil age will cease being evil before the return of Christ? (Did I understand you rightly? I'm just wondering....not being contentious but very curious.) 

r.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> Mere Assertions. Anyway, I am done here, save to give the link to the song I mentioned;
> 
> Montgomery Gentry videos



Hey J, those hats are way-cool!  But help! The site isn't working....I wanted to hear the "Hell Yeah" song, too. 

Waaaaa  

r.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> Mere Assertions. Anyway, I am done here, save to give the link to the song I mentioned;
> 
> Montgomery Gentry videos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey J, those hats are way-cool!  But help! The site isn't working....I wanted to hear the "Hell Yeah" song, too.
> 
> Waaaaa
> 
> r.
Click to expand...


Go to cmt.com and click on main artists; click on "M"; click on "Montgomery Gentry"; click on "more videos" click on "You do your thing."

To answer your question to Evie,
I, not all--Not even Bahnsen or Gentry--view this present evil age overlapping with the Age to Come (this is a subtle but still strong theme in Hebrews).


----------



## Ex Nihilo

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> I've often wanted to ask "what IF" it IS God's plan for all Christians to suffer and die to demonstrate God's glory and triumph in the world? Are we OK with that concept? The apostle Paul seemed to expect his death -- being told in advance by Christ it was imminent. I wonder what Paul thought? I don't know that I would be OK with God declaring that in order to glorify Him, I'd be unjustly arrested and executed. Btw, I'm not OK with the idea of God ordaining my demise amongst evil mockers in order to glorify Him. I'd much rather be part of a physically glorious end. That way, my enemies would know I was right all along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's manifestly clear from reading Paul's epistles that he saw the tension between the "present evil age" and the triumph of the age to come, which had already begun to break into this age.
> 
> His honest recognition that he still lived within an evil age does not, however, show that he believed that the present evil age would last for the duration of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Evie...  to the first point. And I'm intrigued by the second point....tell us more, OK? I mean where does Paul teach that the present evil age will cease being evil before the return of Christ? (Did I understand you rightly? I'm just wondering....not being contentious but very curious.)
> 
> r.
Click to expand...


To be frank, I'm not trying to assert that I can prove postmillennialism solely from the writings of Paul. I can't show you with certainty where he teaches that the present evil age will cease, nor can you show me with certainty where he teaches that it will not. I could copy and paste the standard Pauline passages that are used to support postmillennialism, but as I am well aware, there are amill explanations for these. (And plausible ones, too, I might add. I enjoyed Riddlebarger's book on amillennialism, but do tend to lean toward the postmill side. :bigsmile: ) I do see the positions as being fairly close in many respects, which is why I think either can provide a neat explanation of passages like 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, Ephesians 1:9-10, Ephesians 1:15-23, Philippians 3:20-21, Colossians 2:15, etc. 

As I said, my main point is that persecution and present suffering are by no means out of line with postmillennialism nor are postmills trying to avoid these things. If anything, postmils are trying to give a narrative structure to suffering, to place it in the context of a plot that leads to a surprise victory. (This is part of the reason that you can't use history to refute postmillenialism. Of course postmills say that the future isn't going to be like the past. History isn't static; it has an underlying plot--not that I am denying amills the right to believe this, too.)

There may be grounds on which you can attack postmillennialism, but the implication that postmillennial theology is an attempt to deny the reality of a persecuted church is decidedly _not_ one of them.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Well, in relation to the King James comment...I was pointing to an awareness that each and every time in history where (any) government got the notion that it was imbued by God, things eventually went awry. (Why don't we want to learn from mistakes in history?)



You know, this is a cheap shot, but I have to ask.

_By what standard_ was King James a tyrant?

And what criterion are you using to state that these governments of the past "went awry"?

And I know you know this, Robin, but theonomy doesn't just mean that the government is imbued by God. It also (and far more importantly) means that the government is morally bound to submit to certain standards of justice. You seem to believe this, too, or else you would have no basis for saying that a government is "awry." I'm just curious as to what standards you're using to measure whether a government is doing what it ought to do or not.


----------



## JohnV

Robin:
If I may allowed some criticism of your observations:



> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> I've often wanted to ask "what IF" it IS God's plan for all Christians to suffer and die to demonstrate God's glory and triumph in the world? Are we OK with that concept? The apostle Paul seemed to expect his death -- being told in advance by Christ it was imminent. I wonder what Paul thought? I don't know that I would be OK with God declaring that in order to glorify Him, I'd be unjustly arrested and executed. Btw, I'm not OK with the idea of God ordaining my demise amongst evil mockers in order to glorify Him. I'd much rather be part of a physically glorious end. That way, my enemies would know I was right all along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The possibility of suffering for the gospel is something that all of us should be prepared for, but postmills are by no means attempting to escape this. Yes, they may see their present suffering as mitigated by the certainty of future victory, but postmills certainly do not count on living to see the triumph of the gospel and its manifestations in this world. It is felt that this hope gives meaning to persecution.
> 
> It's manifestly clear from reading Paul's epistles that he saw the tension between the "present evil age" and the triumph of the age to come, which had already begun to break into this age. His honest recognition that he still lived within an evil age does not, however, show that he believed that the present evil age would last for the duration of history.
Click to expand...


Of course misrepresenting the Postmil camp is not the answer to misrepresentations of the Amil camp. And it certainly does not solve anything. 

For at least part of your answer to my question, Robin, you seem to do the same thing in return as Bahnsen does. You oversimplify the other view, using terms that predetermine the outcome of your reasoning. So, though you may be right about Bahnsen, it does not answer him to reply in kind. 

Just a small critique of your critique. 




> _from Robin_Uncomfortable but worthwhile reflections, I think. (I think about the latter all the time....especially as our culture continues eroding.)



Yes indeed, worthwhile reflections. It may not be in our time that we see a glorious time for the gospel, for it may be that we ourselves face dire times. We are called, after all, to be faithful in times of stress; and we would think that this applies to us as much as to anyone. 

I see not only our culture eroding, but also the church. When I read the warnings in the letters to Timothy, I reflect upon how many of these things we see in the church today. I've been in church after church that seems bent on falling away, turning the pure preaching of the Word into either a mushy modernizing and relativizing moralism, or into propaganda for certain causes or views. Either way, the Word is replaced with other things that seem more important to the preachers or to the churches, more important than what God has deemed sufficient for us in His Word. They freely embellish on the confessional unity that the church is supposed to hold to. 

I don't see, for example, that having various views on the six-day creation is an advance at all, if preachers feel that they have some divine right to preach their views on matters that are not specifically found in the Bible, but are mere speculations based upon modern philosophical or scientific theories, somehow made to be reconciled to Scripture's wording, carefully crafted so as not to contravene the Confession of Faith, but not explicitly taught or recognized by the churches as specifically Biblical doctrine. I see this as a falling away, while there are many that are excited about these new ideas, as if these advance the gospel or our understanding of doctrine. 

I have seen people made to feel much less than welcome in church simply because they hold to the gospel and won't be moved by those new things that excite the vocal few who seem to hold sway. "Fundamentalist" and "Conservative" have become bad names attached to those who only want to stand fast, in much the same way that "puritanical" has become a bad name to call someone who wants to divide right from wrong. I've even seen the word "orthodox" used derogatorily by Calvinistic church people. Duhh-uh!!! Like, hello-oh!

These things are happening in our day. So it appears that believers can be in for a hard time. 

But I also see other things at play. I see a glorious victory for truth happening too. What some Presuppers have pointed out to us is the unflappable strength of simple truth. It makes a laughable mockery of the most erudite arguments against Christianity. While this is true, it does not make the Presup view right by itself. But very often they have jumped in where many of us who ought to have jumped in have feared to tread. Many, but not all. 

What some Postmils have shown us is that Amils are not being true to their own views if it causes them to be pessimistic about their eschatology. ( Though I disagree with Bahnsen's arguments, I think he would agree with me that it is a contradiction to hold any eschatological view and be pessimistic. The eschatological hope is not pessimistic by nature in any of the views; they are all eschatologically optimistic. The only pessimism referred to is that of world history yet to be, not of Christ's dominion. ) Some Postmils have rightly referred us back to that rulership of Christ as central to millennial views. But again, not all Amils are pessimistic about world history just because they see a great battle ahead between good and evil. 

All this, though, as many Postmils will tell you, does not diminish the Postmil view itself. But neither does it diminish the Amil view. 

And Theonomists have helped us a great deal in dealing with issues of law and morality in a time when Dispensational latitudinarianism was having a lot of influence even in Calvinistic churches. We were not addressing some the things that were being suggested between the lines of modern issues of discussion. I don't believe that they were giving us a well-balanced answer to the needs, but their reminder to us of the importance of the law was very valuable. But in the end, they are merely calling us back to the heart of Reformation theology, whether they know it or not. The law was to teach us to love, to be true in love and to love the truth. 

What I am saying is that it may well be that God has placed or allowed these things among us because we were not so diligent in the Word as we thought. We do need to be challenged to rise up to the things that confront us; and at the very least we can be thankful that these were brothers who called us to arms, and not enemies. 

What you are saying about the way arguments are being presented so as to force the outcome to a predetermined end is true. But as much as it may be true for men like Bahnsen, it must hold more true to those of us who perceive this error, but indulge in it ourselves. As I tell my children over and over, "If it was wrong for him to hit you, why then did you think it was right to hit back? Doesn't this make you even more wrong? You broke your own code of what you want others to do or not do to you!"

This is why I thought that the original criticism that you began this thread with was not very helpful. We don't really have to worry whether or not these views are right or wrong. What we need to be concerned with is applying the truths we find to our lived-out, daily walk of faith. And though it too often appears that the vocal proponents of these views like to argue their views in closed and narrow terminology, so as to trap us in our views, yet there is no doubt that we represent a vast majority who are wallowing more than striving, while they at least are living their views. We do live in a complacent age, even in our churches. If nothing else, they are at least waking us up to that reality. 

Let us not get caught up in a battle of the views, as if one must win and the other lose. Let's rather get caught up in both losing our errors and gaining the real truth. I hold to my views resolutely, but not so as to refuse the truth when it hits me between the eyes, or even when it taps me on the shoulder. It is for love of truth that I hold to my views, not that I hold truth for love of my views. 

I really don't care whether Presups win the day and the Classicalists lose. It really doesn't make any difference to me. I know that truth cannot lose. So though I may be defined as a pessimistic Amil, I hold a higher optimism for the victory of Christ's truth than Postmils who think they have to rule the eschatology department. And I may be regarded by some as a sinner for holding to the Classical apologetic, but I have a higher regard for sinlessness and purity in refusing to think that my limited understanding has some kind of authority by which I can judge others to be sinners where the Church itself does not dare to judge. And perhaps I don't know the law as well as others, but I know enough not to do others as I would not have them do to me. Arrogance and pride will answer for themselves; and being too bold will result on egg on the face eventually. I have confidence that God is right, and that He is teaching me through these various trials. I have to look for His teaching and leading, not to win the day for my limited and futile causes.


That's more than I had planned to say, Robin. I clearly draw a line in the sand, but I want to indentify with my fellow Christian brothers. I am in the same boat as they are, struggling to gain the victory in my own soul and mind over the heaviness of sin upon it. 

But I think they are doing more than just that. It is we who do not hold to these views that should be doing more.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> What some Postmils have shown us is that Amils are not being true to their own views if it causes them to be pessimistic about their eschatology. ( Though I disagree with Bahnsen's arguments, I think he would agree with me that it is a contradiction to hold any eschatological view and be pessimistic. The eschatological hope is not pessimistic by nature in any of the views; they are all eschatologically optimistic. The only pessimism referred to is that of world history yet to be, not of Christ's dominion. ) Some Postmils have rightly referred us back to that rulership of Christ as central to millennial views. But again, not all Amils are pessimistic about world history just because they see a great battle ahead between good and evil.
> 
> All this, though, as many Postmils will tell you, does not diminish the Postmil view itself. But neither does it diminish the Amil view.





I agree. The argument (or implication) that postmillennialism is correct because it is more optimistic or that amillennialism is wrong because it is supposedly "pessimistic" is a bad one. It has no relationship to the truth of either position. 



> _Originally posted by John V_
> Let us not get caught up in a battle of the views, as if one must win and the other lose. Let's rather get caught up in both losing our errors and gaining the real truth. I hold to my views resolutely, but not so as to refuse the truth when it hits me between the eyes, or even when it taps me on the shoulder. It is for love of truth that I hold to my views, not that I hold truth for love of my views.



I really appreciate your thoughts here.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Well, in relation to the King James comment...I was pointing to an awareness that each and every time in history where (any) government got the notion that it was imbued by God, things eventually went awry. (Why don't we want to learn from mistakes in history?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, this is a cheap shot, but I have to ask.
> 
> _By what standard_ was King James a tyrant?
> 
> And what criterion are you using to state that these governments of the past "went awry"?
> 
> And I know you know this, Robin, but theonomy doesn't just mean that the government is imbued by God. It also (and far more importantly) means that the government is morally bound to submit to certain standards of justice. You seem to believe this, too, or else you would have no basis for saying that a government is "awry." I'm just curious as to what standards you're using to measure whether a government is doing what it ought to do or not.
Click to expand...


Cheap-shot? No, way....it's a great question, Evie!! 

James did things in the name of Christ that were not Christian. My standard is a simple one. Whenever the government assumes the authority of God and imposes laws upon the people to live life and worship God contrary to the dictates of conscious....this is what I mean by "awry." Those governments that act in "the name of Christ" especially. (I think of Rome/Vatican; the Crusades....amd of course, there are governments that act in the name of Islam, etc.)

This question necessarily leads to the understanding of what the Bible means by "the Beast" in the book of Revelation...but, that's another thread.

r.

[Edited on 8-15-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Go to cmt.com and click on main artists; click on "M"; click on "Montgomery Gentry"; click on "more videos" click on "You do your thing."
> 
> 
> To answer your question to Evie,
> I, not all--Not even Bahnsen or Gentry--view this present evil age overlapping with the Age to Come (this is a subtle but still strong theme in Hebrews).



  Got it!

 This is because Jacob is very slowly becoming a Amillinarian (even though he's doing his own thing!)

(hands-over mouth) I know....you may whack me with the Nerf-bat now!

r.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> What some Postmils have shown us is that Amils are not being true to their own views if it causes them to be pessimistic about their eschatology. ( Though I disagree with Bahnsen's arguments, I think he would agree with me that it is a contradiction to hold any eschatological view and be pessimistic. The eschatological hope is not pessimistic by nature in any of the views; they are all eschatologically optimistic. The only pessimism referred to is that of world history yet to be, not of Christ's dominion. ) Some Postmils have rightly referred us back to that rulership of Christ as central to millennial views. But again, not all Amils are pessimistic about world history just because they see a great battle ahead between good and evil.
> 
> All this, though, as many Postmils will tell you, does not diminish the Postmil view itself. But neither does it diminish the Amil view.
> 
> The argument (or implication) that postmillennialism is correct because it is more optimistic or that amillennialism is wrong because it is supposedly "pessimistic" is a bad one. It has no relationship to the truth of either position.
> 
> Let us not get caught up in a battle of the views, as if one must win and the other lose. Let's rather get caught up in both losing our errors and gaining the real truth. I hold to my views resolutely, but not so as to refuse the truth when it hits me between the eyes, or even when it taps me on the shoulder. It is for love of truth that I hold to my views, not that I hold truth for love of my views.



     


Extremely well said, John! Bravo and 

It is an irony, though, that it was Bahnsen's straw-man expressions of Amillennialism that started the so-called "pessimistic" label. No use placing blame....we must live with both apathy, hostility, inappropriate zeal, i.e. we are yet struggling sinners. But there's even more trouble brewing (or ripening) where some say theonomy is leaning towards endangering the gospel. (gasp---I didn't say that....and it's for another post....but the point is: eschatology is important; theology is important and philosophy is NOT theology! Yes, philosophy is important...but frequently, it is used as though it is theology...and it definitely is not; but different....and the servant of theology, which is to be primary in the mind of the Christian.) Our beliefs direct our actions.

Btw, being pessimistic is not as bad as jeopardizing the Gospel. Dispensationalism puts the Gospel at risk; some say theonomy does as well. So careful thinking and rightly dividing the Word is required, as I think we would all agree!

r.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> To be frank, I'm not trying to assert that I can prove postmillennialism solely from the writings of Paul. I can't show you with certainty where he teaches that the present evil age will cease, nor can you show me with certainty where he teaches that it will not. I could copy and paste the standard Pauline passages that are used to support postmillennialism, but as I am well aware, there are amill explanations for these. (And plausible ones, too, I might add. I enjoyed Riddlebarger's book on amillennialism, but do tend to lean toward the postmill side. :bigsmile: ) I do see the positions as being fairly close in many respects, which is why I think either can provide a neat explanation of passages like 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, Ephesians 1:9-10, Ephesians 1:15-23, Philippians 3:20-21, Colossians 2:15, etc.
> 
> As I said, my main point is that persecution and present suffering are by no means out of line with postmillennialism nor are postmills trying to avoid these things. If anything, postmils are trying to give a narrative structure to suffering, to place it in the context of a plot that leads to a surprise victory. (This is part of the reason that you can't use history to refute postmillenialism. Of course postmills say that the future isn't going to be like the past. History isn't static; it has an underlying plot--not that I am denying amills the right to believe this, too.)
> 
> There may be grounds on which you can attack postmillennialism, but the implication that postmillennial theology is an attempt to deny the reality of a persecuted church is decidedly _not_ one of them.



Evie, 

First....no one is attacking postmillennialism. I'm not even attacking theonomy! It is not an attack to discuss differences in an effort to have better understanding. An attack shuts-down an exchange of ideas. 'Nuff-said....

About Paul...you are already noticing something interesting....Paul speaks of both suffering and is confident of salvation and victory while in the midst of evil and persecution. THIS is what it means to be Amillennial and Postmillennial! The two SHARE these traits. 

To read all of Paul's writings and simply allow him to speak, his eschatology "rises from the Text." Paul is not a millenarian. Some have labeled Paul's eschatological view as the "two age model" meaning he speaks of two distinct ideas: the present evil age" contrasted with the "age to come." These two categories help to discover the qualities of life in both ages.

Postmillennial and Amillennial also SHARE in the idea of what the millennium is. Yet, the main difference is *when* the millennial begins; what does it look like? What does victorious mean? Will culture be transformed aka civil magistrates enacting Biblical-styled laws, etc., so that Christ returns to a saved earth? Or does Christ intervene in an essential rescue from certain destruction? (Which is the Amill take.) Though Amill has some differences here, we are akin!

I hardly notice our differences...I don't think that my awareness of Scripture's warnings and admonitions to "watch" and "be shrewd" and "test the spirits" and "the great apostasy comes first"...Etc., makes me pessimistic. I've never ever imagined that there was some sort of limit to souls being saved (Gen. 15 "count the stars if you can") and am always eager to evangelize since God has promised to "save a number so great" it cannot be counted. I'm very optimistic and find the "pessimistic" label useless and inaccurate. There is apathy on both sides of the fence, btw. Frankly, I think pride has a lot to do with those who measure other's evangelism as a test of faithfulness.

FTR, I have no intention of "converting"postmillenarians! If the Gospel is not at stake, why do that? Unless of course somebody wants to make our President a postmillenialist that insists the people live life or worship contrary to conscious....well, then I'll have problems with that. I would have problems with any law-maker bent on depriving any religious freedom in this country. (gasp!)

(I can just hear the stake & fire being prepared on that note!  )

r.


----------



## Robin

PS. Evie.....you keep reading Paul!!!  Remember, his words are not just his words....they are the Holy Spirit speaking directly to us!

Sola Scriptura!

Robin


----------



## JohnV

Robin:

When you say that eschatology is important, or that eschatology drives theology, what do you mean? Are you talking about millennial views or eschatology in general? Are you saying that one's millennial view frames or forms one's theology? Or are you saying it is the catalyst into deeper theolgy? What exactly do you mean? I don't think I'll agree with it no matter what you mean, because I can't imagine a way that "your eschatology drives your theology" can be true, unless it means that it add zeal to it, nothing more.


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> FTR, I have no intention of "converting"postmillenarians! If the Gospel is not at stake, why do that? Unless of course somebody wants to make our President a postmillenialist that insists the people live life or worship contrary to conscious....well, then I'll have problems with that. I would have problems with any law-maker bent on depriving any religious freedom in this country. (gasp!)
> 
> (I can just hear the stake & fire being prepared on that note!  )
> 
> r.



No stakes and fire here...but just a couple of comments:
1. Your president comment...as everyone including non-theonomists have pointed out, if the pres. is a postmil type of guy - it doesn't necessitate him wanting to insist that people live their lives or worship contrary to conscious. I'm guessing that you meant legislating that they do by establishing a national religion. For what it's worth, Bahnsen was not an establishmentarian type of guy. Post-mil and theonomy are not logically related. 

2. So your legal theory is summed up as not legislating against one's conscious. So your normative civil ethic is tied to the existential? Using this logic is what has gotten us abortion on demand, p0rnography on demand, welfare states, etc. etc. etc. We don't need to legislate against homosexuality because it would go against the homosexual's conscious. Never mind if God says it is wrong and an abomination it should be legal. What about bestiality? Think I'm going overboard? In Seattle right now there are cases pending because a non-conscious ridden sicko thought he could make some money by offering his ranch as a animal prostitution center. People could pay money to perform acts of bestiality and have it videoed. People were outraged but guess what? No laws against it in Seattle. There are in 37 other states. I actually listened to radio call in show with people defending it on libertarian grounds. Hey, doesn't hurt others and we don't want to legislate against their conscious. Check out the stories here and here
This is the same logic that now allows sodomy to be legal in Texas.

3. I would have problems with any law-maker bent on depriving any religious freedom in this country. (gasp!)

I'm sure that makes Satanists happy that want their virgin sacrifices. Secularism has been defined as a religion as well. Can't outlaw abortion now. They should be free to offer child sacrifices to the altars of choice.

Leave Bahnsen and theonomy out of it. This last statement goes against the majority of the reformers, puritans, and reformed confessions on the civil magistrate. Calvin was all for the magistrate enforcing the first table of the law. I would rather have Calvin's Geneva or the early New England colonies here than what we have now. 

And for the record, Bahnsen et.al. did not advocate a top-down approach but appealed to reformation and revival in the churches and a recovering of the gospel and evangelization so that people would embrace His law. But from what I read here, even if revival broke out, the modern day government would not be reformed because we do not want to have the civil law reflect Biblical law.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> I'm sure that makes Satanists happy that want their virgin sacrifices. Secularism has been defined as a religion as well. Can't outlaw abortion now. They should be free to offer child sacrifices to the altars of choice.
> 
> Leave Bahnsen and theonomy out of it. This last statement goes against the majority of the reformers, puritans, and reformed confessions on the civil magistrate. Calvin was all for the magistrate enforcing the first table of the law. I would rather have Calvin's Geneva or the early New England colonies here than what we have now.
> 
> And for the record, Bahnsen et.al. did not advocate a top-down approach but appealed to reformation and revival in the churches and a recovering of the gospel and evangelization so that people would embrace His law. But from what I read here, even if revival broke out, the modern day government would not be reformed because we do not want to have the civil law reflect Biblical law.



That is why pluralism is, philosophically speaking, a very bad joke. Robin, law is inescapable. You cannot avoid it. Every legislative decision you make has moral implications or is procedural to a moral concept. 

Scenario (Tales from Reformia, part 1)
Background: The Neo Cons have sided with Hillary Clinton's Commie Nazis and the Southern and Western States, already having experienced a massive revival, have seceeded and formed their own semi-independent commonwealths. They are functionally independent from the statists, but not practically so. Therefore, a tyrannical law would have technical legal force, but no one would enforce it.

One of the laws at the time is the sacrificing of virgins to the Lord High State. 

Characters in the story:
*Billy Wallace*, an agrarian freedom fighter who nearly lost his life in the Great Betrayal of '08 (a time when Neo Conservatives betrayed their Christian constituency and joined the Christ-hating liberals). He has been rallying the clans for the resistance movement; of third generation scottish descent.

<insert beautiful local girl who will marry Wallace/>

*Auto Crat*
He believes, consistently, that since there is no Law above the law, man's law is absolute and legally binding. He is the sworn enemy of Billy Wallace.

*Auto Nomy*, Auto Crat's secondhand man, commander of the Death Troop Guards--a Gestapo like police force operating on the principle that Man's law is absolute.

<more characters to be added later/>

Time and place: Appalachian Mts, 2012.

Wallace is about to be married to a local villager and the whole parish is rejoicing. Sure, there is the danger of Death-Coat Guards approaching, but the locals walk around armed to the teeth. Furthermore, the terrain provided a natural defense.

Parson: We are gathered here together...

(troops approach)

Auto Nomy: We claim the right to this girl's virginity, to be celebrated in the yearly festival. Now, hand her over!

Billy Wallace: The h*** you do!

Auto Nomy: Now, now, play nice. You know that as a Christian you have to obey the law of the land. Now, hand her over!

Wallace: There is a higher law than man's law, and that is what I obey.

Nomy: You are not playing nice. I have read some "principled pluralists" within the Reformed faith and they say that I have to be obeyed no matter what.

Wallace: Yeah, and I have read John Knox and Samuel Davies, and they say your life is forfeit.

Nomy: My law says you have to obey me!

Wallace: My 12-gauge says otherwise.

Nomy: Guards! Arrest him!
(The Death Troop Guards approach; In the meanwhile Wallace had positioned Redneck Snipers in certain trees and rock ledges, waiting for Wallace's signal).

_Wallace then unloads both barrels into Auto Nomy. His Redneck Sniper Corps responds by cutting down Nomy's Death Troop Guard. Wallace draws to six-shooters from his belt and runs to his fiancee's side, protecting her with pistol fire. He then escorts her, along with some of his finest men, to a secret grove where she will be protected. He then heads back to the village square to finish off they tyrants._

It is either God's Law or Tyranny
God's Law or Chaos
God's Law or judgment.


----------



## crhoades

That's not fair!!! I'm not from Scottish decent and I want to follow Billy

You go with your narratival self!

[Edited on 8-15-2005 by crhoades]


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> That's not fair!!! I'm not from Scottish decent and I want to follow Billy
> 
> You go with your narratival self!
> 
> [Edited on 8-15-2005 by crhoades]



My great-grandfather was from St. Andrews. I am the hero of my own story. 

Samuel Davies exhorts,
""When [our enemies] would enslave the freeborn mind and compel us meanly to cringe to usurpation and arbitrary power; . . . what is then the will of God? Must peace then be maintained? Maintained at the expense of property, liberty, life, and everything dear and valuable? . . . No; in such a time even the God of Peace proclaims by His providence, "To arms!" Then the sword is, as it were, consecrated to God; and the art of war becomes a part of our religion."


----------



## rgrove

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> First....no one is attacking postmillennialism. I'm not even attacking theonomy!


The way this conversation started out it certainly appeared that way. 



> Some would say Theonomy is "heresy"...but I'm not ready to do that, *yet*. I think it's one alternative, not quite fitting the plain reading of Scripture.


I'm not a reconstructionist, but I certainly read this statement with the *yet* as being pretty bold, if not an assertion that this should be evaluated as potential heresy. I'm sure the reconstructionists here cringed when they saw this and immediately got more aggressive than they otherwise might have. You seem surprised at the friction generated here and I would point to this statement as the potential reason. Not using the "H" word, and not leaving it open that you might still consider it heresy in the future, would have helped.

Yours In Christ,
Ron


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by rgrove_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> First....no one is attacking postmillennialism. I'm not even attacking theonomy!
> 
> 
> 
> The way this conversation started out it certainly appeared that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some would say Theonomy is "heresy"...but I'm not ready to do that, *yet*. I think it's one alternative, not quite fitting the plain reading of Scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a reconstructionist, but I certainly read this statement with the *yet* as being pretty bold, if not an assertion that this should be evaluated as potential heresy. I'm sure the reconstructionists here cringed when they saw this and immediately got more aggressive than they otherwise might have. You seem surprised at the friction generated here and I would point to this statement as the potential reason. Not using the "H" word, and not leaving it open that you might still consider it heresy in the future, would have helped.
> 
> Yours In Christ,
> Ron
Click to expand...


Don't forget this post (it made me cringe) - 



> It is an irony, though, that it was Bahnsen's straw-man expressions of Amillennialism that started the so-called "pessimistic" label. No use placing blame....we must live with both apathy, hostility, inappropriate zeal, i.e. we are yet struggling sinners. But there's even more trouble brewing (or ripening) where some say theonomy is leaning towards endangering the gospel. (gasp---I didn't say that....and it's for another post....but the point is: eschatology is important; theology is important and philosophy is NOT theology! Yes, philosophy is important...but frequently, it is used as though it is theology...and it definitely is not; but different....and the servant of theology, which is to be primary in the mind of the Christian.) Our beliefs direct our actions.
> 
> Btw, being pessimistic is not as bad as jeopardizing the Gospel. Dispensationalism puts the Gospel at risk; some say theonomy does as well. So careful thinking and rightly dividing the Word is required, as I think we would all agree!



and it was followed by:


> First....no one is attacking postmillennialism. I'm not even attacking theonomy! It is not an attack to discuss differences in an effort to have better understanding. An attack shuts-down an exchange of ideas. 'Nuff-said....


I agree with both Robin and Paul - this thread needs to be shut-down. I think this exchange is giving off more heat than light. More than one person who are not theonomic on this thread has at least defended theonomy etc. against wrong assertions. 

This forum has allowed for multiple theonomy discussions before. In fact the most replied to thread on the board is Theonomy: What is it? with 280 posts. Threads on theonomy, EP, baptism, etc. cannot go that far unless everyone is being respectful of the topics, each other and try to stay within context. 

It was posted earlier:



> At the end of the day, is impatience or anger a sign that our theology is in line with God's Word? I mean, the fruit of the Spirit is peace, isn't it?



And I agree. So for peace, I'm bowing out on this one. I've tried to be patient and not get upset but I'm starting to drift that way a bit. Personally I don't enjoy having mentioned that wanting a just government is _endangering the gospel, putting the gospel at risk, or is heretical (possibly)_

[Edited on 8-15-2005 by crhoades]


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> And I agree. So for peace, I'm bowing out on this one. I've tried to be patient and not get upset but I'm starting to drift that way a bit. Personally I don't enjoy having mentioned that wanting a just government is _endangering the gospel, putting the gospel at risk, or is heretical (possibly)_
> 
> [Edited on 8-15-2005 by crhoades]



But you have to admit, my story was pretty cool? Sorry for not including you. You will be in the next addition.



> Personally I don't enjoy having mentioned that wanting a just government is endangering the gospel, putting the gospel at risk, or is heretical (possibly)



heretic 

[Edited on 8--15-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> And I agree. So for peace, I'm bowing out on this one. I've tried to be patient and not get upset but I'm starting to drift that way a bit. Personally I don't enjoy having mentioned that wanting a just government is _endangering the gospel, putting the gospel at risk, or is heretical (possibly)_
> 
> [Edited on 8-15-2005 by crhoades]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you have to admit, my story was pretty cool? Sorry for not including you. You will be in the next addition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I don't enjoy having mentioned that wanting a just government is endangering the gospel, putting the gospel at risk, or is heretical (possibly)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> heretic
> 
> [Edited on 8--15-05 by Draught Horse]
Click to expand...


That was weird...started to reply to your post and between that time and now I see you calling me heretic! I might be a harry tick but come on! 

Your story was pretty cool but Randall Wallace and Mel Gibson called - They want their script back!

And quit trying to suck me back into the thread!

[Edited on 8-15-2005 by crhoades]


----------



## Puritanhead

I have a friend who says he is postmil but a futurist? This makes no sense too me... Is he mixed up? Or am I?


----------



## rgrove

Puritanhead, there are futurist postmills. The preterist futurist debate is separate from the nature of the mix of believers/unbelievers in the new covenant. A postmill can be idealist, futurist, historicist or preterist regarding their reading of the book of Revelation. Many look at Matt 24 and see dual fulfillments or the like and believe it's "full" fulfillment is in the future. The historicist view was very popular in the 19th century and earlier. Not as much today.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Robin:
> 
> When you say that eschatology is important, or that eschatology drives theology, what do you mean? Are you talking about millennial views or eschatology in general? Are you saying that one's millennial view frames or forms one's theology? Or are you saying it is the catalyst into deeper theology? What exactly do you mean? I don't think I'll agree with it no matter what you mean, because I can't imagine a way that "your eschatology drives your theology" can be true, unless it means that it add zeal to it, nothing more.



First, John, please forgive...I didn't mean to ignore your former post/criticisms. Honest! (For now, back-burner millennial ideas for a time, OK? Start here...)

I'm pointing to the awareness of the Bible being eschatalogical in its teaching. I point to sweeping themes, expressed in an epic story, spanning history and real people. There are E comments everywhere throughout ....Genesis 3:15 is one, for example. The announcement of the Christ (in type/shadow.) Imagine...Adam and Eve thought this declaration referred to their own firstborn son. Eve's declaration (Gen. 4:1) at the birth of Cain: "..."With the help of the LORD I have brought forth The Man" --- meaning her eschat view was her child was The Messiah (foretold in 3:15.) Of course, time revealed that Cain was the first anti-Christ (type/shadow.) But Eve's expectations were recorded (who knows how she did when the horrid event of Abel's murder occurred?) There's lots to this John..but simply, the subject notices the relationship of what the characters in the Bible thought of God's progressive self-revelations (in real life); what they did in light of their understanding; and applying this observance to our understanding (exegesis) and actions.

The Bible records God's declarations and self-revelations within human history. God at certain times and in certain ways, "breaks-into" history, for He is outside of it.

Ex. 24--40 Why does God impose his religious system this way? The covenant is re-confirmed; a building; garments; furniture priests; animals to be killed; blood, guts, prayers...why these? Every single detail was commanded by God -- down to thread colors; art designs, Etc. What is the overall meaning of it? God was "breaking-into" history to dwell among His people. (A Holy Dwelling place...which is what Eden was...which has a necessary tie-in to Jesus-1st Advent; the church age; Jesus 2nd Advent and in Glory.)

Striving to understand what God was doing in all the OT practices interelated to the "big picture" (NT and beyond)is what eschatology includes...not just last things...or the Second Coming. There is so much more to eschatology than the Second coming. !!!!

The theological thinking used in understanding (for example) Exodus has great impact on our present Faith and life....??? One way or the other. Indifference will inform a Christian mind as powerfully as interest will. 

Another example is Jesus got on Niccodemus' case for his poor eschatology...a Pharisee utterly missing the prophecy in Ezekiel 37---Jesus criptic explanation to him covers Ezekiel 36-37. Awesome!

(I hope I'm making sense....stake & fire time?)





r.





[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I have a friend who says he is postmil but a futurist? This makes no sense too me... Is he mixed up? Or am I?



Ryan,

I am learning that anyone can say they are anything....but only knowing them, learning their worldview, etc., can actually reveal what is going on in their thinking. 

It could be that your friend is holding to strands of ideas, mixing them and/or is not fully self-conscious of convictions....perhaps, not even holding a conviction? It would depend.....

Dialogging after reading a book like Professor Riddlebarger "A Case for Amillennialism" or perhaps begin with "Basic Eschatological Views" by M. Erickson? Something broad to help clarify categories.



r.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by rgrove_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> First....no one is attacking postmillennialism. I'm not even attacking theonomy!
> 
> 
> 
> The way this conversation started out it certainly appeared that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some would say Theonomy is "heresy"...but I'm not ready to do that, *yet*. I think it's one alternative, not quite fitting the plain reading of Scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a reconstructionist, but I certainly read this statement with the *yet* as being pretty bold, if not an assertion that this should be evaluated as potential heresy. I'm sure the reconstructionists here cringed when they saw this and immediately got more aggressive than they otherwise might have. You seem surprised at the friction generated here and I would point to this statement as the potential reason. Not using the "H" word, and not leaving it open that you might still consider it heresy in the future, would have helped.
> 
> Yours In Christ,
> Ron
Click to expand...


Ron,

please don't project onto my statement something I have not said nor demonstrated in the context of all my posts, OK? That's easy to do for all of us....

YET means I am open-minded; thoughtful (I hope); careful (I hope, God help me) and above all DEVOTED to The Truth.

That is all.

Robin


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

It is still bad form to begin an argument in such a way, Robin. There is no need to drop the H-bomb, or imply that it could be possibly dropped in the future, especially over something like Theonomy.


----------



## rgrove

You may not have meant it, but that's certainly how I read it. We all need to be careful in our statements, especially when using the term heresy. If you don't feel you said anything offending, fine, I'm not your conscience. You were acting surprised at the reactions of some and as I read through the posts it was clear to me why. I was merely trying to point out why this was the case. I have nothing to add to the discussion as I don't holdthe views being discussed, just an interested third party who has tremendous respect for the views of reconstructionists and who has profited enormously from their works.

Yours In Christ,
Ron


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Robin_
> FTR, I have no intention of "converting"postmillenarians! If the Gospel is not at stake, why do that? Unless of course somebody wants to make our President a postmillenialist that insists the people live life or worship contrary to conscious....well, then I'll have problems with that. I would have problems with any law-maker bent on depriving any religious freedom in this country. (gasp!)
> 
> r.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing that you meant legislating that they do by establishing a national religion. For what it's worth, Bahnsen was not an establishmentarian type of guy. Post-mil and theonomy are not logically related.
> 
> 2. So your legal theory is summed up as not legislating against one's conscious.
> .
Click to expand...


Hey Chris,

Oops!! Of course I want civil law to reflect the Ten Commandments. I think they can be, and even implemented by an unbelieving law-maker. Of course we should strive to restrain evil via the civil magistrate. This is the connection between God's primary and secondary causes.

(No discourtesy in editing your post)...all I meant by the religious freedom comment was exactly THAT. Restate it and substitute any eschatalogical view (Preterist; Amill; Dispie) attach it to a Christian president -- that would still make me quite nervous. Why? We're all sinners...and for other different reasons based on Scripture. My heart's desire is to maintain freedom in this country for the Christian religion - I believe that can be done with a president of any religious view - since God has written His Law in the hearts of all men. But recall, Christianity is not a culture...so I struggle to trust God. There must be a separation...though I hate false religions, as a student of the Apostle Paul, I'm more concerned about the Gospel's proclamation. I will trust Christ for the rest of it. So far, I know I get to vote and do other things that can help preserve civil order in culture. I really do believe what Paul said (during the reign of Nero) which was: 

Romans 13:1
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For *there is no authority* instituted by except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

r. 

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Robin]


----------



## RamistThomist

Are there any limits to Caesar's power? Say it differently, who rules the rulers of this world? 

A few more tough questions: 
My love of the Reformed faith teaches me to love and protect my family; we will use fiancee/wife/lady of interest in this case. (I am single, btw, so this is a hypothetical situation). See my Tales from Reformia, part one

The state has instituted a form of prima nocta (see Braveheart the movie--although I don't think that ever happened in real life). Well, what do you do? Does one let his lady friend be treated like a whore for a night? Or does one see a Law above the law?

Moderators: You need to close this thread. It is getting very embarrassing. _Reductio ad absurdums _ have been launched from all sides against the statist position with devastating effeciency. They will not be answered. This is no longer funny.

[Edited on 8--16-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Robin:
> 
> When you say that eschatology is important, or that eschatology drives theology, what do you mean? Are you talking about millennial views or eschatology in general? Are you saying that one's millennial view frames or forms one's theology? Or are you saying it is the catalyst into deeper theology? What exactly do you mean? I don't think I'll agree with it no matter what you mean, because I can't imagine a way that "your eschatology drives your theology" can be true, unless it means that it add zeal to it, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, John, please forgive...I didn't mean to ignore your former post/criticisms. Honest! (For now, back-burner millennial ideas for a time, OK? Start here...)
> 
> I'm pointing to the awareness of the Bible being eschatalogical in its teaching. I point to sweeping themes, expressed in an epic story, spanning history and real people. There are E comments everywhere throughout ....Genesis 3:15 is one, for example. The announcement of the Christ (in type/shadow.) Imagine...Adam and Eve thought this declaration referred to their own firstborn son. Eve's declaration (Gen. 4:1) at the birth of Cain: "..."With the help of the LORD I have brought forth The Man" --- meaning her eschat view was her child was The Messiah (foretold in 3:15.) Of course, time revealed that Cain was the first anti-Christ (type/shadow.) But Eve's expectations were recorded (who knows how she did when the horrid event of Abel's murder occurred?) There's lots to this John..but simply, the subject notices the relationship of what the characters in the Bible thought of God's progressive self-revelations (in real life); what they did in light of their understanding; and applying this observance to our understanding (exegesis) and actions.
> 
> The Bible records God's declarations and self-revelations within human history. God at certain times and in certain ways, "breaks-into" history, for He is outside of it.
> 
> Ex. 24--40 Why does God impose his religious system this way? The covenant is re-confirmed; a building; garments; furniture priests; animals to be killed; blood, guts, prayers...why these? Every single detail was commanded by God -- down to thread colors; art designs, Etc. What is the overall meaning of it? God was "breaking-into" history to dwell among His people. (A Holy Dwelling place...which is what Eden was...which has a necessary tie-in to Jesus-1st Advent; the church age; Jesus 2nd Advent and in Glory.)
> 
> Striving to understand what God was doing in all the OT practices interelated to the "big picture" (NT and beyond)is what eschatology includes...not just last things...or the Second Coming. There is so much more to eschatology than the Second coming. !!!!
> 
> The theological thinking used in understanding (for example) Exodus has great impact on our present Faith and life....??? One way or the other. Indifference will inform a Christian mind as powerfully as interest will.
> 
> Another example is Jesus got on Niccodemus' case for his poor eschatology...a Pharisee utterly missing the prophecy in Ezekiel 37---Jesus criptic explanation to him covers Ezekiel 36-37. Awesome!
> 
> (I hope I'm making sense....stake & fire time?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> r.
Click to expand...


Robin:
That does not answer the question. The view one has of the millennium is hardly the whole of eschatology. It is not even a major part. Whatever is believed about the thousand years falls under the firm conviction that Christ will return as He was lifted up, to judge the living and the dead. His victory is assured, and is already completed at the cross and the grave. How that will exactly play out in history is of minor consequence to us, only that we are certain and confident of our Saviour's present power and rulership for our good, to turn to our profit whatever ills befall us, and also over all the earth for all time until He returns. Whatever time frame is involved is not our business, other than it is briefly mentioned in The Aoocalypse. 

There is a lot of eschatological expection without any direct reference to the thousand years. So what's the big deal here with what particular millennial views one holds to? How does that "drive" theology? As far as the main eschatological beliefs are concerned, we hold them in common. In other words, we differ on minor points. So where is the danger?

I too see danger, but it more, as I said, in the practice of some, not directly in their persuasions of certain methodologies. Mostly, I see great danger in that many do not find it very important to protect the preaching of the Word; they get more distraught over the teachings being taught than the blatant abuse of the pulpit and the office to teach views which have not received sanction from the denomination. I don't mean permission to hold certain views, but authoritative declarations that those views are the very Word of God, a great deal more than just permissible views. It is one thing for a minister to hold to a millennial view, it is quite another to preach it as God's Word. 

It is not the view, you see, it is the licence people take with it. That is the fault. I fully support and uphold everyone's right to hold to either the premillennial or postmillennial view, and that does not in the slightest mitigate against my own view toward amillennialism. Our theology, I will assume, remains the same and common to each of us. If I cannot take that for granted, then what we really have is different religions, not just different views on the millennium.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> Oops!! Of course I want civil law to reflect the Ten Commandments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and civil _peneology_ should reflect, what, precisely?
Click to expand...


natural law, what else?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> Oops!! Of course I want civil law to reflect the Ten Commandments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and civil _peneology_ should reflect, what, precisely?
Click to expand...


Complete, abitrary, subjectivity.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Are there any limits to Caesar's power? Say it differently, who rules the rulers of this world?
> 
> A few more tough questions:
> My love of the Reformed faith teaches me to love and protect my family; we will use fiancee/wife/lady of interest in this case. (I am single, btw, so this is a hypothetical situation). See my Tales from Reformia, part one
> 
> The state has instituted a form of prima nocta (see Braveheart the movie--although I don't think that ever happened in real life). Well, what do you do? Does one let his lady friend be treated like a whore for a night? Or does one see a Law above the law?
> 
> Moderators: You need to close this thread. It is getting very embarrassing. _Reductio ad absurdums _ have been launched from all sides against the statist position with devastating efficiency. They will not be answered. This is no longer funny.
> 
> [Edited on 8--16-05 by Draught Horse]



Jacob...your point is sensible as it reveals a righteous demeanor towards family and general goodness. How the Christian works-out their faith will always be uncomfortable and challenging. God help us all to obey Scripture and depend on Christ.

I hope I'm understanding you, too....you ask "are there limits to Ceasar's power; or who rules the rulers of the world?" Of course there are limits; God limits all the powers of evil in the present evil age. Even the worst tyrant --- who appears as though he is "winning"....the Lord Reigns Supreme and grants breath to evildoers to curse His name! Like it or not, we are dust to serve God as He wills....even boastful, powerful, oppressors DO serve God's purpose while they enact their own iniquities.

"Though you slay me, yet will I trust Thee" ---Job

(I thought you were "done" long ago, an' doin' yer own thang? btw? ) 

Anyway...I would want to defend Scripture. Yes, horridly unjust laws imposed upon men throughout history are to be grieved and countered in the light of Holy Scripture and according to Christ's authority via the authority of the Apostle's teaching. 

Let us walk circumspect and recall history and the church's dark hours...remember the Anabaptists? (talk about cringe....) May we first handle the Word of God with reverence and awe - then, show mercy, compassion and patience...holding-dear the whole counsel of God and all of the Apostle's teachings including:

Philippians 2:1-4 Paul to the Church @ Philippi
Imitating Christ's Humility 
If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being *like-minded*, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus....

Brothers....I think it meaningful to exchange ideas and explore the reasons why we believe the things we do - thinking God's thoughts after Him, in a fashion. In so doing, (at least in my mind) I hope I've approached uncomfortable ideas with Phil. 2 at heart. Of course, I fail miserably. But, thanks be to Christ, alone....Who covers even that.

I wish thank everyone who graciously brought forth their ideas, in Christian love; and endured with patience, tough questions, remarks and different ideas than their own. 

In Christ, 

Robin


----------



## RamistThomist

To quote he who shall not be mentioned,

When is punishment criminal? Follow this out logically, "No longer do men die for crimes committed against a holy God, but now for offenses committed against the arbitrary will of the State." No longer is their any reason for civil disobedience. If the natural law/positive law theory stands then there is no longer a reason to say "we must obey God rather than men."


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> I wish thank everyone who graciously brought forth their ideas, in Christian love; and endured with patience, tough questions, remarks and different ideas than their own.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> Robin



How can you do that by calling the opposing position "almost heresy"? Honest question, not trying to start a fight.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> Oops!! Of course I want civil law to reflect the Ten Commandments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and civil _peneology_ should reflect, what, precisely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> natural law, what else?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes! yes! Looking at the starry heavens I too came away with the conclusion that rape should be punnished by 12.75 years. But then I was let down when my friend, looking at the same starry heavens, said that it should be 10.86 years. What are we to do???
Click to expand...


Duh. Get a calculator and figure out the middle of those two figures.



(It's 11.805 years, by the way)


----------



## RamistThomist

moderators: have mercy! Please!


----------



## Peter

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> Oops!! Of course I want civil law to reflect the Ten Commandments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and civil _peneology_ should reflect, what, precisely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> natural law, what else?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes! yes! Looking at the starry heavens I too came away with the conclusion that rape should be punnished by 12.75 years. But then I was let down when my friend, looking at the same starry heavens, said that it should be 10.86 years. What are we to do???
Click to expand...


Failure to grasp natural law is one thing I dislike about "theonomy" Ro 2:14,15.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> Oops!! Of course I want civil law to reflect the Ten Commandments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and civil _peneology_ should reflect, what, precisely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> natural law, what else?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes! yes! Looking at the starry heavens I too came away with the conclusion that rape should be punnished by 12.75 years. But then I was let down when my friend, looking at the same starry heavens, said that it should be 10.86 years. What are we to do???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Failure to grasp natural law is one thing I dislike about "theonomy" Ro 2:14,15.
Click to expand...


So answer the question, how many years is rape punished by?

Even assuming that laws of nature (whatever they are) and the laws of the Bible are the same, would not your determinative presupposition be that of Scripture?

In other words,
How is rape to be punished?
Laws of nature by definition cannot specify that. You would then turn to the bible.

[Edited on 8--16-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## Peter

If I studied jurisprudence I might be able to answer the question using natural law, fortunately I have a clearer revelation so I don't need to:

Deut 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

The point is the content of natural law = biblical law, its 2 different ways to arrive at the same thing.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> If I studied jurisprudence I might be able to answer the question using natural law, fortunately I have a clearer revelation so I don't need to:
> 
> Deut 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
> 
> The point is the content of natural law = biblical law, its 2 different ways to arrive at the same thing.



while not full-orbed theonomy, that is an improvement over most natural law theories. Most natural law theorists would not agree with your definition, though.


----------



## Peter

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Peter_
> If I studied jurisprudence I might be able to answer the question using natural law, fortunately I have a clearer revelation so I don't need to:
> 
> Deut 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
> 
> The point is the content of natural law = biblical law, its 2 different ways to arrive at the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> while not full-orbed theonomy, that is an improvement over most natural law theories. Most natural law theorists would not agree with your definition, though.
Click to expand...

'

I think most Christians before the 20th century would though.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Peter_
> If I studied jurisprudence I might be able to answer the question using natural law, fortunately I have a clearer revelation so I don't need to:
> 
> Deut 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
> 
> The point is the content of natural law = biblical law, its 2 different ways to arrive at the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> while not full-orbed theonomy, that is an improvement over most natural law theories. Most natural law theorists would not agree with your definition, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> '
> 
> I think most Christians before the 20th century would though.
Click to expand...


Not Thomistic Christians


----------



## Peter

I wanted to bring to light that the reformers and conservative protestantism could freely talk about what both the light of nature requires and what the light of Scripture requires.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> I wanted to bring to light that the reformers and conservative protestantism could freely talk about what both the light of nature requires and what the light of Scripture requires.



Perhaps. I am aware of statements from Calvin et al where they do indeed suggest that. Of course, I maintain they are cheating (they are seeing stuff in nature that they already presupposed from the bible).

They never quite broke from the influence of the heavenly doctor and thus never fully reformed in the socio-political realm.


----------



## Peter

how generous of you Jacob 

Paul:


> What the heck was that?!?!? Did someone cite sources to go along with the assertions?!?!? I think this may be a first for the thread(!), moderators may now leave it open since we brought back some scholarly-ish flare to the thread.





[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Peter]


----------



## Robin

For reference, here's an excerpt of a long article explaining the history of Reformed Eschatology....note how eschatology ties-in with covenant and sovreignty, Etc.

(it's long...so refer to the link:
http://www.rsglh.org/reformation.and.the.last.things.htm#REformedEscatologyReformation

Reformed Eschatology
(Amillennial) Since the Reformation by Rev. Charles Terpstra.....

....Reformed writers holding to Amill, to mention a select few: Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920); Herman Bavinck (1854-1921; The Last Things: Hope for This World and the Next, 1996. This is part of an English translation of his Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 1895-1901); Albertus Pieters (The Lamb, The Woman, and the Dragon, 1937); Louis Berkhof (Systematic Theology, 1941); William Hendriksen (More Than Conquerors, 1939; The Bible on the Life Hereafter, 1959); Herman Hoeksema (Reformed Dogmatics, 1966; Behold He Cometh, 1969); Anthony Hoekema (The Bible and the Future, 1979). Among Presbyterians we may note Robert L. Dabney (Lectures in Systematic Theology, 1878), Geerhardus Vos (Pauline Eschatology, 1930), William C. Robinson (Christ the Hope of Glory, 1945), George Murray (Millennial Studies, A Search for Truth, 1948), Jay Adams (The Time Is At Hand, 1966), and William E. Cox (Amillennialism Today, 1966). While there are variations in the details of the amillennial position set forth by these men, all held to and advanced the basics of the historic amillennial position of the church. 

But to move on, we ought to note in what areas amillennial teaching has developed since the Reformation. What are some of the distinctive elements of Reformed eschatology? In the first place, we may mention its emphasis on the sovereignty of God. Being one of the cardinal tenets of Reformed theology, God's absolute sovereignty has also been an inseparable part of her doctrine of the last things. The doctrine is applied to eschatology in several ways. For one thing, the sovereignty of God is applied to the very idea of the end of all things. Reformed amillennialism teaches that if all things have their beginning in God (and they do, for He is the sovereign Creator of all things!), then they also have their end in Him. God is the Source of all things and He is the Goal of all things. This means that all things, including the end of the world, have their meaning and purpose in God. From this comes the idea of the consummation of all things, that God is leading all things to a "wrapping up," a "bringing together," indeed to a climax of His sovereign purpose, which is His own glory through the full redemption (glorification) of His elect church and the renewal of His entire creation in Jesus Christ. Thus, Reformed eschatology ties the end of all things to the sovereign, eternal counsel of God (predestination) and to His almighty providence in time and history. H. Hoeksema writes, for example, in his Reformed Dogmatics: 

...The consummation of all things presupposes a willing and decreeing God, Who is before all things, and Who made all things according to His own counsel unto a definite end and purpose, and Who by that counsel controls and guides all things unto the end He has in mind. Without the presupposition of this counsel of a personal God the world can have no purpose and no destination unto which it was called into being. And without an all-ruling providence, according to which God controls all things according to His good pleasure, there cannot possibly be any definite line or stability in the development of all things, and there is no guarantee that they will attain to the purpose unto which they were called into being (Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1966, p. 737).

Reformed eschatology also stresses the sovereignty of God in connection with the powers of darkness that rise up against the Lord and seek to frustrate His purpose with all things, especially in the end. Rejecting the dualism taught by paganism and by much of the church-world, the Reformed faith holds that God is absolutely sovereign also over all the evil in the world. He is Lord of Satan and his hosts, Lord of the ungodly nations and peoples, Lord of all sin and darkness, Lord of Antichrist and all his forces. Being Lord over them, He uses them for the accomplishing of His own purpose. All the rantings and ragings of the beast against God and His people only serve to fulfill His will. It is right here that Reformed eschatology provides the believer with great comfort and peace as he lives in these last days. Nothing and no one can possibly overthrow his God and thwart His purposes! His cause is and will be triumphant! And, therefore, every elect child of God will reach the goal of his salvation. 

In the second place, we may mention that Reformed eschatology is covenantal in focus. Covenant theology has always been an important part of the Reformed faith. So too the doctrine of the covenant has been brought to bear upon the doctrine of the last things in Reformed amillennialism. The eternal purpose of God concerning all things is viewed in connection with God's eternal covenant of grace with His people in Christ, a covenant that embraces all of creation too. Christ, the Head of the church and creation and the Mediator of the covenant, is at the center of God's eternal purpose with all things. All that God has done in the past, is doing in the world now, and will do yet in the future is for the realizing of His covenant plan in Christ. The end (goal) to which all things are leading is the realization of God's gracious covenant of redemption in Christ. When the end comes in the return of Christ, God's covenant will be complete. ......


----------



## JohnV

Robin:

That article tells us how one view of the millennium fits in with the rest of theology. It does not show me how eschatology ( by which you seem to mean one's millennial view ) drives ( by which you seem to mean "is the force behind" ) theology. 

Don't get me wrong, Robin. You've hit on a few things that I think can be taken futher, but you've shrouded it in a lot of unnecessary verbiage. And it seems to me that that was your beef with other views in the first place.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Robin:
> 
> That article tells us how one view of the millennium fits in with the rest of theology. It does not show me how eschatology ( by which you seem to mean one's millennial view ) drives ( by which you seem to mean "is the force behind" ) theology.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, Robin. You've hit on a few things that I think can be taken further, but you've shrouded it in a lot of unnecessary verbiage. And it seems to me that that was your beef with other views in the first place.
> 
> [Edited on 8-16-2005 by JohnV]



Please excuse any misunderstandings, John. My former comment about eschatology "driving" theology has to do with just that. (Not singling-out millennarianism.) The word "millennial" is mentioned ONE time in the Bible. Does sound-theology build an entire doctrine around one word? (Though the article is relevant, John, it's probably the cart before the horse?)

I don't know that I have a "beef" as much as I yearn for deeper knowledge of Christ, covenant and the kingdom. These are the themes of the Bible that matter (I think.) Eschatology connects with all of them, indeed "drives" them, in a sense....because characters noted in the Bible DO things based upon their eschatology.

What was Jesus' eschatology? Are some of Jesus' sayings meant in a "spiritual" sense? An eschatological sense? (new thread?)

John 12:27-34
"*NOW* my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!" 

Then a voice came from heaven, "I *have* glorified it, and *will* glorify it again." The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him. 

Carefully, notice Jesus addresses the crowd and assures THEM:
Jesus said, "This voice was for your benefit, not mine. *Now is the time for judgment on this world* *now* the prince of this world will be driven out. But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die. 

What does Christ mean: Now...is the time of judgment? Does he mean right then, in the event of his crucifixtion? And note the eschatology of the crowd:



> The crowd spoke up, "We have heard from the Law that the Christ will remain forever, so how can you say, "The Son of Man must be lifted up"? Who is this Son of Man?"



A worthwhile question: what was the eschatology of the crowd (Jews?)



r.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Myshkin

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Of course, I maintain they are cheating (they are seeing stuff in nature that they already presupposed from the bible).



Jacob-
Can we know nothing about anything until we learn about it from the bible first? Do we know anything at all about anything in the world without having to read our bibles? If so, what?

Paul-
I am guessing that your example of a classicist looking at the stars to determine the punishment for rape was hyperbole? If not, would you please cite an example of where classicists/natural law advocates actually say things like this?


----------



## Myshkin

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I never mentioned a "classicist?" So, likewise, can you quote me where I referred to a "classicist?" Anyway, "Thomist" is better than "classicist."
> 
> Anyway, I'd need to have "natural law" defined in order to progress, since it's been used so many different ways, and none of the definitions seem cogent to me. As Hume said "I would reply that our answer to this question (about natural law) depends upon the definition of nature, than which there is none more ambiguous an equivocal."
> 
> Anyway, the biggest presupposition is w/respects to our reason. I do not hold Aquinas' optimism: Rational creatures are subject to divine Providence in a very special way; being themselves made participators in Providence itself, in that they control their own actions and the actions of others. So they have a certain share in divine reason itself, deriving therefrom a natural inclination to such acytion and ends are as fitting. This participation in the Eternal Law by rational creatures is called natureal law. (ST, 1a, 2ae, quae. 91art. 1,2)
> 
> A natural inclination Thomis!? Sorry, man is naturally inclined to hate God and they have "vain reasoning" with "foolish hearts" and follwo a "knowledge falsely so-called."
> 
> Anyway, I don't have a clue what you mean and how you derive, say, the punishment for rape from "nature" (whatever that is)?



Thanks Paul. When I referred to a "classicist" I was referring to those who hold to natural law (as opposed to those who hold to biblical law exclusively-i.e. Presupps.) You did not use the word, but the content is still implied. If you prefer Thomist thats fine. But back to my question please....

I am not seeking a debate, (as you know I take the classical approach), I simply just wanted the same mercy by you presupps. that keep calling for it in regards to requesting the moderators to shut down this thread due to the straw men being presented towards your view. I just wanted clarification as to whether your example was an intentional exaggeration of what those who hold to a natural law position espouse, or if you were serious. And if you were serious, I only wanted you to cite an example of those who approach natural law this way (the stars giving us a standard of punishment for rape), because I am willing to learn if such people exist.


----------



## JohnV

As an aside, I once stayed up all night sitting in my lawn chair outside by the fire. I wanted see for myself that the earth revolved around the sun, the mood around the earth, and that the earth was round. All this just by looking at the stars. I said, "OK, prove it."

I had the advantage that I already knew the theories that men like Copernicus worked hard to wrap their minds around. 

It took awhile, but it came to me as I watched, speculated on different ideas, ruled out certain notions, etc. It came to me as the night wore on. But I didn't stop there. I also dabbled into possible connections between God's laws of nature, reflecting His deity and power, and God's moral laws, which also reflect he deity and power. His moral laws reflect more than that, but here the reflections overlap, I speculated. This took a lot longer, but I found that there is a connection. Just as I had the advantage of knowing the theories of a heliocentric/solar system model of our world, so I also had the advantage of knowing the Maker of the world through the Sciptures when I pondered the designs in the nature He created. 

It was something I had wanted to do for a long time, just stay up all night and look at the stars and try to make sense of a lot of things; looking at our world from a bigger, wider perspective. I came prepared with the knowledge of the sun's and the moon's path, the arc of the stars' movements around Polaris, etc. And I went from only things I could confirm personally. In other words, I did not just believe the theories, I tried them to see if they fit the facts. 

I would recommend this, if you have some free night, and time to be awake through the entire evening, from dusk to dawn. Just look, and see the ralationship of things as they move. You'll see more than you expected. I even saw a Russian satelite explode. Remember that, back in the early Nineties? Well I saw it. Not that same night, but after, as I kept looking at the skies as I had opportunity after that.


----------



## JohnV

Robin:

Of course the expectations of the future are ever present. But it is usual that the immediate needs are forefront in the hopes of people. I'd like to get out of a financial mess, let's say for example. Would I like to win a lottery? Would I like the have my ship come in? Would I like to have things go my way, just as I had planned, and for the plans to prosper, even go beyond expectations? Sure I would like to have things work out for my benefit, and prosperously too ( though I won't go to a lottery. ) So I'm looking ahead towards an end. But it is the present need that "drives" it. See what I mean? It isn't always the end, but the present with an end in mind. And in theology mostly we're talking about an ever-present, an unending "now". 

But to go on. You should be aware that there are different kinds of Theonomy. I too have had dealings with some who are Theonomist/Presuppositionalist/Postmillennialist. They have told me flat out that I sin every time I pray the Lord's prayer for no other reason than that I am an Amillennialist. They are not only insistent upon their consciences' choices of non-authoritative views, they don't even elevate them merely to the level of precepts, but go much further and equate them with God's doctrine. And therefore they think they have the right to declare me a sinner for no other fault than that I am an Amillennialist. 

But this does not mean that all Theonomists, nor all Theonomist/Presuppositionalist/Postmillennialist people, elevate their views to such an unseemly and unrealistic level. Most know that these are matters of personal conscience, not even precepts of men much less doctrines of God. We have spent a great deal of time discussing this very issue, that non-Theonomists also believe in the authoritative law of God, its normativity of human behaviour, and its application in our time. And this Board maintains, while still allowing free expression of views within the standard that a discussion board must allow, a level of mutual respect and trust. So if we expect such respect from our brothers in whatever views they hold to, within the confines of the standards of this Board, then we must certainly expect that that respect goes both ways. If we don't want our Classical or Evidential methodology lumped with those in our modern age are merely trying make hay while the sun shines on the speaking circuits, then we ought also, and especially so since we ourselves have that expectation, to do so to others. 

It is not inherently evil to hold to either a theonomic view, a presuppositional view, or a postmillennial view. These are matters of personal conscience, and if we expect freedom from others we should also give it to others. Stepping on anothers conscience, however, without authority to do so, is where some people go wrong in the holding of their views. And no view is exempt from such overuses or narrowmindedness just because it may be right. 

So don't go pasting the sins of others on people who may be innocent of them, or whom you do not know to be in those sins. A person is not in sin because he holds a view, but because he rebels against God through that opinion. Otherwise we would all be damned; none of us holds a perfect theology or set of opinions, since we are all learning yet. And if others are slamming us, simply by association, it still is no reason for returning kind for kind.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Robin:
> 
> Of course the expectations of the future are ever present. ..So I'm looking ahead towards an end. But it is the present need that "drives" it. ... It isn't always the end, but the present with an end in mind. And in theology mostly we're talking about an ever-present, an unending "now".
> 
> ..... You should be aware that there are different kinds of Theonomy. Not all Theonomist/Presuppositionalist/Postmillennialist people, elevate their views to such an unseemly and unrealistic level.



Hey, John, my brother...your first statement is true; but I'd add that eschatology is inseparable from theology and "flies under the radar of our perceptions." With a hearty  to the second point.

However, your other comments caused me to ponder and reflect a bit more and wonder if my words were not understood? (my fault?)Scripture condemns lying and unrighteous-judging (mind-reading.) I don't see how any of my posts err in this. I've said what I believe as honestly as I can. (I'm not quarreling about the following ideas I noticed in the points following



> A person is not in sin because he holds to a view, but because he rebels against God



What is the difference? Arminius held to a view and taught it (I'm sure, with good intent) Heck, the FV guys are doing this while we speak...as they're focused upon godly behavior.



> don't go pasting the sins of others on people who may be innocent



Is this being done by noting connections between three intellectual components? How was my first post disrespectful? (Is your remark presupposing the intentions of my heart?)



> stepping on another's conscience, without authority....is where some people go wrong in holding their views.



Hmmm, so different ideas are not to be discussed? I thought this board enjoys freedom to express ideas? Is it true freedom? Are Amillennarians being marginalized? Doesn't your statement cut both ways? After-all, I began by sharing my thoughts on a matter...

I never said Theonomy was heresy; I'm hesitant to call it "heresy" strictly speaking, but it is a serious error. (To which I already said I would not quarrel.)

It is right to connect eschatology to world-views. They are inseparable. (for another thread?)

Recently, a WSC-scholar said to me:



> "Not all theonomists are postmil, but most are. If one holds an amil view, theonomy is less attractive. We're not (I hope ) looking for a means to "transform" the world. Those ardent Kuyperians who talk in those terms are, in my view, crypto-postmils. Transformationalism is inherently postmil. Kuyper was quite inconsistent in this regard.
> 
> Theonomy strictly considered describes an approach to the civil law. Reconstructionism describes an approach to the culture more broadly.
> It's not out yet, but I have an essay on it forthcoming in the new IVP Dictionary of Apologetics. I'm sure the theonomist/reconstructionist types won't like it!"




I'm wondering will the entry in the new IVP Dictionary of Apologetics be inconsiderate? Should I wait until publication, then come back and speak my mind on the subject. (?) Will that be OK?

Finally, I also asked him about Abraham's sinful use of Sarah as he lied and gave her to Pharaoh while yet knowing God's Law and covenant. (Jacob's Braveheart reference got me to thinking...) What was Abraham's eschatology - did he take actions that reflected it at the time? He answered:



> "I think your point about Abraham is spot on. Paul looks to him as a model. We live in two worlds and in-between the advents. The postmils (and premils in certain respects) can't stand the tension so they resolve it."



As I pondered it seemed to me that though Abraham succumbed to cowardice, buying into Egypt's prima nocta, as it were, Paul yet refers to him as our model of faith! (I'm still wondering about this.)

John, I'm sure this will set things off, even more...I don't wish to quarrel...but I do think eschatology impacts our daily life powerfully as we struggle to *either* lean towards resolving the tension Scripture places in our hearts: (the already and not yet) *or* obeying Christ and bearing that tension, trusting Him alone, under trial and sojourn in the desert.

I hoped that this thread would draw attention to this last point.

Corum Deo,

Robin

[Edited on 8-18-2005 by Robin]


----------



## RamistThomist

> Theonomy strictly considered describes an approach to the civil law. Reconstructionism describes an approach to the culture more broadly.
> Theonomy strictly considered describes an approach to the civil law. Reconstructionism describes an approach to the culture more broadly. It's not out yet, but I have an essay on it forthcoming in the new IVP Dictionary of Apologetics. I'm sure the theonomist/reconstructionist types won't like it!"



I wonder if he will analyze the arguments with quotations from Theonomy in Christian Ethics and/or the opening chapters of Bahnsen's Van Til Reader?????????????????????? If he doesn't I will assume, epistemologically speaking, he doesn't understand the issues.



> We're not (I hope ) looking for a means to "transform" the world.



So, the redemptive benefits of Christ only apply to "the saving of souls," "my own personal Lord and Saviour," etc.? That's gnosticism. That is a dichotomy between, ultimately, secular and sacred and is better representative of humanism and Roman Catholicism. Wait a minute, that explains the natural law insistence.

Btw, his analysis of Kuyper I would agree with most.



> Jacob's Braveheart reference got me to thinking...)



The argument laid out in my story is virtually indestructible,

[Edited on 8--17-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## JohnV

> A person is not in sin because he holds to a view, but because he rebels against God
> 
> 
> 
> What is the difference? Arminius held to a view and taught it (I'm sure, with good intent) Heck, the FV guys are doing this while we speak...as they're focused upon godly behavior.
Click to expand...


Robin:
Please be patient with me, as I try to be more precise. Your reply above does not reflect the intent of what I was saying.

When I was considering joining the OPC they gave me an introductory information pamphlet. It told me that the OPC allowed for three different millennial views; in order from most to least held: Amil, Premil, and Postmil, as I recall. They said that all three were welcome in the OPC. That means that they could not possibly rule any one of them as necessarily laid upon anyone. In fact, it was not even necessary to hold to any millennial view. It was a matter of personal conscience, not just which view one held to, but whether one wanted to hold any one of them at all. 

If it is a matter of conscience, and the denomination has studied them and ruled them as all within and acceptable to the guideline of the WCF, then she is saying that any one of the three is faithful, though not necessarily proven to be true. 

The danger in this instance does not lie with any one view; the denomination has ruled so. So the danger lies in the use of it. And that is as I described to you above, where some raised the level of the issue from conscience to doctrine, judging others solely for holding a view the denomination has allowed them to hold. In other words the problem lies not with the millennial view itself, but with those who hold it wrongly, namely, not as a matter of conscience but as a matter of doctrine. They completely misunderstand what the millennial views are, and go far beyond the limits inherent to such things. 

A Postmil, in this case, did that to me. But it could just as easily have been the other way around. I could have judged him for holding to the Postmil view, because I might believe that Postmils judge others' millennial views as being sinful as part of their Postmil stance. Well that is not part of the Postmil stance, but part of the habit of some who are Postmil or Amil or Premil. I could just as easily have been violating their right to conscience as they were violating mine. 

My response to him was not to take away his right to conscientiously hold the Postmil position, but to try to convince him that he needed to hold it conscientiously, not recklessly as he was doing. 

The information pamphlet also stated that three major apologetic methodologies also received approval from the denomination as free to the conscience. It is not inherent to any apologetic methodology to arrogate more to itself than is seemly, for that is self-defeating to apologetics as a whole. So, again, the danger is not in the methodology itself, but in those who claim to know more than they actually know, who abuse what they claim to believe in, and go much further than mere conscience by positing their views as dogmatically in position in the church to judge others for their views. 

That is not what they were allowed. They were allowed to hold to their position conscientiously, but also they were confined to allowing others to hold to their position conscientiously. The denomination, again, does not demand that any of the three views be held to, much less that one is more authoritative than another. In other words, the right to hold any of the three has prior right to arguments in favour of any of them, and adherents are to keep themselves confined to that liberty of others which the church grants. 

If you are a careful reader you will notice that, though some claim mutual exclusivity of the views, there is no real evidence for it. One can hold to a combination of them and still be within them. Even Bahnsen does so, when he makes claim to evidentialism, the right way. 

The fault, then, does not come inherently from any one of the views, but from the weaknesses of those who argue the views. They sometimes go far beyond their own limits. But anyone holding any one of the views can do that. It is also a fault, then, to accuse the view itself as inherently wrong just because some abuse it. That is often done, and too easily so, in response to these abuses. But either one of these is not what the denomination sanctioned when it allowed the liberty to hold these views. 

So in critique of these views we have to carefully disentangle the abuses from the views themselves. That means that we have almost to be experts on the views if we are critiquing the arguments of those who abuse it. We have to be able to discern that Mr. So-and-So is not staying true to his view if he is making an error not inherent to that view. It is not very smart to paste that personal error all over that entire view, not even if many make that same error. If it is not inherent to that view then we would be making the very same mistake if we then condemn the view itself for the mistakes that are made by those who do not stay true to the tenets or limits of their views. 

If the denomination allows the liberty to hold these three views, not necessitating any one of them, then the danger is in not allowing others to their views while we take great liberties with our own. The danger is in making more of it than it is. An apologetic methodology is, after all, just a methodology. So the danger is not in the methodology itself, but in the overuse or extra liberties one takes with any one of them. And saying that this danger is inherent in the view itself is misrepresenting that view; it is also wrong. One needs to be able to discern. 

Now when I spoke above of good intent, I was speaking particularly of the three views under question. But even an NPP proponent can at first have good intentions. I'm sure they don't go out first thing in the morning and think to themselves what they can do today to undermine the Reformed faith. Not purposely. No, I believe they are carried away with their own pursuits sometimes. It may be that many have held to such views, only never thought it important enough to make proclamation about it. But the fault lies, first off, not in the fact that they hold aberrant views, but that they avoid disciplining their own thoughts by sidestepping the usual avenues for such things. Instead of taking the long time it takes to legitimately allow truth to have its way, they begin to stand on their liberties and views to judge others by it, or they begin on their own initiative to proclaim it on par with the gospel when they have received no such authority to do so. Their own conscience is to be a guide to themselves but not to others; not even if they are ministers of professors. 

They need clear sanction from Scripture in order to go over the head of the church, and they do not have that. That is their primary fault. This has nothing to do with NPP of FV itself. You won't find within those views an inherent right to judge others. Instead you will find men who arrogate more to themselves than is right, and stand on the pulpit in the place of Christ and proclaim what no one has authorized. It may be that a Presbytery has ruled that such a view does not violate the WCF, but that is still a long way from saying that Christ has commissioned men to preach it. So the fault lies in the blatant abuse of the pulpit, not in the view itself. And that is not done with good intentions at all. 

Before the denomination rules upon an opinion that is current one is free under liberty of conscience to hold to it. But that implies the strictures of maintaining unity and submission in the church. The question that they automatically raise, by doing as they are doing in that they refuse that unity and submission for the reason that they think their views are more important, is whether their view is doctrine and not a matter of liberty of conscience . In other words, they are themselves doing that which they complain of already before any complaint is raised, and they themselves make it an issue of discipline. By sidestepping the authority and unity of the church they are breaking covenant with the church, the promises they made when they took vows to the church, all the while claiming to stand on that very liberty within that unity, that very freedom that comes from submission. That has nothing to do with the views themselves. They could have ben allowed the liberty of their views, but they made it an issue of doctrine. Therefore there are many who are trying to deal with it in that way, such as those raising concerns on this Board.


----------



## RamistThomist

John.

This thread needs to be shut down. Even critics of theonomy are defending theonomists from libelous charges.

(Also, given the very bad definitions at the outset, theonomists are overrunning the field of battle with a vengeance. I originally said I wasn't going to debate this, but when I saw some of the arguments being made, I thought, "this is just too good to pass up.")

Ralph,
No, I was saying that natural law theorists (however you define it) exalt human reason to the point where it is not effected by sin (See the quote by Aquinas). Yes, we can know things not in the Bible (certain mathematical theorems, etc), but that is quite different from saying we don't need God's revelation in areas where he has most clealy given it. In fact, those mathematical theorems, while not in the Bible per se, most be interpreted as facts that have been pre-interpreted by God.

In other words, we can't look at the stars with unfallen human reason and unaided by divine revelation and develop a fair and just penal system. Now, if we had not sinned in Adam, that might be a different story.

Robin,



> We're not (I hope ) looking for a means to "transform" the world. Those ardent Kuyperians who talk in those terms are, in my view, crypto-postmils.



That inspired my next installment of "Tales from Reformia." Do you remember the scene in Braveheart where Robert de Bruce wants to charge into battle against the tyrannical Anglish (scottish accent implied)? His father cautions him against it twice in the movie. The last time he actually advises Bruce to betray the rising Scottish movement.

So, the implication for today is...

[Edited on 8--18-05 by Draught Horse]

[Edited on 8--18-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## JohnV

Jacob;

I am not defending Theonomists. I am defending liberty of conscience. 

I am glad that this thread has not been shut down yet. Personally so, because it has allowed me to address my concerns to both sides of the issue. I am not just addressing these things to Robin. I have been accused of being in sin for no other offense than that I held to either Amillennialism or not to exclusive Presuppositionalism. I have also been called an antinomian because I did not declare myself to be a Theonomist. But I have tried to keep a level head and to not respond in kind. It is that "kind" that bothers me, not which views they hold to. And that is what I was addressing. 

In other words, Jacob, though I am defending Theonomists against libelous charges, that does not negate the fact that libelous charges have also been laid against me by Theonomists. It is wrong for both sides to do that, not just one side. Not even a just cause justifies the means taken for it if the means taken is wrong. 

For me to defend my faith and integrity, I need also to defend your faith and integrity where there is no fault in you. 

Bad definitions at the outset does not justify vengence from the Theonomists either. If Theonomists don't want vengence taken out on them through bad definitions, then they need to be sure that they themselves are above reproach in that same area. I respect your efforts to do so, and appreciate your respect for mine in return. If we are going to work out these differences, then we must take on a mutual concern for each other, as well as respect the fact that God has given some gifts to others that we may not yet see the value of ouselves. 

Though I think Robin has made an error in judgment to a degree, please remember that that same error has been employed so as to have been worn out by use in our time. What I say above is that even entire denominations are making that very same error. And if leaders are doing it openly and freely, why do we climb all over people like Robin, when he has not been granted the example in us and in our denominations to avoid that error. Remember, he was being given the impetus for this from an educator in the field. And it is with that that I first claimed the error lay, since it was not helpful nor fair to make such a judgment. And I have outlined that error very carefully, with both sides in mind so as not to transgress our mutual liberties. But I am addressing all sides who have made that error. 

Like it or not, I have to admit people who have views in common with me make assertions that I find fault with. So I agree with you if you too find fault with those errors, even if we do not have my views in common. So lets be together on that. We can still differ on our views with both love and respect, and still address the errors of those who have misrepresented what we stand for, and stand together. I am not afraid to do that. I don't think my views are at stake because Presuppositionalists find fault with Evidentialists who assert too much for the evidences. I agree with that assessment. But I do not see that hurting my own evidential leanings. No, it supports these leanings. 

Why can't we throw that chip off our shoulders and just discuss the truth as submissively as we truly ought to be to what is higher than any of us?

[Edited on 8-18-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## RamistThomist

> Why can't we throw that chip off our shoulders and just discuss the truth as submissively as we truly ought to be to what is higher than any of us?



Because she started out with definitions that:

1)Begged the question against theonomists
2)Begged the question against presuppositionalists
3)Begged the question against postmillennialists
4)Begged the question against postmillennialists who are not theonomists (Johh Jefferson Davis, Virginia Huguenot)
5)Begged the question against presuppositionalists who are neither postmillennial nor theonomic (John Frame, Richard Gaffin)

Furthermore, theonomy has been equated with "almost heresy" while she can't even properly define my position.


----------



## Romans922

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't we throw that chip off our shoulders and just discuss the truth as submissively as we truly ought to be to what is higher than any of us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because she started out with definitions that:
> 
> 1)Begged the question against theonomists
> 2)Begged the question against presuppositionalists
> 3)Begged the question against postmillennialists
> 4)Begged the question against postmillennialists who are not theonomists (Johh Jefferson Davis, Virginia Huguenot)
> 5)Begged the question against presuppositionalists who are neither postmillennial nor theonomic (John Frame, Richard Gaffin)
> 
> Furthermore, theonomy has been equated with "almost heresy" while she can't even properly define my position.
Click to expand...


Almost heresy? Why not just say it is?


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't we throw that chip off our shoulders and just discuss the truth as submissively as we truly ought to be to what is higher than any of us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because she started out with definitions that:
> 
> 1)Begged the question against theonomists
> 2)Begged the question against presuppositionalists
> 3)Begged the question against postmillennialists
> 4)Begged the question against postmillennialists who are not theonomists (Johh Jefferson Davis, Virginia Huguenot)
> 5)Begged the question against presuppositionalists who are neither postmillennial nor theonomic (John Frame, Richard Gaffin)
> 
> Furthermore, theonomy has been equated with "almost heresy" while she can't even properly define my position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Almost heresy? Why not just say it is?
Click to expand...


Because that would demand a detailed analysis (which includes quotes/summaries from key, primary sources) from the detractors, along with a working definition of heresy--both of which the detractors have been unable to do.


----------



## Romans922

This is true.


----------



## RamistThomist

You might have missed the earlier part of the debate. She had equated theonomists with "practically" denying the gospel, et al. We called her out on this and she recanted, kind of.


----------



## crhoades

JohnV,

Your last two posts were probably the most lucid and profound I've seen you make. I know those thoughts have been in your heart for some time and I know you have wrestled through being able to vocalize them as such. They show a maturity that only comes with wrestling not only with issues but also wrestling with God and self. Having met and supped with you in person I have a better feel for your heart in these matters and there are probably some minor (perhaps some not so minor) differences doctrinally but you have definitely exhibited to me and taught me through your posts (especially these last two) what it means to disagree in Christian love and seek to give the other person the charity in understanding. Thank you. 

My personal opinion...I would implore people to close this thread. again. everybody take a break.


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't we throw that chip off our shoulders and just discuss the truth as submissively as we truly ought to be to what is higher than any of us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because she started out with definitions that:
> 
> 1)Begged the question against theonomists
> 2)Begged the question against presuppositionalists
> 3)Begged the question against postmillennialists
> 4)Begged the question against postmillennialists who are not theonomists (Johh Jefferson Davis, Virginia Huguenot)
> 5)Begged the question against presuppositionalists who are neither postmillennial nor theonomic (John Frame, Richard Gaffin)
> 
> Furthermore, theonomy has been equated with "almost heresy" while she can't even properly define my position.
Click to expand...


Don't worry, if you're standing by the truth then you will be able to stand up to the most able scholar in the field, because it is the truth. No one can knock that down. So what can such petty things do to you, if it is so beneath you, so childish, so petty? Why can't you shrug it off as such? Why do you take this as a personal attack instead of seeing the need in the person and addressing that? Even if it is an attack, why take it so? It can't do you any harm. Not if you are holding your views with intergrity and wisdom. But it can help the person if you handle it with discretion.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

At least we can all agree that we love God's Law, being Reformed. Well, I hope so.


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> At least we can all agree that we love God's Law, being Reformed. Well, I hope so.



 At this point, I would be happy emphasizing that and leaving what separates alone for a bit.


----------



## JohnV

Chris:

All I'm trying to do is fix the way this is addressed, that's all. If we're going to talk about theonomy, then I am with you and Jacob and any other Theonimists in wanting to stay away from ad hominems and name-calling. Lets just be honest with one another, deal with topics, and not feel offended so quickly. Its just as wrong for me as it is for anyone else.

So, OK, let's let it rest. Let's all think about it for awhile before we jump into it again.


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Chris:
> 
> All I'm trying to do is fix the way this is addressed, that's all. If we're going to talk about theonomy, then I am with you and Jacob and any other Theonimists in wanting to stay away from ad hominems and name-calling. Lets just be honest with one another, deal with topics, and not feel offended so quickly. Its just as wrong for me as it is for anyone else.
> 
> So, OK, let's let it rest. Let's all think about it for awhile before we jump into it again.



Ditto again...I apologize for not breaking my thread into two. The last little bit about pausing was in no way directed to you or anyone in particular. Sorry for any misunderstanding.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't we throw that chip off our shoulders and just discuss the truth as submissively as we truly ought to be to what is higher than any of us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because she started out with definitions that:
> 
> 1)Begged the question against theonomists
> 2)Begged the question against presuppositionalists
> 3)Begged the question against postmillennialists
> 4)Begged the question against postmillennialists who are not theonomists (Johh Jefferson Davis, Virginia Huguenot)
> 5)Begged the question against presuppositionalists who are neither postmillennial nor theonomic (John Frame, Richard Gaffin)
> 
> Furthermore, theonomy has been equated with "almost heresy" while she can't even properly define my position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't worry, if you're standing by the truth then you will be able to stand up to the most able scholar in the field, because it is the truth. No one can knock that down. So what can such petty things do to you, if it is so beneath you, so childish, so petty? Why can't you shrug it off as such? Why do you take this as a personal attack instead of seeing the need in the person and addressing that? Even if it is an attack, why take it so? It can't do you any harm. Not if you are holding your views with intergrity and wisdom. But it can help the person if you handle it with discretion.
Click to expand...



I am making a fuss of it for her sake. If my position is "almost heresy" then there better be very good arguments showing that I am holding a position worthy of the inhabitants of hell. We have seen no such arguments as of yet from her. Yeah, I can shrug it off. I am not worried that her arguments are even going to touch the theonomic thesis. Now, somebody like Andrew might give me a run for my money.


----------



## Romans922

Theonomic thesis? It will be hard to do that, since almost all theonomists have a different thesis. Most today however are just takes off of Bahnsen, North, and the gang. All who are great arguers, have great style, but are far from Truth. Young people love these guys!


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> Theonomic thesis? It will be hard to do that, since almost all theonomists have a different thesis. Most today however are just takes off of Bahnsen, North, and the gang. All who are great arguers, have great style, but are far from Truth. Young people love these guys!



I meant for the person saying we are "almost heretics" to take Bahnsen's argument in Theonomy in Christian Ethics; analyze the key statements, and show why they logically commit their holders to hell (remember, it just as well would be heresy).

[Edited on 8--18-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## Romans922

Ah, I was just making a general statement (I am sure I am done now).


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> Ah, I was just making a general statement (I am sure I am done now).



I know. It wasn't directed at you. The moderators need to close this thread.


----------



## Romans922

lol, I would probably agree with that statement.


----------



## RamistThomist

While this thread should be closed already, I will continue to bury it while it is open.



> Not all theonomists are postmil, but most are. If one holds an amil view, theonomy is less attractive. We're not (I hope ) looking for a means to "transform" the world. Those ardent Kuyperians who talk in those terms are, in my view, crypto-postmils. Transformationalism is inherently postmil. Kuyper was quite inconsistent in this regard.



Why not joyfully adopt with Dr Cornelius Van Til "Pro Rege" as our slogan (Bahnsen, CVT: R&A, 20)? Why truncate our worldview between sacred & secular, leaving some things outside of the redemptive value of Christ? Why not carry our worldview into the secular arena, like Greg Bahnsen, and do battle against Satan's army? Van Til again: "The Biblical summum bonum reuires the absolute destruction of sin and evil in the individual and in the society....We have the further obligation to destroy the consequences of sin in this world as far as we can" (_The Defense of the Faith_, quoted in CVT, 21).

Yes, let us save souls but let us not stop there! Let us affirm with the Lord Jesus that Satan's kingdom will be destroyed, the strong man's house plundered, and Christ's people taking the field of battle. "Accoding to the teaching of Scripture, in all that happens in the world of men and things Christ is establishing his kingdom as he destroys the kingdom of Satan...This is called man's "cultural mandate"" (Protestant Doctrine of Scripture, 103).

When asked of the limits of Christ's lordship, Van Til heroically responds, "There is not a square inch of a space where, not a minute of time when, the believer in Christ can withdraw from the responsibility of being a soldier of the cross...Satan must be driven from the field and Christ must rule (_Christianity in Conflict_, 1:ii).

Or we can say with Bill Gaither, that great theologue, that "if you ask me how I know he lives, he lives (and rules) within my heart."


----------

