# Rehoboam, Asa, and Sodomy



## Backwoods Presbyterian

*1 Kings 14:21-24*



> And Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the Lord did choose out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there. And his mother's name was Naamah an Ammonitess. And Judah did evil in the sight of the Lord, and they provoked him to jealousy with their sins which they had committed, above all that their fathers had done. For they also built them high places, and images, and groves, on every high hill, and under every green tree. And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel.



vs.

*1 Kings 15:9-12*



> And in the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel reigned Asa over Judah. And forty and one years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom. And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, as did David his father. And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.


----------



## SolaScriptura

I'm not understanding... What's your point?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Do I need to "have a point"? I was just struck in my general regular reading of the juxtaposition of these two passages and thought I would share it.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Ok, I thought there was a point. Because the version you've cited makes it seem like the passage is simply saying there were homosexuals in the land, whereas the Hebrew clearly refers to male cult prostitutes - homosexuality included (but they also "supported" females in their "worship") but distinctly religious in nature.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Sometimes a ham sandwich is just a ham sandwich.


----------



## Miss Marple

I wonder how the sodomites were "put out."

Should we "put out" sodomites similarly in the USA? Or just the church?

How would we define "sodomite?"

These are the questions I have.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Gill says this:

------

*And he took away the Sodomites out of the land
*Which were in the times of Rehoboam, (1 Kings 14:24) , and continued in his father's reign; those he took away, either by driving them out of the land, or by putting them to death according to the law of God, (Leviticus 20:13) even as many of them as he had knowledge of, for some remained, see (1 Kings 22:46) ,

------

According to the Gospel, today they would be put out of the church. Theonomists would put them out of the world.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

SolaScriptura said:


> Ok, I thought there was a point. Because the version you've cited makes it seem like the passage is simply saying there were homosexuals in the land, whereas the Hebrew clearly refers to male cult prostitutes - homosexuality included (but they also "supported" females in their "worship") but distinctly religious in nature.



I read the KJV for personal devotion time, so I quoted what I read. Still not sure what the bugaboo is all about.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I understand your point, sexual deviance in any form should not be tolerated by the church


----------



## Pergamum

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Gill says this:
> 
> ------
> 
> *And he took away the Sodomites out of the land
> *Which were in the times of Rehoboam, (1 Kings 14:24) , and continued in his father's reign; those he took away, either by driving them out of the land, or by putting them to death according to the law of God, (Leviticus 20:13) even as many of them as he had knowledge of, for some remained, see (1 Kings 22:46) ,
> 
> ------
> 
> According to the Gospel, today they would be put out of the church. Theonomists would put them out of the world.








> According to the Gospel, today they would be put out of the church. Theonomists would put them out of the world.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Bill The Baptist said:


> I understand your point, sexual deviance in any form should not be tolerated by the church



While true, that was not the motivation behind the post, in fact there was no motive or "point", ulterior or otherwise, behind the posting of these two sets of verses. I just thought the juxtaposition of these two sets of verses was interesting and I shared it with the board. Like I said everything doesn't have to have some kind of "agenda" behind it.

Sometimes it just is what it is and that's that. Not sure why the original responder was seeking a motivation for the posting in the first place.


----------



## Edward

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Not sure why the original responder was seeking a motivation for the posting in the first place.



The use of 'versus' suggested that you were identifying a contrast or conflict between the two posted verses and looking for discussion on that.


----------



## Peairtach

Clearly those who practise or promote sodomy should face church sanctions in the modern day Israel, the Church. 

Re the state, these things should be illegal as they once were in Christian countries, and as incest, paedophilia, beastialism and polygamy are still illegal in Britain and the US.

Christian or secular states are not bound to the Mosaic penalties of death, or ransom in lieu of death, as the death penalty was part of the OT administration of the Covenant of Grace and was being used in a particular way in connection with the typological and sacrificial system.

The use of the death penalty under Moses was a picture of what happens to those who despise the Covenant of Grace, are without an atoning sacrifice and thus face God's judgment under the Covenant of Works which they broke in Adam. That wasn't a Republication of the Covenant of Works, but it was graciously given teaching about the already broken Covenant of Works.


----------



## TylerRay

Jerusalem Blade said:


> According to the Gospel, today they would be put out of the church. Theonomists would put them out of the world.



I am not a theonomist, and I believe that a faithful Christian magistrate would punish sodomy. He would also punish murder, theft, blasphemy, and all other public sins. This is his duty as the "minister of God" in the civil realm (Rom 16). See WCF XXIII. i. and XXIX. i, ii, and v.

Remember that Asa was not an ecclesiastical leader, but a civil leader. The NT holds forth (see above) that the magistrate as well as the church (and the family, for that matter) is to administer God's moral law in its respective sphere.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Tyler, if your magistrate would also punish blasphemy, incorrigible children, adultery, and Sabbath-breaking, the population of the U.S. might be reduced by 50% or more.


----------



## TylerRay

Yes, sir. May God grant us repentance.


----------



## Peairtach

I don't know if Tyler is calling for the death penalty to be followed in the instances he mentions. Just as the OT people were taught by temporal blessings in the Land about Heaven, so were they taught by temporal curses, including the death penalty about Hell.



> Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:



Those who were executed under the Mosaic law sometimes had their bodies hung from a tree. They were deemed to be under God's curse, having died without an animal sacrifice. Of course some of them - those who had true faith in Christ - went straight to Heaven, but this was the typological kingdom.

Sodomy, gross public blasphemy and certain forms of Sabbath-breaking were illegal in Britain until recent times, but it didn't lead to a decline in the population.

Incorrigible children were dealt with by corporal punishment or by the local police giving them something to remember and adultery had severe social and financial consequences for the guilty party.

The _general_ equity of the judicial law still applies, or should, but there's little of that in the godless West.


----------



## TylerRay

Thank you, Richard. Indeed, I was not implying that the death penalty should be used in all of those instances. I think that the wise magistrate will know what punishments to attach to various crimes.

Steve, just what is the magistrate supposed to do, if not enforce God's moral law?


----------



## Pergamum

> I think that the wise magistrate will know what punishments to attach to various crimes.



How would modern penalties differ from the OT ones? Theonomists can tinker with the severity of the penalties?


----------



## Miss Marple

"Steve, just what is the magistrate supposed to do, if not enforce God's moral law?"

Great question, I hope to read responses.

One thing that pops to mind is, enforce the border. Oh also, make treaties. Sanction war. 

Everything else seems to have a moral law component.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

No, Perg, these comments above are not made by "theonomists".

It's an interesting thing, the state of our nation – and the West in general; in other times, Tyler and Richard, the civil magistrate could have applied severe penalties, and some would have given the death penalty for sodomy (what alternatives would you have suggested, jail time?). But _now_, such magistrates in the U.S. would be picketed, impeached, or assassinated. Now there is such lawlessness – with accompanying disdain (that is perhaps too mild a word) for God's holy laws of life and love, there would be instant outrage from all quarters were a godly magistrate to judge according to righteousness.

Some pollyanna theologists imagine a coming golden age (some thinking it will be built on the wreckage of our civilization – _more_ pollyannaism of a sort!), but the flood of lawlessness and iniquity will soon enough carry away all these foolish eschatological dreams and we will be left with the stark realities lambs face when surrounded by ravenous wolves. In other parts of the world this is already the case with our brethren.

The time for magistrates upholding God's law is finished; _now_ the time is for the people of God bearing witness to God's law and the coming judgment upon all unrighteousness, and the salvation from that terrible judgment being found only at Christ's hand. This will result in outrage from the world against us, and the determination to silence us at any cost (of course _we_ will pay that cost); this will result in cries going up to Heaven, to Him who sits on the throne, who shall then mete increasing judgments against the wicked idolaters and the persecutors of His people.

But most in the church think things will go on as usual. They are not _mentally_ prepared. It will be a shock to many. It will be hard to worship, to find sound places to worship, for these will be bold in witness, and they will be silenced first. 

Guns won't help, you Americans. The use of them will only engender immensely fierce responses. You don't have to be a prophet to see and say these things, just discerning the times. We have no Asa, no godly kings or rulers (for the people won't have it), but a world in which satan is – or is about to be – loosed for a little season, and he will inflame the earthlings with passions that wipe out sanity and all reason. You knew it was coming, you have been told often enough, but there are so many who say, Peace, peace, when there really is no peace.


----------



## TylerRay

Steve, 

Thank you, first of all, for pointing out that I am not a theonomist. As I'm sure you know, what I have expressed is the classical Reformed view.

Second, I agree--our people don't want a godly ruler. Furthermore, I believe persecution and judgment are coming.

*But* I'm not a pragmatist. I'm a CHRISTIAN. Neither my eschatology nor my view on what a godly ruler is to do is determined by my circumstances. Your assertion that postmillennialism or optimistic amillennialism will be done away with due to difficult circumstances is frankly astounding to me. I expected better from you. I know that neither of those is your eschatological position, but that you would be so uncharitable to your brothers and sisters who are convinced of these things from the Word of God (and not our circumstances) is hard for me to wrap my head around.

By the way, you didn't answer my question.


----------



## Peairtach

Jerusalem Blade said:


> No, Perg, these comments above are not made by "theonomists".
> 
> It's an interesting thing, the state of our nation – and the West in general; in other times, Tyler and Richard, the civil magistrate could have applied severe penalties, and some would have given the death penalty for sodomy (what alternatives would you have suggested, jail time?). But _now_, such magistrates in the U.S. would be picketed, impeached, or assassinated. Now there is such lawlessness – with accompanying disdain (that is perhaps too mild a word) for God's holy laws of life and love, there would be instant outrage from all quarters were a godly magistrate to judge according to righteousness.
> 
> Some pollyanna theologists imagine a coming golden age (some thinking it will be built on the wreckage of our civilization – _more_ pollyannaism of a sort!), but the flood of lawlessness and iniquity will soon enough carry away all these foolish eschatological dreams and we will be left with the stark realities lambs face when surrounded by ravenous wolves. In other parts of the world this is already the case with our brethren.
> 
> The time for magistrates upholding God's law is finished; _now_ the time is for the people of God bearing witness to God's law and the coming judgment upon all unrighteousness, and the salvation from that terrible judgment being found only at Christ's hand. This will result in outrage from the world against us, and the determination to silence us at any cost (of course _we_ will pay that cost); this will result in cries going up to Heaven, to Him who sits on the throne, who shall then mete increasing judgments against the wicked idolaters and the persecutors of His people.
> 
> But most in the church think things will go on as usual. They are not _mentally_ prepared. It will be a shock to many. It will be hard to worship, to find sound places to worship, for these will be bold in witness, and they will be silenced first.
> 
> Guns won't help, you Americans. The use of them will only engender immensely fierce responses. You don't have to be a prophet to see and say these things, just discerning the times. We have no Asa, no godly kings or rulers (for the people won't have it), but a world in which satan is – or is about to be – loosed for a little season, and he will inflame the earthlings with passions that wipe out sanity and all reason. You knew it was coming, you have been told often enough, but there are so many who say, Peace, peace, when there really is no peace.



I agree with much of what you are saying Steve, and am spiritually and mentally preparing for persecution by the state. Christians are already losing their jobs in Britain for refusing to register homosexual civil partnerships, or for refusing to counsel homosexuals, for keeping the Sabbath Day, etc.

Any Christian person can see the direction things are going in.

But I'm still a postmillennialist.


----------



## Peairtach

Pergamum said:


> I think that the wise magistrate will know what punishments to attach to various crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would modern penalties differ from the OT ones? Theonomists can tinker with the severity of the penalties?
Click to expand...


It's a general equitable fulfillment, so we would expect non-theonomists to tinker with them. Theonomists on the other hand are committed to the abiding validity of every jot and tittle.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

I believe there are three divine spheres of authority: the family bearing the power of the rod, the church bearing the power of the keys, and the civil magistrate wielding the power of the sword. For the Christian, how these three institutions execute the power given them can only be judged according to the Word of God and the light of nature. 

And to the extent that God in his providence affords us the opportunity to exert any influence in the sphere of government, the "general equity" of the civic laws of Israel may certainly be acknowledged as springing from the moral law of God and providing a great deal of wisdom to the Christian in the execution of his civic duties.

But indeed all three spheres of authority are to be employed in the task of judgment according to the power given them. Their can be no doubting that at the present hour, sodomy and sexual deviancy are the scourge of the the United States and the West. And why? Because the family, government, and church have surrendered to secular atheism on these matters.


----------



## Miss Marple

" Theonomists on the other hand are committed to the abiding validity of every jot and tittle. "

I am not sure that's true. Some perhaps. But there is a variety of opinion about certain jots and certain tittles among theonomists.

I consider myself a theonomist. But I am not dead certain about the application of every law in every circumstance. Israel was a church AND a state. Unique. Discerning which laws are for the church, which are for the state, and which are for both; and how to best apply them in various circumstances; is tough.

I am committed to the belief that God's law is superior to man's, and applies to all mankind. But the application of this belief can be a stumper. I am searching for a great overarching principle that I can apply, a matrix of some sort, to get it laid out in my own mind how things should be. Some laws are rather obviously for the church; some are rather obviously for the state. But some seem sort of both, and those are hard to figure out.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Tyler, I am sorry, for I think I have offended you. This may be what I said that did:
“Some _pollyanna theologists_ imagine a coming golden age . . . but the flood of lawlessness and iniquity will soon enough carry away all these _foolish eschatological dreams_”​ 
And you said this:
“Your assertion that postmillennialism or optimistic amillennialism will be done away with due to difficult circumstances is frankly astounding to me. I expected better from you. I know that neither of those is your eschatological position, but that you would be so uncharitable to your brothers and sisters who are convinced of these things from the Word of God (and not our circumstances) is hard for me to wrap my head around.”​ 
I remember something that was said of Spurgeon, how that when he was in the pulpit and expounding the word of God he pulled no punches, though when he was in personal interaction with people he was gentle and respectful. 

I am not pastoring now, but when I was, and was in the pulpit, I would simply speak the truth of God’s word as I understood it (after study and prayer). I think “pollyanna theologists” and “foolish eschatological dreams” are relatively mild expressions, especially given the plight of our brethren in many lands around the world. North Korea, Eritrea, China, most Islamic nations (and there are _many_ of them!), India, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Columbia, Myanmar (Burma), and I could go on a good while more with country names.

The “better” you “expected” of me – would be what? That concerning vital pastoral (and doctrinal) matters – for I still shepherd souls – I would be mealy-mouthed and pussyfoot around impending dangers because some of my brethren are “convinced” things will get better and we need not prepare for such dangers? Is it uncharitable to speak forthrightly when addressing a topic generally – however controversial – if when addressing individuals I tone it down and speak more gently?

I appreciate your tenderheartedness, Tyler – and it is a fine quality – in its rightful place. I don’t think it _charitable_ to countenance error that will lead to grief and shock in the tenderhearted of the flock. If you are aware of my eschatological views (as you seem to be) you will understand my seeking to prepare Christ’s little flock for the coming “war with the saints” (Rev 13:7) that will climax this “present evil world[’s]” hatred of God (Gal 1:4). And you will understand my principled and fervent opposition to the post-mil schema. Still and all, I do not wish to offend, and I’m sorry that I have.

It is not “circumstances” that guide my view, but _Scripture_ that guides my view of circumstances. It guides my view regardless of circumstances, but gives me discernment of the times nonetheless. There aren’t many that vigorously hold forth the amil position and its _practical pastoral implications_ for these times. Part of that holding forth is the refutation of contrary errant positions.

You asked, “Steve, just what is the magistrate supposed to do, if not enforce God's moral law?” Tyler, that’s a really good question. There are a few, maybe in Texas, or down south, that seek to do this. But many – most? – are not Christian, and they but seek to enforce the laws of the land, which are increasingly _opposed_ to God’s law. The laws are now _outlawing_ the law of God, so godly civil magistrates will have to violate civil laws to remain godly. Some say, “Oh, it will get better, just be patient and hang in there.”

I don’t believe it will. I don’t believe the Scripture even hints that it will, but rather uniformly indicates the opposite (this is not the thread to pursue this). Meanwhile our laws, our educational institutions, our courts, our arts and entertainment industries – our very culture – “justifies the wicked, and condemns the just” (Prov 17:15), and on top of that we kill babies like they were lice – and the people love to have it so.

If we are not to expect persecution and internal national calamity, then at the very least we should expect the fierce judgments of outraged Justice to fall on us from on high. (I expect both.)

Part of the problem is the widespread corruption of the church in the West, and my focus is on America. Just as Israel of old was judged for its idolatry, disdain of the law of God, and persecution of the godly – through the instrumentality of barbarians – I think something similar is in store for us. Of old, the faithful remnant suffered with the hypocrites and the wicked, and so it shall be in our time.

Godly magistrates? They’ve had their day. Now they are such a small and beleaguered remnant that their voice cannot long be lifted up in the courts of law, but rather in the open air, in the media – wherever they can speak – to bear witness, along with all the church (not just the pastors and elders), to the everlasting gospel, the sovereignty of God, and the judgment of “wrath to come” upon the world of wickedness.

Odd as it may seem to some, I think the ends of the world are nigh upon us. (How nigh? I couldn’t say. But too close for comfort.)


----------



## TylerRay

Steve, thank you for your thoughtful response.

Perhaps I misread you, but your post seemed to say that those "pollyanna theologists" with their "foolish eschatalogical dreams" included all postmillennialists and optimistic amillennialists.

My view is that Christ will triumph over the nations in a visible manifestation, through His Church, in history. I don't believe that we're anywhere close to the end of that. In the midst of the battle there will be times of great distress, persecution, sin, judgment, and apostasy. I believe we're heading toward just such a time. My eschatological view does not cause me to shut my eyes and pretend everything is about to get better.

If I read you wrongly, I apologize.


----------



## Peairtach

> I consider myself a theonomist. But I am not dead certain about the application of every law in every circumstance. Israel was a church AND a state. Unique. Discerning which laws are for the church, which are for the state, and which are for both; and how to best apply them in various circumstances; is tough.



Exactly. The elders were involved in executing justice in the OT, including capital punishment, which was an extreme form of excommunication (cutting off).

I think you might find some help from Christopher J.H. Wright's book " An Eye for an Eye", published in Britain as "Living as the People of God".

An Eye for an Eye: The Place of Old Testament Ethics Today: Christopher J. H. Wright: 9780877848219: Amazon.com: Books

Living as the People of God: Relevance of Old Testament Ethics: Christopher J. H. Wright: 9780851113203: Amazon.com: Books

Wright sees the judicial laws as fulfilled in Christ in at least three ways, ecclesiastically, civilly and eschatalogically. 

Such lack of straightline application, is what you would expect from the unique typological kingdom of OT Israel, in which elders of the Church, which was OT Israel, not only exercised excommunication, or cutting-off (_kareth_), as it was then called, but also did so - occasionally - by execution in conjunction with the congregation.

In _Theonomy_, Bahnsen unsuccessfully tries to disentangle church and state in OT Israel, but only manages to distinguish between the priestly (cultic) aspects of the OT Church and the royal (kingdom-rule) aspects of the OT Church.

In the NT Church we have the priesthood of all believers and the kingdom-rule of all believers. We also have elders in our Israel, which correspond to the elders of OT Israel. Christ rules in His Church as Priest _and_ King.



> But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: (I Pet 2:9)


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I’m afraid you didn’t read me wrong, Tyler! But you will note that in referring to the post-millennarians as pollyanna-types in their eschatological doctrines, I did not make reference to their characters – only their views. Likewise with the term “foolish eschatological dreams” – characterizing their doctrines, not characters. I think that’s a fair characterization, especially in that it leaves their characters untouched. When you said of me I was “uncharitable” for saying such, you referenced my character, which I do not think was fair.

I see your post-mil view is nuanced, like Richard’s, which allows for significant persecution and suffering for the church before a supposed “golden” (or “silver”) age.

I think “optimistic amil” is almost an oxymoron; can you name any major 20[SUP]th[/SUP] or 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century amillennarians (this would exclude Wm Milligan and BB Warfield – although the latter of these is not really amil, or necessarily “optimistic”) which are such?

I had seen Tim Challies in a review name Cornelius P. Venema as one, but when I went through his, _The Promise of the Future_, I found it not so, but the classic amil view.

Though I think we’re getting off-topic the way we’re going with this. This looks like grist for another thread, though I really don’t have time for that. Good talking with you, Tyler – thanks for the spirited exchange!

-----

P.S. Perhaps I should make clear – for the benefit of those who do not know what "optimistic amil" is – that this term means the cultures and the nations will become "Christianized". i.e., at least outwardly conformed to the law of God, and the church will thrive in this atmosphere, having peace and prosperity before the Lord's return. The standard amil takes the view – on the basis of Scripture – that iniquity and lawlessness will increase throughout the church age, eventuating (at the very end) in the nations attacking the church through the whole world in an attempt to eradicate it (at the devil's instigation). The church itself – the faithful remnant in it – will be purified and glorious, rejoicing even in tribulation, even as our Saviour endured the cross for the joy that was set before Him – and through death triumphing over death.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

This is something I just saw in The Opinion Pages of the NYTimes online, on the very topic of the OP. A brief article, and an 8 minute video clip of an African Anglican clergyman opposed to American churches (IHOP) funding and influencing the church in Uganda to do away with homosexuals.

Gospel of Intolerance

Thoughts?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your point, sexual deviance in any form should not be tolerated by the church
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While true, that was not the motivation behind the post, in fact there was no motive or "point", ulterior or otherwise, behind the posting of these two sets of verses. I just thought the juxtaposition of these two sets of verses was interesting and I shared it with the board. Like I said everything doesn't have to have some kind of "agenda" behind it.
> 
> Sometimes it just is what it is and that's that. Not sure why the original responder was seeking a motivation for the posting in the first place.
Click to expand...

In fairness, you are assuming that everyone would just get that the juxtaposition was all there was to your post. Perhaps, in your spirit of sharing with others, you could have added a wee bit more to the post and made that clear. Just sayin'.


----------



## Pergamum

Peairtach said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the wise magistrate will know what punishments to attach to various crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would modern penalties differ from the OT ones? Theonomists can tinker with the severity of the penalties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a general equitable fulfillment, so we would expect non-theonomists to tinker with them. Theonomists on the other hand are committed to the abiding validity of every jot and tittle.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't commitment to the abiding validity of every jot and tittle imply similar penalties for sins such as homosexuality and the like?


----------



## he beholds

TylerRay said:


> I think that the wise magistrate will know what punishments to attach to various crimes.


Ha! Good one.


----------



## Peairtach

Pergamum said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the wise magistrate will know what punishments to attach to various crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would modern penalties differ from the OT ones? Theonomists can tinker with the severity of the penalties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a general equitable fulfillment, so we would expect non-theonomists to tinker with them. Theonomists on the other hand are committed to the abiding validity of every jot and tittle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't commitment to the abiding validity of every jot and tittle imply similar penalties for sins such as homosexuality and the like?
Click to expand...


It would imply the exact same penalties according to the theonomist hemeneutic i.e. death for homosexual acts.

The non-theonomist however, takes into account redemptive-historical considerations in particular, apart from any others. Why was the death penalty (or ransom in its place) extended to these offences at the time of Moses? To teach people that without a sacrifice there is no remission of sins. God claimed the penalty that was due - death - where there was no sacrifice, and that was the case with all the most presumptuous wickedness.

See e.g. Numbers 15.

Since the death penalty under Moses was a form of excommunication (cutting-off/_kareth_) from God's Church/Israel, anyway, the first way we should be seeing how these lawa are fulfilled is in the Church/the "Israel of God", re Church sanctions. The implications for the modern state are broader.


----------



## Miss Marple

I think one of the objections I have to non-theonomist thinking is exemplified by thoughts such as "a wise magistrate will know what punishments to attach to various crimes."

I wonder, is that exalting man over God? God has attached a punishment to most crimes. Can we "do Him one better," so to speak?

I do understand that we have different circumstances now, at times. God did not address drunken driving for example, specifically. So we need to apply principles.

But still, is it our place to alter punishments?


----------



## Peairtach

> I do understand that we have different circumstances now,



We have different circumstances now in that these punishments were part of the OT administration of the Covenant of Grace. We're moving from that, not to the NT administration of the CoG, but to the civil administration of New Testament states, _in which_ the NT Church/Israel is at various stages of development.


----------



## Afterthought

Miss Marple said:


> But still, is it our place to alter punishments?


From what I understand I think the non-theonomist might answer, with respect to the crimes in Scripture for which there is a moral warrant to punish (and I post this here so that I can have my understanding corrected if it is wrong)....

The punishment must always fit the crime, and the Christian magistrate should be taught by Scripture when it comes to law making. However, punishment always fitting the crime necessarily means the same punishment is not given to all crimes, since not all crimes deserve the same punishment. Punishment is thus case-specific. Cases necessarily depend on circumstances; indeed, it is the different circumstances that make a different case. For example, a person who steals candy will not receive the same punishment as a person who murders another, nor the same punishment as the person who steals information that compromises national security. In the stealing case, in both cases, there is undoubtedly something similar involved in the action (that is, in both cases, one is stealing), but they are two different cases--the difference being in the circumstances (in this case, what is stolen).

Circumstances of cases can be extended to time and place. To borrow an example from an earlier thread, a thief who comes willingly is punished whatever the law says he should be punished with, but a thief who resists violently (i.e., to the point where shooting may occur) may be subject to the maximum penalty of the law: death. And as another, a nation that is in covenant with God (for those that acknowledge such covenanting) may need to punish blasphemy more harshly than a nation that isn't, because for such a nation, the blasphemy attacks the core of the nation in a way that it doesn't for a nation not in covenant. I _think_--and I could be wrong--that if a nation were to be in covenant with God, in a similar manner to the way Israel was, non-theonomists might say that the punishments given in Scripture would be applied in the covenanted nation.

There was a thread posted in the Theonomy subforum recently that has lots of links to previous threads that you may find useful.

Edit: Ahh. Just saw Richard's post. I forgot that some (all?) non-theonomists see the punishments as part of the administration of the Covenant of Grace. In which case, such punishments would never be re-enacted, since those circumstances could never be met?


----------



## Peairtach

*Raymond*


> Edit: Ahh. Just saw Richard's post. I forgot that some non-theonomists see the punishments as typological and part of the administration of the Covenant of Grace. In which case, such punishments would never be re-enacted, since those circumstances could never be met?



I see the use of the death penalty under Moses, as related to the sacrificial system, and teaching about God's eternal curse - they were permanently expelled from God's kingdom by death after all -but I believe there are general lessons that can be learned for church sanctions and civil penalties from the judicial law.


----------



## A5pointer

Miss Marple said:


> I think one of the objections I have to non-theonomist thinking is exemplified by thoughts such as "a wise magistrate will know what punishments to attach to various crimes."
> 
> I wonder, is that exalting man over God? God has attached a punishment to most crimes. Can we "do Him one better," so to speak?
> 
> I do understand that we have different circumstances now, at times. God did not address drunken driving for example, specifically. So we need to apply principles.
> 
> But still, is it our place to alter punishments?



I think that was meant to be tongue in cheek


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Gospel of Intolerance

I see no one has commented on this video clip (and brief article) from a documentary on the influence of an American church so influencing churches in Uganda that the churches there are taking _upon themselves_ to execute the death penalty on homosexuals.

We may academically / theologically discuss the capital punishments of the old theocratic state, but there are Americans who run with the OT laws (who have they been listening to?) and are not only wreaking havoc in the world, but documentaries such as that above will come back to _*bite*_ us – and some bites are lethal. We are accruing to ourselves despising and wrath from the culture, and seem to be oblivious to it.

This is _not_ what the Gospel of Christ should be known for – death under the law, instead of forgiveness under the cross.


----------



## Peairtach

Jerusalem Blade said:


> This is something I just saw in The Opinion Pages of the NYTimes online, on the very topic of the OP. A brief article, and an 8 minute video clip of an African Anglican clergyman opposed to American churches (IHOP) funding and influencing the church in Uganda to do away with homosexuals.
> 
> Gospel of Intolerance
> 
> Thoughts?



Thanks for this, Steve.

I'm not in favour of the death penalty for homosexual behaviour, but am in favour of it being criminalised, as it was in Britain until only 45 years ago. Not that that is likely to happen in the near future.

I was sorry to see that the homosexual man in the video was ill-treated by the police.

There was no indication that these American Christians were in favour of capital punishment for homosexual activity or that they were sponsoring that with their money.

The video indicated that the Ugandan Bill has had the death penalty removed from it.


----------



## Pergamum

Miss Marple said:


> I think one of the objections I have to non-theonomist thinking is exemplified by thoughts such as "a wise magistrate will know what punishments to attach to various crimes."
> 
> I wonder, is that exalting man over God? God has attached a punishment to most crimes. Can we "do Him one better," so to speak?
> 
> I do understand that we have different circumstances now, at times. God did not address drunken driving for example, specifically. So we need to apply principles.
> 
> But still, is it our place to alter punishments?



It would appear that a consistent Theonomist would not argue against the death penalty for practicing homosexuals. Is that what you believe? If not, why? If the law abides forever in its civil implications, then why not the punishments, also?

p.s. I just read the history of early America and it appears that the first instance of capital punishment was for bestiality (I think the animal, too, was put to death maybe)


----------



## RamistThomist

In Coffey's biography on Rutherford, he notes that Rutherford believed that witches should be prosecuted qua Deuteronomy, even sitting in on some witch trials. In Lex, Rex Rutherford says idolaters should be executed, or at least exiled.

* If the law abides forever in its civil implications, then why not the punishments, also?*

That phrasing is misleading. The law does abide such--God isn't a relativist--but the civil situations often change (When Moses gave these laws Israel was a desert community; I bet the "general equity" changed for the Israelite a generation after it was given!)

I am a theocrat. I do not believe God was a relatvist or a meanie in giving these laws. They are infinitely more just than the US Tax Code. Still, there are some areas of application that theonomists havnen't sufficiently addressed: like why was Mary executed, since the "evidence" seemed to indict her?


----------



## Pergamum

Cameronian said:


> In Coffey's biography on Rutherford, he notes that Rutherford believed that witches should be prosecuted qua Deuteronomy, even sitting in on some witch trials. In Lex, Rex Rutherford says idolaters should be executed, or at least exiled.
> 
> * If the law abides forever in its civil implications, then why not the punishments, also?*
> 
> That phrasing is misleading. The law does abide such--God isn't a relativist--but the civil situations often change (When Moses gave these laws Israel was a desert community; I bet the "general equity" changed for the Israelite a generation after it was given!)
> 
> I am a theocrat. I do not believe God was a relatvist or a meanie in giving these laws. They are infinitely more just than the US Tax Code. Still, there are some areas of application that theonomists havnen't sufficiently addressed: like why was Mary executed, since the "evidence" seemed to indict her?






> In Coffey's biography on Rutherford, he notes that Rutherford believed that witches should be prosecuted qua Deuteronomy, even sitting in on some witch trials. In Lex, Rex Rutherford says idolaters should be executed, or at least exiled.



Jacob,

Several weeks ago I posted about the Reformation-era witch craze. It seems that Protestantizing Germany was a chief offender in rounding up and killing old women and loners in the name of witch-prosecution.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Richard, when it is preached to Ugandans that God hates homosexuality – with no nuance that we are to lovingly call them to repentance, and warn them of judgment to come – it is translated by the people that if God hates them we should too, and if His law in the OT says they should be killed, then we too should kill them.

On the other hand, one of the things David Bahati (the Ugandan legislator who proposed the outlawing gay bill) said was that homosexuals sought to recruit and entice children into homosexuality. In an interview Rachael Maddow tried to debunk this assertion by Bahati, but it is true that current teaching in the Western schools seeks to indoctrinate elementary-age children into learning of and accepting homosexuality as normal and healthy, and materials – some graphic – are exported abroad. Our Secretary of State is pushing this agenda to the max internationally.

It is also true that homosexuals actually seek to recruit children into that lifestyle; as my mother was ill with cancer I went to boarding schools for many years as a child and I saw much that confirms this.

What I am saying is that this is a battle we're not going to win (in this life). If we keep silent, the land – _the world_ – is overrun. If we speak we will be silenced. I think there is no other way than to boldly proclaim the Law of God, the penalty for disobedience to it (eternal death), and the offer of mercy, forgiveness, and eternal life given by Christ to all who come to Him desiring these of Him.

Unlike yourself, I have no faith _*at all*_ that the tide will turn before the return of Christ in judgment. There is only the witness of the church. But it must be a wise and caring witness: "A true witness delivereth souls . . . and he that winneth souls is wise" (Prov 14:25a; 11:30b).


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647

Jerusalem Blade said:


> No, Perg, these comments above are not made by "theonomists".
> 
> It's an interesting thing, the state of our nation – and the West in general; in other times, Tyler and Richard, the civil magistrate could have applied severe penalties, and some would have given the death penalty for sodomy (what alternatives would you have suggested, jail time?). But _now_, such magistrates in the U.S. would be picketed, impeached, or assassinated. Now there is such lawlessness – with accompanying disdain (that is perhaps too mild a word) for God's holy laws of life and love, there would be instant outrage from all quarters were a godly magistrate to judge according to righteousness.
> 
> Some pollyanna theologists imagine a coming golden age (some thinking it will be built on the wreckage of our civilization – _more_ pollyannaism of a sort!), but the flood of lawlessness and iniquity will soon enough carry away all these foolish eschatological dreams and we will be left with the stark realities lambs face when surrounded by ravenous wolves. In other parts of the world this is already the case with our brethren.
> 
> The time for magistrates upholding God's law is finished; _now_ the time is for the people of God bearing witness to God's law and the coming judgment upon all unrighteousness, and the salvation from that terrible judgment being found only at Christ's hand. This will result in outrage from the world against us, and the determination to silence us at any cost (of course _we_ will pay that cost); this will result in cries going up to Heaven, to Him who sits on the throne, who shall then mete increasing judgments against the wicked idolaters and the persecutors of His people.
> 
> But most in the church think things will go on as usual. They are not _mentally_ prepared. It will be a shock to many. It will be hard to worship, to find sound places to worship, for these will be bold in witness, and they will be silenced first.
> 
> Guns won't help, you Americans. The use of them will only engender immensely fierce responses. You don't have to be a prophet to see and say these things, just discerning the times. We have no Asa, no godly kings or rulers (for the people won't have it), but a world in which satan is – or is about to be – loosed for a little season, and he will inflame the earthlings with passions that wipe out sanity and all reason. You knew it was coming, you have been told often enough, but there are so many who say, Peace, peace, when there really is no peace.



What do you hope to accomplish with your inflammatory rhetoric? Besides being inflammatory, it was completely foreign to the minds of the Puritans. Noone represented at the drafting of the confession would have endorsed your position. If I may ask, why post at a place named "Puritan Board" such uncharitable things, knowing good and well that we "Pollyannsists" are out here? Would you hazard such language on that godly group? Why not go to Sermon Audio or Christianity Today or elsewhere and post in their wasteland of confused theology where the Puritans are relegated to "those cook wackos that burned witches" types? Some of us here just happen to endorse the Puritan view (by and large) of magistracy and eschatology resemble those for whom the site is named. That ought not surprise you. Honestly, no offense aimed, but I hope a healthy dose of brotherly sharpening can be got. I'll certainly withhold the uncharitable name calling you descended to. While I know that *most* of the tidy American revisions to the WLC have given a bit of accommodation for your position, might I ask how you dealt with WLC Q. 191 over the years? Have be been sincere in taking exception to it and noting as much? This starkly contrasts with your view. Would you blandish "Pollyannaist" over this wise statement?


----------



## Miss Marple

As we mentioned the first death penalty in America being for bestiality, I am reminded that I have learned that George Washington himself had a soldier (or more than one) executed for sodomy.

I am willing to stand corrected but have been informed of this on more than one occasion.

Are we perhaps too tolerant now? I don't deny that sinners should be given the gospel. But is there a protective reason for the death penalty for this behavior? Is it a "victimless crime," or is it not? Statistics bear out a far greater incidence of child molestation by homosexuals. Per capita. Lots of other negative stats, too, from domestic abuse to suicide to other anti-social behaviors. Is it possible God prescribes the death penalty for homosexual acts (not inclinations) to defend a great number of innocent people?

I am NOT implying that all homosexual molest kids, nor that all heteros don't.

I do not hate homosexuals. I am not arguing for their death. I am just wondering if my squeamishness about it is man-centered or God-centered. I am a product of my culture, too.

As for Mary being put to death, a woman impregnated by her fiancee was not a death penalty candidate. Normally, the betrothed had to pay like a bride price and marry her. If my understanding is correct.

As for the situation in Uganda, if the law is not retroactive and is fairly administered, is it right to feel excessively sorry for the guilty? 

For example, if we made eating potato chips a death penalty offense in the U.S., that is obviously a terrible and onerous law. But you know, I would not eat potato chips until it was reversed. So why, if it was law and properly applied, did these men continue with their vile behavior? Were they ignorant of the law or repercussions? Who would continue in this perverse behavior if they knew a death penalty could be the result? What kind of mind set is that?

This week in Thailand, a 56-year old Grandma tourist from the UK was sentenced to death for smuggling cocaine in the lining of her suitcase. Tourists are warned repeatedly that drug smuggling is a death penalty offense in Thailand. They even announce it over all international flight loudspeakers. She did it anyway. Should I see her as a victim? I do actually feel sorry for her, as I have done very stupid and sinful things, too. But is it the same as being knifed when walking down the street?

I can't put "tone" in my words, here, so believe me when I say I am not asking these things in an angry or accusatory fashion, but I am trying to figure these things out.


----------



## TylerRay

A5pointer said:


> Miss Marple said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think one of the objections I have to non-theonomist thinking is exemplified by thoughts such as "a wise magistrate will know what punishments to attach to various crimes."
> 
> I wonder, is that exalting man over God? God has attached a punishment to most crimes. Can we "do Him one better," so to speak?
> 
> I do understand that we have different circumstances now, at times. God did not address drunken driving for example, specifically. So we need to apply principles.
> 
> But still, is it our place to alter punishments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that was meant to be tongue in cheek
Click to expand...





he beholds said:


> Quote Originally Posted by TylerRay View Post
> I think that the wise magistrate will know what punishments to attach to various crimes.
> Ha! Good one.



Bruce, I don't know whether you meant that my statement was meant tongue in cheek or that Mrs. Rothenbuhler's was, but I would like to ensure you all that I meant mine wholeheartedly.

Romans 16 states that the magistrate is the minister of God--his position is appointed by God himself! The passage also says that he is given the power of the sword. 

The Church is regulated strictly by God's ordinance. He does not allow leeway with regard to the offices, doctrines, and practices of the Church (there are, of course, circumstantial issues with regard to how some of what God has ordained is to be carried out).

Not so the magistrate. Unlike in the Theocracy of the Old Covenant Church, God does not regulate the offices, the distribution of land, and the civil punishments of modern commonwealths with strictness. Instead He gives the magistrate the power of the sword to govern according to His moral law. The offices, land laws, civil punishments, etc. are the prerogative (given by God) of the commonwealth, and of the magistrate.


----------



## Miss Marple

Yes, if the magistrate is a wise and God-fearing man, or group of men, we have protection.

However he is often not such.

Thus the argument for "Lex Rex," the law is in charge. We are all supposed to be subject to the law.

Which leads us back to discussing what laws are just. What laws should we, as believers, be promoting in regards to the issue of homosexual behavior?


----------



## RamistThomist

Innocent people always get rounded up. We live in a fallen world. If someone goes to jail wrongly for 35 years for being mistaken as a murderer or such, shouuld we not punish murderers because we have an imperfect system?

Per the "witch craze:" We might need to own up to the fact that there are people who commune with the powers of hell and act accordingly. 



Pergamum said:


> Cameronian said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Coffey's biography on Rutherford, he notes that Rutherford believed that witches should be prosecuted qua Deuteronomy, even sitting in on some witch trials. In Lex, Rex Rutherford says idolaters should be executed, or at least exiled.
> 
> * If the law abides forever in its civil implications, then why not the punishments, also?*
> 
> That phrasing is misleading. The law does abide such--God isn't a relativist--but the civil situations often change (When Moses gave these laws Israel was a desert community; I bet the "general equity" changed for the Israelite a generation after it was given!)
> 
> I am a theocrat. I do not believe God was a relatvist or a meanie in giving these laws. They are infinitely more just than the US Tax Code. Still, there are some areas of application that theonomists havnen't sufficiently addressed: like why was Mary executed, since the "evidence" seemed to indict her?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Coffey's biography on Rutherford, he notes that Rutherford believed that witches should be prosecuted qua Deuteronomy, even sitting in on some witch trials. In Lex, Rex Rutherford says idolaters should be executed, or at least exiled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jacob,
> 
> Several weeks ago I posted about the Reformation-era witch craze. It seems that Protestantizing Germany was a chief offender in rounding up and killing old women and loners in the name of witch-prosecution.
Click to expand...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hey, Christopher – I think this is the first time we’ve conversed. Glad to meet you.

Do you really think the “pollyanna . . .” reference is inflammatory rhetoric? It only means “a person characterized by irrepressible optimism . . . an excessively or persistently optimistic person” –Webster’s Dict. _You_ sound like you might be a bit “inflamed”, but I don’t think my expressions were.

I think the “the tidy American revisions to the WLC” you claim “have given a bit of accommodation for your position” is part of the Confessional Standards held (and published) by the OPC of which you are a member. It was with good reason the Standards were corrected in those very few places.

When you talk like this,



AlexanderHenderson1647 said:


> Why not go to Sermon Audio or Christianity Today or elsewhere and post in their wasteland of confused theology where the Puritans are relegated to "those cook wackos that burned witches" types?


 
that *is* inflammatory! Yet I am not offended by this, as I perceive you are a stand-up believer “contending for the faith” as you see it. I am not a Puritan, but a 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century disciple of Jesus Christ holding to the Reformed tradition, although I treasure Puritan spirituality, and the fervency with which they held forth the doctrines of godliness.

The more I become exercised in this discussion, the more I see the value of godly magistrates, and “the church . . . countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted . . .” (WLC 191 Q&A). For when I listened to (Ugandan legislator) David Bahati's defense of his gay bill to Rachael Maddow, I saw he was indeed seeking to protect the children of his nation and the families in his nation from the corruption we see rampant in Canada, America, the UK, and Europe. He is doing the work of a “God-fearing” (his expression) magistrate. Hearing him has cast a light on the darkness enveloping our own nation (the U.S., as well as others). Our children *are* being catechized in the doctrines of an evil agenda; to wit:

Canada: teacher shows drag queen video to kids aged 9-10

Library survey asks kids as young as six about sexuality

Explicit sex ed DVD used in Scottish primary schools

Lesbian mums storybook ‘forced’ into Utah schools

Now in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., this agenda is being enforced by the civil magistrate. You have no argument from me (having thought this through afresh) that the civil magistrate ought be not only vigorously opposing such, but vigorously upholding the righteousness that God’s law commands.

Being a martial artist you probably should realize that hot-headedness may cause you to lose your poise of mind and self-control and thus make some foolish moves. One needs poise of mind to strategize in combat situations. So please get clear I am not demeaning or denying the validity and need of godly magistrates. What I am saying is that the magistracies – *in all the West!* – have been co-opted by the demonic power, and are working evil on an increasing basis. At least understand clearly what I am saying before you take a (verbal) punch at me.

I will excerpt here Professor David J. Engelsma of the Protestant Reformed Church in his answer to Gary DeMar’s response to an earlier published letter of Engelsma (this is sort of long, but I trust folks are interested in this discussion): 
--------

*The Westminster Standards*

That I did not quote the Westminster Confession and its catechisms is not at all "curious". I pointed out why I did not: "I leave to those whose creeds they are to demonstrate that the Westminster Standards rule out the illusory hope of postmillennialism." The creeds that bind me (and the majority of readers of the Standard Bearer) are the "Three Forms of Unity." Therefore, I limited myself to references to them.

I offer my judgment, nevertheless, that the four quotations by DeMar from the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms prove absolutely nothing for a postmillennial interpretation of the Westminster documents. No amillennialist has any difficulty with these expressions whatsoever. All of these statements square perfectly with "Engelsma's notion that 'the church in the end time will be a persecuted church, not a triumphalist church'." Christ has been restraining and subduing His and our enemies by His sovereign power since His ascension into heaven (Eph. 2:20-23). The fulfillment of this sovereign restraint and subduing in history does not require the "Christianizing of the world" and a kingdom of earthly power and glory. The risen Christ restrains and subdues His enemies by His secret providence, and He governs and exalts His church by His grace.

The right understanding of the _Larger Catechism_'s explanation of the second petition of the Lord's prayer, in Question 191, an explanation that is virtually identical with the explanation of the Heidelberg Catechism in Question 123, will serve to make clear the meaning of all of DeMar's quotations from the Westminster Catechisms.

In the second petition, the Catechism explains, believers pray that God in Christ will destroy the kingdom of Satan and build up the kingdom of Christ, which is the church. DeMar thinks that this refers to some future time before the coming of Christ. Also, he supposes that the destruction of Satan's kingdom and the victory of Christ's kingdom in this future time are _earthly_, that is, physical, political, social, and visible to the bodily eye. The saints will have dominion: the carnal kingdom.

He is mistaken on both counts. Christ has been destroying the kingdom of Satan and building up His own kingdom, the church, ever since He ascended into heaven. The nature of the defeat of Satan's kingdom and of the victory of Christ's kingdom is _spiritual_. It consists of the gathering out of Satan's kingdom of the elect; of the sanctification of the elect to serve the Lord in every sphere of life; and of the preservation of the church in truth and holiness against the onslaught of the devil. The perfect answer to the second petition will be granted in the Day of Christ.

How does the Larger Catechism itself sum up its explanation of the second petition? "...that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever."

There is not so much as a hint of postmillennialism in Question 191 of the Larger Catechisms or in the other quotations adduced by Gary DeMar. One finds postmillennialism in these confessional statements only if he has decided beforehand to understand "restrain,", "subdue," "defend," and "conquer" in the earthly sense they had for Old Testament Israel in the day of shadows.

The answer to question 191 of he Larger Catechism is by no means "almost identical to that of The Savoy Declaration (26.5)." Chapter 26.5 of the Congregational Savoy Declaration (which I quoted in the editorial "Jewish Dreams") differs radically from Question 191 of the Presbyterian Larger Catechism. The Savoy Declaration posits "enlarged" churches enjoying "a more quiet, peaceable, and glorious condition than they have enjoyed" _"in the latter days, Antichrist being destroyed... and the adversaries of the kingdom of his dear Son broken"_ and _"in this world."_

Take note: _"in this world."_

The Independents who drew up the Savoy Declaration, dissatisfied with Presbyterian Westminster's refusal to do so, gave clear expression to the postmillennial dream of an earthly kingdom. Their churches are taught to look forward to earthly peace, earthly prosperity, and earthly power!

Even the quotation from Thomas Ridgeley, although obviously originating in a misguided longing for "latter-day glory," only very cautiously advance the mildest forms of postmillennialism "...greater magnificence, more visible marks of glory ... the welfare and happiness of his church in a greater degree." A sleepy amillennialist might let this get past him.

This is worlds apart form the "Christianizing" of America, and then of the world, envisioned and promoted by "Christian Reconstruction" as the real triumph of Christ in history.

*"Behold, I Come Slowly"*

With DeMar's remarks on the Bible's teaching concerning the second coming of the Lord and the condition of the church in the days preceding that coming, I am simply delighted. I knew these things, of course, as do all those who have read in "Reconstruction" literature. But many of the readers of this magazine have not read the "Reconstruction" books. They are largely dependent upon the analyses of others. Now they can read for themselves from a leading, authoritative "Christian Reconstructionist" the main teachings of that movement concerning the end of the world.

The church of the last days will not be persecuted!

All of the prophecy of the New Testament of apostasy, tribulation, and Antichrist in the last days has already been completely fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70! Nothing of all of this sizable and significant portion of the New Testament Scripture, as well as Old Testament Scripture, including nearly all of the book of Revelation, _applies to the New Testament church of our day and the future!_

Most astounding of all, and well-nigh incredible, is the flat, bold denial that the coming of Jesus Christ -- the second, bodily, visible coming of Jesus Christ -- is "soon" and "near"! The Reformed church has been mistaken in her teaching that Jesus' coming is "near"! Indeed, "this doctrine has been the bane of Reformed theology"! (emphasis mine -- DJE).

Postmillennialism denies and opposes, with might and main, that Jesus' coming is soon, near, and quickly, exaclty as I charged against it in "Jewish Dreams."

I ignore the tactic of blackening Reformed eschatology by linking it with that of premillennial dispensationalism. It is not Reformed amillennialism that agrees with premillennialism in denying future persecution to the church and in affirming an earthly kingdom of Christ.

*Eschatological Apostasy*

DeMar may well be right when he says that the number of Reformed and Presbyterian amillennialists "is steadily declining". The reason, in part, is the great apostasy now fulfilling the apostle's prophecy in II Thessalonians 2:3. This falling away is due, in part, to the failure of Presbyterian and Reformed churches, ministers, theologians, and editors of religious periodicals vigorously to defend amillennialism and equally vigorously to expose and condemn postmillennialism.

Lest I be guilty of failing to do what little I can to stop the decline from the truth of amillennialism, I intend to devote future editorials to a biblical, confessional defense of amillennialism against erroneous doctrine of postmillennialism. These will have the "Christian Reconstruction" movement especially in view.

*The Challenge*

Gary DeMar throws out an intriguing challenge: a public debate on postmillennialism on the campus of the Protestant Reformed Theological Seminary. My only hesitation is that I must not be responsible for giving a platform to error. I certainly would not want to leave the impression that the Bible is unclear on this important doctrine of the last things, so that amillennialism and postmillennialism are two legitimate options for Reformed and Presbyterian Christians.

But DeMar is the well known and popular theologian. _He_ would draw the audience. _He_ would be giving a platform to a defense of amillennialism. There is nothing wrong with _this_. I am interested.

[end Engelsma]

----------

The exchange between the two men may be found here: A Letter and Response on "Jewish Dreams".

To sum: Christopher, what I am saying is that what we are seeing in the West is a rapid deterioration of law and order, and with that all Biblical influence in the public sphere, at least as far as institutions and magistracies are concerned. Even parts of the professing church are acquiescing to the onslaught. I hold that Scripture shows, in the long run, this will continue and grow. Your post-mil view holds exactly the opposite. I consider that dangerous. And it is incumbent on me, as a minister of the gospel (albeit retired) to speak up about this, both among the brethren, and publicly.

Rather than malign me, why not meet me on the field with the arms given by the Lamb of God: His word, in the Spirit of grace?

Again I say, I am not offended by your remarks – I like that you have spunk.


----------



## RamistThomist

Steve, you keep pointing out how the standards rule out postmillennialism, but this thread began as an ethical one: what to do about sodomites? Ethics and eschatology are two different questions, contra Gary north


----------



## Pergamum

Cameronian said:


> Innocent people always get rounded up. We live in a fallen world. If someone goes to jail wrongly for 35 years for being mistaken as a murderer or such, shouuld we not punish murderers because we have an imperfect system?
> 
> Per the "witch craze:" We might need to own up to the fact that there are people who commune with the powers of hell and act accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cameronian said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Coffey's biography on Rutherford, he notes that Rutherford believed that witches should be prosecuted qua Deuteronomy, even sitting in on some witch trials. In Lex, Rex Rutherford says idolaters should be executed, or at least exiled.
> 
> * If the law abides forever in its civil implications, then why not the punishments, also?*
> 
> That phrasing is misleading. The law does abide such--God isn't a relativist--but the civil situations often change (When Moses gave these laws Israel was a desert community; I bet the "general equity" changed for the Israelite a generation after it was given!)
> 
> I am a theocrat. I do not believe God was a relatvist or a meanie in giving these laws. They are infinitely more just than the US Tax Code. Still, there are some areas of application that theonomists havnen't sufficiently addressed: like why was Mary executed, since the "evidence" seemed to indict her?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Coffey's biography on Rutherford, he notes that Rutherford believed that witches should be prosecuted qua Deuteronomy, even sitting in on some witch trials. In Lex, Rex Rutherford says idolaters should be executed, or at least exiled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jacob,
> 
> Several weeks ago I posted about the Reformation-era witch craze. It seems that Protestantizing Germany was a chief offender in rounding up and killing old women and loners in the name of witch-prosecution.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So you support capital punishment for witches?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Yes, Jacob, it _was_ originally about ethics! Somehow – I think regarding the matter of civil magistrates and their place in the world today – there was an overlap into eschatological views bearing on the topic.


----------



## RamistThomist

Depending on the evidence and a few other "equity" matters, yes.

We already deal with the horrors of it today, pace the Santierra cult (Bahnsen brought this up in a debate with the Westminster Faculty on theonomy. It was almost embarrassing to see (or not see) the nonresponse).



Pergamum said:


> Cameronian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Innocent people always get rounded up. We live in a fallen world. If someone goes to jail wrongly for 35 years for being mistaken as a murderer or such, shouuld we not punish murderers because we have an imperfect system?
> 
> Per the "witch craze:" We might need to own up to the fact that there are people who commune with the powers of hell and act accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cameronian said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Coffey's biography on Rutherford, he notes that Rutherford believed that witches should be prosecuted qua Deuteronomy, even sitting in on some witch trials. In Lex, Rex Rutherford says idolaters should be executed, or at least exiled.
> 
> * If the law abides forever in its civil implications, then why not the punishments, also?*
> 
> That phrasing is misleading. The law does abide such--God isn't a relativist--but the civil situations often change (When Moses gave these laws Israel was a desert community; I bet the "general equity" changed for the Israelite a generation after it was given!)
> 
> I am a theocrat. I do not believe God was a relatvist or a meanie in giving these laws. They are infinitely more just than the US Tax Code. Still, there are some areas of application that theonomists havnen't sufficiently addressed: like why was Mary executed, since the "evidence" seemed to indict her?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Coffey's biography on Rutherford, he notes that Rutherford believed that witches should be prosecuted qua Deuteronomy, even sitting in on some witch trials. In Lex, Rex Rutherford says idolaters should be executed, or at least exiled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jacob,
> 
> Several weeks ago I posted about the Reformation-era witch craze. It seems that Protestantizing Germany was a chief offender in rounding up and killing old women and loners in the name of witch-prosecution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support capital punishment for witches?
Click to expand...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

The Santeria and application of "Theonomic" penalties is a real can of worms. It is almost indigenous to the Hispanic communities, having come from African-type voodoo via South America and its mixing with Roman Catholicism. They do seriously involve themselves with the demonic, although they term them deities of a sort. There is a hierarchy of practitioners, some of them highly feared in their communities, and who hire themselves out to do hurt to others by demonic power. It is now very big in the large cities with large Hispanic populations.


----------



## TylerRay

Miss Marple said:


> Which leads us back to discussing what laws are just. What laws should we, as believers, be promoting in regards to the issue of homosexual behavior?



It should be criminalized. That alone is a step in the right direction. I would be glad to support any kind of civil measure against sodomy, regardless of the punishment (so long as the punishment itself is in accord with God's moral law--i. e., no torture [which is not to say no corporal punishment]).

As Steve seemed to indicate earlier, prison time would be counterproductive for reasons which it is shameful to go into detail about. In my humble opinion, prisons are not very helpful for much of anyone, anyway.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Here's the rub with Santeria: like with Native American shamanistic religions (having permission from the Federal gov't to use psychedelic drugs in their worship), Santeria has almost the same status as a religion in these Latino communities. And there is "freedom of religion" in this country. Wicca is accepted now as well. If one religion can be outlawed, then any can. We've gotten ourselves in a mess. But there is only one religion the world _hates_.


----------



## RamistThomist

A Discourse on the Damned Art of Witchcraft by William Perkins.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thanks for that, Jacob. Two free downloadable formats for that book here.


----------



## Pergamum

Jacob,

Most of those killed during the witch-craze were not witches. It was one of the greatest evils tolerated by the Church during the Reformation-era.


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hey, Christopher – I think this is the first time we’ve conversed. Glad to meet you.
> 
> Do you really think the “pollyanna . . .” reference is inflammatory rhetoric? It only means “a person characterized by irrepressible optimism . . . an excessively or persistently optimistic person” –Webster’s Dict. _You_ sound like you might be a bit “inflamed”, but I don’t think my expressions were.



Let's see, a daudling little lady who whistled blindly through the word, regardless of the situation, despite better wisdom, and without anything but optimism for optimism's sake -yes, that's a very unhelpful characterization of eschatalogical positions that believe in a large expansion of Christ's church. I wish you could see that. It would be no more helpful if I were to refer to your position as "Chickenlittleism." We would get nowhere with that, and I wouldn't characterize your position as such as much as I don't agree with it. It would offer you no help and withhold the grace I owe you.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I think the “the tidy American revisions to the WLC” you claim “have given a bit of accommodation for your position” is part of the Confessional Standards held (and published) by the OPC of which you are a member. It was with good reason the Standards were corrected in those very few places.



In the first place, yes, to my great chagrin and in the second, in your opinion.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> When you talk like this,
> 
> 
> 
> AlexanderHenderson1647 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not go to Sermon Audio or Christianity Today or elsewhere and post in their wasteland of confused theology where the Puritans are relegated to "those cook wackos that burned witches" types?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that *is* inflammatory! Yet I am not offended by this, as I perceive you are a stand-up believer “contending for the faith” as you see it. I am not a Puritan, but a 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century disciple of Jesus Christ holding to the Reformed tradition, although I treasure Puritan spirituality, and the fervency with which they held forth the doctrines of godliness.
Click to expand...


If you say so, but I fear you miss my point if you see any inflammatory overtones in that. My point is simply, if you went out to one of those sites, you'd be met by "huzzahs" as that is the popular view in broad evangelicalism. I merely hinted that it makes sense there. But say what you say in the way that you did, knowing that many of your Postmil or even Optimistic Amil and Optimistic Premil (after Spurgeon's type) are here makes no sense to me.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> The more I become exercised in this discussion, the more I see the value of godly magistrates, and “the church . . . countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted . . .” (WLC 191 Q&A). For when I listened to (Ugandan legislator) David Bahati's defense of his gay bill to Rachael Maddow, I saw he was indeed seeking to protect the children of his nation and the families in his nation from the corruption we see rampant in Canada, America, the UK, and Europe. He is doing the work of a “God-fearing” (his expression) magistrate. Hearing him has cast a light on the darkness enveloping our own nation (the U.S., as well as others). Our children *are* being catechized in the doctrines of an evil agenda; to wit:
> 
> Canada: teacher shows drag queen video to kids aged 9-10
> 
> Library survey asks kids as young as six about sexuality
> 
> Explicit sex ed DVD used in Scottish primary schools
> 
> Lesbian mums storybook ‘forced’ into Utah schools
> 
> Now in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., this agenda is being enforced by the civil magistrate. You have no argument from me (having thought this through afresh) that the civil magistrate ought be not only vigorously opposing such, but vigorously upholding the righteousness that God’s law commands.



Helpful links, thank you for the share. We do not part ways in this place.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Being a martial artist you probably should realize that hot-headedness may cause you to lose your poise of mind and self-control and thus make some foolish moves. One needs poise of mind to strategize in combat situations. So please get clear I am not demeaning or denying the validity and need of godly magistrates. What I am saying is that the magistracies – *in all the West!* – have been co-opted by the demonic power, and are working evil on an increasing basis. At least understand clearly what I am saying before you take a (verbal) punch at me.


Again, no argument here. If I understand what you mean, I have no conflict with this. Incidentally, though, are you accusing me of hot-headedness? Flat medium presents thorns so I hope I am not coming off as such nor misunderstanding you.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I will excerpt here Professor David J. Engelsma of the Protestant Reformed Church in his answer to Gary DeMar’s response to an earlier published letter of Engelsma (this is sort of long, but I trust folks are interested in this discussion)



So goes Dr. Englesma's interpretation of WLC and the eschatology. Debating this will be pointless, so I'll just let it lay. I will offer though, you are largely aiming at the wrong target. I am not chiliastic. I believe the entire interadvental period to be "the millennium" and Christ's reign. I'm also very convinced of a great apostasy. Though I would wonder what it is that ALL these leagues of people are falling away FROM. For all Englesma's scare that preaching that a "carnal" visible expanse of Christ's kingdom will threaten Biblical orthodoxy, I'm always puzzled why men such as he present current trials as a strong evidence for his position while not acknowledging the church past. There was a time when the entire church was one man and his family, then one tiny land in the midst of a godless globe, even after a very nominal expanse this land was subject to a variety of political captivities and internal declensions, at one point 11 gospel pastors IN THE ENTIRE EARTH on the run from Jewish and Roman threats on every side. That puts this in a bit of a different context when one can look on most nations in the earth and find a Biblically faithful church therein, many under fierce opposition. I'm furthermore NOT Reconstructionist, so many of Englesma's problems with DeMar are not problems he'd have with me. Besides, Englesma and Hoesksema (love them though I do, and helpful though they are on SO many point and perhaps more faithful than most of our Presbyterian churches) are not afraid to say that we Postmils serve AntiChrist and will help to establish that kingdom http://www.hopeprc.org/reformedwitness/1993/RW199303.htm. I would never say as much about my brethern who part ways on this difficult and complex issue of eschatology.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> To sum: Christopher, what I am saying is that what we are seeing in the West is a rapid deterioration of law and order, and with that all Biblical influence in the public sphere, at least as far as institutions and magistracies are concerned. Even parts of the professing church are acquiescing to the onslaught. I hold that Scripture shows, in the long run, this will continue and grow. Your post-mil view holds exactly the opposite. I consider that dangerous. And it is incumbent on me, as a minister of the gospel (albeit retired) to speak up about this, both among the brethren, and publicly.



In terms of that you say about our CURRENT condition, I see the same. What happens beyond this I suggest is not bleak. I would be no less faithful, though I do not hold now nor ever in time past help any public office, if I were not to suggest that you are mistaken and if in nothing else to charge that you are being uncharitable in the way you address your brothers.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Rather than malign me, why not meet me on the field with the arms given by the Lamb of God: His word, in the Spirit of grace?



Where have I done any but this?

Anyhow, sir, you must understand this- I am very willing to be wrong on this matter. Were the world to devolve into chaos tonight and remain until His glorious return or were my Savior to return tonight, I would gladly worship, adore and enjoy Him forever. I would be ashamed that I'd misunderstood this subject. I arrived at it by looking at several expressions in Scripture that mention: the earth being full of the knowledge of the Lord Isaiah 11:9; at times when a man couldn't turn to his brother and say "know the Lord" as all will know Him from the greatest to the least Jeremiah 31:34; that the stars of the sky/sand of the beaches/dust of the earth wouldn't outnumber the children of Abraham, Genesis 13, 22, 26, 28; that God's King will reign in all the earth (not just all the church) Ps. 2, that God's great rock shall smash the kingdom and fill the whole earth (not just the whole church) Dan 10, etc, a kingdom starting small as a mustard seed but growing titanically in all the earth Matthew 13. In all these the expression suggests ALL THE EARTH. Were it "all the church" or "among the saints," I would be of a mind to consider otherwise. As it is, I see it otherwise. BUT, If in these things I've erred, I'm only glad to be wrong if I've misunderstood their thrust. As with all presumptuous sins I might have committed, I can honestly say that I have not consciously intended to superimpose anything upon Scripture as best as my frail mind is able. If in fact I have, I count on Christ's mercy and his sweet rebuke in this life or the one to come. For everything I've done to misrepresent Christ, eschatology aside, I beg the mercy of the Savior and trust that I have it.


----------



## RamistThomist

The ethical and logical point in question is whether they should, not whether the power is abused. If we say that magistrate shouldn't do x because the innocent might be prosecuted by mistake, then we quickly lose the right to enact any laws. The radical Anabaptists specifically reasoned according to your logic. 



Pergamum said:


> Jacob,
> 
> Most of those killed during the witch-craze were not witches. It was one of the greatest evils tolerated by the Church during the Reformation-era.


----------



## RamistThomist

I should also point out something else: while theonomy always gets attacked in these discussions, people forget that in Europe it was natural law reasoning (and the common laws of nations) that allowed for the execution of Servetus (Code of Justinian, anyone?), the prosecution of perverts, the prosecution of witches and the dethroning of tyrants by armed force. Theonomy is quite tame, by comparison. 

This is particularly ironic since much of the opposition to theonomy was "Let's just get back to natural law." Indeed, why not?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Christopher, thanks for the response. What I am left with is that post-millennialists do not like being challenged – even in the mildest terms – and will charge those who do with being “uncharitable”. It is common for postmils to say of amils they are “pessimistic”, which is made more graphic by your term “Chickenlittleism” (which I find quite humorous rather than uncharitable). “Pollyanna” is simply a term for misplaced optimism. It but illustrates optimism unwarranted, without any reference to the characters of those holding such optimism.

You will note, Christopher, that I did not, in any of my remarks, address the _character_ of post-mil folks, but their doctrine; yet you continue to call _me_ “uncharitable”, for my doctrine, i.e., its explicit critique of yours.

I have just read Hanko’s first article you gave the link to, The Illusory Hope of Postmillennialism, and see where he writes, “The Postmillennialists are an ardent group of men. They have little patience with anyone who does not agree with them.” Do you think this true?

At any rate, you did present some Scriptures to defend your brand of optimism. To take a quick look at them: Isa 11:9, Jer 31:34, Gen 13, 22, 26, 28, Ps 2, and Dan 10 (though I think you meant Dan 2:34,35,44,45 instead) are Old Testament types of other than a post-mil golden age; to wit: Isa 11:9 shows the eternal state; Jer 31:34 shows the new covenant House of Israel, comprised of only the regenerated elect; Gen 13, 22, 26, 28 where all the nations and the families of the earth shall be blessed through Abraham’s Seed refer either to the gospel going into all the nations / families of the earth and calling out from them God’s elect and / or on the New Earth and New Heavens where only the nations and the families of the redeemed are present, as we see in Rev 21:24-26. There are multiple millions of the elect. I have heard that just in China _presently_ the unregistered (underground) church members number many, many millions. So far, none of the Scriptures you have given refer to a post-mil 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] age (between this present age and the eternal state) wherein righteousness shall reign and wickedness shall be almost eradicated (though somehow post-mils must factor in a massive rebellion of the wicked out to slay the people of God at the very end, where God Himself intervenes –Rev 20:7-9). 

You list Ps 2 as demonstrating the post-mil schema, but verses 1-3 find an echo and manifestation in Rev 16:14,16, 17:14, and 20:7-9 where the nations gather to battle the Lamb and His people; while Ps 2:5,9 find fulfilment in Rev 6:12-17, 19:11-21 (especially v 15), and 20:9. These verses in Ps 2 are seen enacted in the battle of “that great day of God Almighty” (Rev 16:14) that shall terminate the church age and usher in eternity.

Dan 2:34,35,44,45 all refer, in fact, to the present millennial period and beyond, where the Lord, and then His church, overcome all the nations and empires of the world in history – victorious through the word of their testimony, and the blood of the Lamb, not loving their lives even unto the death – culminating in their resurrections and the everlasting Kingdom bequeathed to them in their Head and Saviour.

The one New Testament Scripture you gave, the parable of the mustard seed (Matt 13:31,32) indicates that the kingdom of God starts from seemingly insignificant beginnings but ends in enormous growth. There is nothing to support the post-mil view here. The OT Scriptures you gave _do_ support the spread of God’s kingdom over all the earth, but not at all in the manner of a supposed golden age such as you suggest.

What Prof. Hanko objects to (in the article you linked to) is the removal of the *antithesis* between the church and the world, that implacable enmity between the holy God and His people on the one hand, and the ungodly rebellious world on the other. Can it be that the “Christianizing” of the nations of the world is only “skin deep” seeing as at the end there will be a massive revolt of “the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth” against the church to destroy it (Rev 20:8 – though God does intervene from Heaven)? Were these “golden age” nations actually skulking despisers of God and His people during the millennium, who finally mustered the courage to put an end to the sham and revolt?

I am close to a godly church (not the church I am a member of) which seems to me to proceed on the basis of impacting the culture so as to “make the world a better place to live” by contributing to and enhancing the arts and other aspects of that culture. It is really a joining with unbelievers to work together to improve the world – purportedly in the name of common grace.

I do believe that the culture of the world is the culture of Babylon, which is in opposition to God, and which allures His people to worldliness. Its moral and spiritual condition cannot be improved – it is the world. One must come out of it and into the spiritual kingdom of Christ. So what Hanko says about post-mils and the kingdom of antichrist is, I think, to warn them to beware of the kingdom of the world. I think most people know that post-mil believers are in the main godly, devout, and serious disciples.

I do not believe, as Hanko and Hoeksema, that the kingdom of antichrist will be “a kingdom of peace, of great plenty, of enormous prosperity and uncounted riches, of beauty and splendor such as the world has never seen” – but something quite different, though this is not the place for that.

I’ll end my post with a quote from Kim Riddlebarger’s, _A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times_:
The most serious interpretive problem associated with postmillennialism has to do with the nature of the New Testament’s expectation for the future. Does the New Testament anticipate a future golden age for Christ’s kingdom in which the nations are effectively Christianized, resulting in economic, cultural, and religious advances unsurpassed in human history? Or does the general eschatological expectation of the New Testament center in Christ’s direct intervention to a wicked and unbelieving world like in the days of Noah (Matt 24:37-38)? Postmillenarians anticipate a positive answer to the former question, while amillenarians expect the latter.

When the debate is framed as a contrast between postmillennial optimism or amillennial pessimism, postmillennial criticisms often have great rhetorical effectiveness, especially with optimistic Americans. But such criticism fails to take into account that *amillenarians are optimistic about the kingdom of God*. It is the kingdoms of this world which give amillenarians pause. [emphasis added] (p 237)​


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Christopher, thanks for the response. What I am left with is that post-millennialists do not like being challenged – even in the mildest terms – and will charge those who do with being “uncharitable”. It is common for postmils to say of amils they are “pessimistic”, which is made more graphic by your term “Chickenlittleism” (which I find quite humorous rather than uncharitable). “Pollyanna” is simply a term for misplaced optimism. It but illustrates optimism unwarranted, without any reference to the characters of those holding such optimism.



I regret that you believe that is what you are left with. If "misplaced optimism" (a far better definition of your term "Polyannaism" that the one I offered) is "mild" then I'd hate to see your extremes when approaching a brother to discuss the merits of an argument. But, if you are convinced of that despite the rebuke of myself and another brother earlier (Tyler,) I can only urge you to reconsider what is the best way to deal with another brother in Christian charity. This will only ever set up defenses. I've read a million quotes in opposition to my eschatalogical position on PB and never uttered word. So, if I just get a 'thin skin' label and repetition of the same insult and a brush off by you, Steve, then I won't attempt to prevail on you at this point. Incidentally I never used the term "Chickenlittleism" to characterize your position and said so from the outset.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I have just read Hanko’s first article you gave the link to, The Illusory Hope of Postmillennialism, and see where he writes, “The Postmillennialists are an ardent group of men. They have little patience with anyone who does not agree with them.” Do you think this true?


No. In fact, I have said that I am very willing to be wrong. Remember?



Jerusalem Blade said:


> At any rate, you did present some Scriptures to defend your brand of optimism. To take a quick look at them


In your opinion. Again, I have offered that I am willing to be wrong on the subject, but I don't see my understanding overturned by your argument.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> What Prof. Hanko objects to (in the article you linked to) is the removal of the *antithesis* between the church and the world, that implacable enmity between the holy God and His people on the one hand, and the ungodly rebellious world on the other. Can it be that the “Christianizing” of the nations of the world is only “skin deep” seeing as at the end there will be a massive revolt of “the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth” against the church to destroy it (Rev 20:8 – though God does intervene from Heaven)? Were these “golden age” nations actually skulking despisers of God and His people during the millennium, who finally mustered the courage to put an end to the sham and revolt?



I would only say that in the passages I note, these don't seem to be referring to false professors but to Christ's very own.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I am close to a godly church (not the church I am a member of) which seems to me to proceed on the basis of impacting the culture so as to “make the world a better place to live” by contributing to and enhancing the arts and other aspects of that culture. It is really a joining with unbelievers to work together to improve the world – purportedly in the name of common grace.



What a shame! Tell them to stop that! They need to be preaching the Gospel if they hope to see any lasting fruit. Yes, I despise the very term "common grace!" What is more uncommon than the grace of Christ? In what way could He ever split off His mediatorial work and parcel out some of it to the goats. I believe in no way that the grace of God extends any further than election. I have long argued with many a friend on this point. Now back to the point at hand.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> So what Hanko says about post-mils and the kingdom of antichrist is, I think, to warn them to beware of the kingdom of the world. I think most people know that post-mil believers are in the main godly, devout, and serious disciples.


I hope it was as kind as that, else we are all minions of the devil if I read him aright. I'll go with your interpretation!



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I’ll end my post with a quote from Kim Riddlebarger’s, _A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times_:
> The most serious interpretive problem associated with postmillennialism has to do with the nature of the New Testament’s expectation for the future. Does the New Testament anticipate a future golden age for Christ’s kingdom in which the nations are effectively Christianized, resulting in economic, cultural, and religious advances unsurpassed in human history? Or does the general eschatological expectation of the New Testament center in Christ’s direct intervention to a wicked and unbelieving world like in the days of Noah (Matt 24:37-38)? Postmillenarians anticipate a positive answer to the former question, while amillenarians expect the latter.
> 
> When the debate is framed as a contrast between postmillennial optimism or amillennial pessimism, postmillennial criticisms often have great rhetorical effectiveness, especially with optimistic Americans. But such criticism fails to take into account that *amillenarians are optimistic about the kingdom of God*. It is the kingdoms of this world which give amillenarians pause. [emphasis added] (p 237)​


[/QUOTE]

We could trade quotes all day but as it is, you have already hijacked a thread to take the ax to the root of Postmillenialism. As I mentioned, and I hope you took careful note of, I am not chiliastic - I believe the entire interadvental period is the "last days" or the final week of Daniel, a period in which the Gospel will go forward to a climatic, unprecedented, world-wide peak by way of the work of the Spirit through the preaching of the gospel. The kingdom is now, not just future. The Lamb reigns now. I am not a classical Post-Mil. I am convinced of a great apostasy in the end. So, a good bit of Riddlebarger's polemical jabs miss me as with Dr. Englesma's against DeMar. I am further from Classical Post-Mil than I am from Amillenialism, in any of its forms.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

AlexanderHenderson1647 said:


> you have already hijacked a thread to take the ax to the root of Postmillenialism


 
Come on, Alexander, please be fair. The OP of the thread was so open-ended, and the conversation leading to godly magistrates (like Asa, or Bahati) so organic, and the different eschatological views so pertinent to the different ways of seeing the efficacy of such magistrates, that I don’t think your “hijack” remark is warranted.

Okay, I have gotten this much from you, that referring to the postmil view as “pollyannaistic” is counter-productive in trying to have a civil conversation with you (Tyler did not object to this term specifically – I was the one who brought up the phrase afterwards – but simply to my vigorously seeking to refute the postmil view here on PB where so many post-millers are). I do not want to alienate you in the midst of discussion.

Not to belabor this, but it is worthy of mention; can you not discuss _ideas_ without attacking the _character_ of your opponent?

It is of no great matter to me how you characterize my _position_ (within godly reason) – for ideas may well be ridiculed, satirized, deconstructed, minutely examined for flaws in reasoning, etc, but a person’s _character_ ought not be brought into question without real cause. Though you seem to think it okay to do that. I think it a debate tactic to “poison the well” of the other’s view. Are you not familiar with vigorous debate, and the satirizing of ideas? You want me to be a meek little kitten when talking of views that, if held, will cause great harm to a congregation? When I mentioned (in post 27) the sufferings of our brethren in countries like “North Korea, Eritrea, China, most Islamic nations (and there are _many_ of them!), India, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Columbia, Myanmar (Burma)” etc, it would be cruel in my estimation to give them an eschatology wherein the hope is placed in a coming age of earthly peace and prosperity for the church rather than to gird up their loins and ready their minds to suffer for Christ and patiently await His return, which is *the* hope of the church in this age before the end. 

Do you think it right for me to be “charitable” to – to treat lovingly and kindly – a false teaching? I think I have been charitable to your person – your character – and if not I would apologize for that. But our ideas are fair game, are they not?

When I would prepare African pastors, elders, and evangelists (when teaching in Africa) to be as ready to die well as live well – for these (mostly) South Sudanese men were going back into a country torn by decades of war with the north, some of whose tribes were animistic, and unfriendly to the Gospel, as well as to other tribes – I was only conveying the New Testament vision of persecution and hardship, exactly as befell our Lord. Likewise with believers going back into Egypt, and Iran: I would prepare them to live well and to die well, for that’s the way things are in their countries. Even Kenya is becoming war-torn, and some of my old students are there too.

This business is not a mere academic eschatological discussion to me, but a matter of life and death – preparing souls to endure various manners of suffering and stay true to our Saviour. There _are_ ways to prepare people for such.

I think that in the West we believers are largely unaware of what is befalling our brethren in many other parts of the world. We are ignorant of their plights, we neither pray much for them, nor even know how to pray for them. There are horrors going on, and we are shielded from them. It will come upon us as well, and if we stand in prayerful and supportive solidarity with them, this in itself will be helpful in preparing us for what is to come. (At this point one _could_ say, “Oh, here comes Steve’s ‘Chickenlittleism’,” and if so, so be it.) But it should be noted that I am of no mind to give any quarter – any charity at all – to _doctrines_ that endanger our lives, especially our spiritual lives, and faithfulness to Christ – doctrines that are false to the Scriptures. Below I will excerpt a saying from Gary North as regards the contention between eschatological camps. Yes, Alexander, I note that you are not chiliastic, nor a “Theonomist”; I excerpt Drs. North and Engelsma to show the nature of the conflict in the arena of consciousness in the church.

Alexander, I think you should be able to differentiate between my being “uncharitable” to what I see as a false doctrine – an idea – and being uncharitable to a person. If you (or anyone) were to lambaste the amil position (and really harsh treatments of such have come from both premil – mostly Dispensational – and postmil camps – mostly reconstructionists) but were charitable to the _persons_ of the amillenarians, I would not complain because they were “uncharitable” to what they saw as a false teaching. That’s why we have debates, conducted civilly.

The person in the thread with whom I contended before you seemed to me to be offended because I attacked an idea – a doctrine – that was precious to him. If it were a foundational doctrine such as our Saviour’s deity, His virgin birth, the truth and reliability of the Bible, the goodness of God, and suchlike, I could understand. But eschatology, important as it is, is peripheral to the core teachings of our Faith, and one ought not be offended to see one’s views therein rigorously scrutinized and vigorously refuted, even satirized.

It’s not a _big_ deal for my character to be impugned, as the Lord knows what a wretched character I am apart from His sustaining and purifying grace, and whatever ill you could say about me wouldn’t even approach a fraction of the magnitude of it. If the Lord receives me what do I really care who disdains me? I must carry on in my integrity, for I am drawing nigh my eternal youth. I will have to answer to my Master.

So I gather your post-mil view is highly nuanced, much like Richard’s. I’m glad to see that. 

Thanks for the exercise.

From his, A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism (1), David Engelsma’s introduction to Gary North’s remarks:

Reformed and Presbyterian churches and officebearers have apparently decided to tolerate postmillennialism. This is tacit sanctioning of the error. Postmillennialism is, at the very least, a legitimate option for Reformed Christians. It is, therefore, no wonder that these churches and ministers are unable to respond to the sharp attack on amillennialism by the postmillennialists. Much less can they take the offensive against the error.

Postmillennialism wins by default.

Error carries the day because truth is kept from the field.

The notion of some amillennialists that amillennialism and postmillennialism are two valid options for Reformed Christians and that the silence of the amillennialists will result in amillennialism and postmillennialism dwelling together in blest accord is silly.

The aggressive postmillennialists know better than this and intend, in fact, to wipe amillennialism out, root and branch. They have given the Reformed amillennialists fair warning. Gary North has written:

​There are three main rival views of evangelical eschatology – four, considering dispensationalism. Either all are in error, or all but one is. It is always the task of Trinitarian theologians to discover what is biblically correct. When a theologian has concluded that a particular view is correct, he should seek to make his discovery a test of orthodoxy – if not in his own era, if that is premature, then someday. The goal of the Church should always be an increase in confessional precision. A large part of the Church's confession deals with eschatology. Orthodoxy means _straight speaking. _One cannot speak straight with a four-way tongue.

It is time to stop believing in theological pluralism as anything more than a temporary stopgap. It is time to reject the idea of the equal ultimacy of incompatible theological positions. Premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism are theologically incompatible. God cannot be pleased with all three. At least two of them should be discarded as heretical, if not today, then before Christ comes in final judgment.

l contend that two of them will be. This is another implication of postmillennialism: the Church will eventually identify other eschatologies as wrong. Amillennialists and premillennialists believe that such eschatological precision and confidence will never come to the Church in history; therefore, they are formally defenders of eschatological liberty (at least in Presbyterian circles) even though they cannot stand postmillennialism. They believe that today's eschatological confusion is a permanent condition: the equal judicial ultimacy of all three. We postmillennialists do not agree. We do not hold eschatologies in dialectical ... tension ("Eschatology and Social Theory," _Christianity & Society 4, _no. 2, April 1994:11).

​The delightful Dr. North is wrong on two counts. Protestant Reformed amillennialists *do *believe that eschatological precision and confidence will come to the Church in history. In fact, they believe that this precision has already come to the church in history. It has come to the church as represented by the Protestant Reformed Churches. It is the confession of amillennialism with its corresponding repudiation of premillennialism and postmillennialism as false doctrines. And this, of course, indicates Dr. North's second mistake.

The quotation does serve to show that postmillennialism is not content peacefully to coexist with amillennialism, contrary to the thinking of the Reformed amillennialists who refuse to speak out in defense of amillennialism.

In this and a few subsequent editorials, I like to do my small part in defending and promoting the biblical doctrine of the last days, namely, Reformed amillennialism. This will necessarily involve demonstrating that postmillennialism is a false doctrine, as well as a vain and dangerous hope.

​-----------

[end Engelsma / North quotes]


----------



## A5pointer

You guys are some crazy cats......not in a bad way.


----------



## RamistThomist

> Come on, Alexander, please be fair. The OP of the thread was so open-ended, and the conversation leading to godly magistrates (like Asa, or Bahati) so organic, and the different eschatological views so pertinent to the different ways of seeing the efficacy of such magistrates, that I don’t think your “hijack” remark is warranted.



To be fair, the point of the thread was ethics and the civil magistrate. I am a premillennial theocrat, so this thread is difficult for me to get my head around. I stand for the same position that Calvin did--the magistrate must further the true religion--but the arguments against the historic reformed view sound like: "Well, postmillennialism is wrong." That's answering a completely different question.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Jacob, I think the point of the thread was, per Pastor Benjamin (post #2), "Do I need to 'have a point'? I was just struck in my general regular reading of the juxtaposition of these two passages and thought I would share it." See also his post #11.

So the thread _was_ open-ended, and the inclusion of eschatological views came along with the magistrates' roles in differing schemas, the first being the "Theonomic", and the differing moral mandates peculiar to each.


----------



## TylerRay

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Tyler did not object to this term specifically – I was the one who brought up the phrase afterwards – but simply to my vigorously seeking to refute the postmil view here on PB where so many post-millers are



Steve, I was referring to your use of the the terms "pollyanna theologists" and "foolish eschatological dreams" when I charged you with being uncharitable.

You have described postmillennialism as "misguided optimism." That's fine. But your earlier language seems to point more to a notion of _blind optimism._ That seems to be the reason you find the doctrine dangerous. Neither Chistopher, Richard, nor I would advocate blind optimism (optimism about the near future in spite of our present circumstances). That _is_ foolish, and I would stand against those who would abuse the Scriptures in that way.

The earth could last for yet thousands of years, and we could be entering a period of deep darkness that lasts for hundreds, or indeed thousands. Those things are not for me to know. God has revealed the general sweep of history (in relation to his Church), and not the particulars.


----------



## Miss Marple

I think the reason that homosexuality is becoming such a giant part of our culture is that the church is uncertain in its response.

If the trumpet call is uncertain, who rallies?

Some say: Homosexuality is not a sin. Big, official churches are saying this.

Some say: It's a sin in the church, but our civil laws should not reflect it.

Some say: It's a sin in the church, but our civil laws should actually support it.

Some say: It's a sin all over, and no special privileges should be given the homosexuals.

Some say: It's a sin all over, some civil sanctions should be placed on homosexual behavior.

Some say: It's a big sin, and heavy sanctions should be placed on the behavior.

Some may even advocate a death penalty for the behavior. Not so much maybe, but remember my George Washington reference. It used to happen.

The church is floundering on this issue in my opinion. Thus, fools rush into the vacuum.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Tyler, I stand corrected. Yet I am not at all convinced that to critique or satirize theological or eschatological _ideas_ is uncharitable, if I continue to treat those _persons_ who may hold to such with respect and kindness. 

Miss Marple, and if the church was _not_ floundering, but uniformly – all churches across the board – requested heavy sanctions from the civil magistrate, what do you think that would accomplish? Ever hear of the book, _American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, _by Chris Hedges? There are many who have us in their sights, and would love to see a move such as this.

These are not the days of yore, but a dark time, darker than any we have seen yet in the church age. For all that, the bride of Christ will stand firm, and bring glory to her Husband.


----------



## Miss Marple

"Miss Marple, and if the church was not floundering, but uniformly – all churches across the board – requested heavy sanctions from the civil magistrate, what do you think that would accomplish? Ever hear of the book, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, by Chris Hedges? There are many who have us in their sights, and would love to see a move such as this."

I'd be speculating, but, I think if all the churches across the board called for heavy sanctions, we'd see this trend reversing.


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647

Jerusalem Blade said:


> AlexanderHenderson1647 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have already hijacked a thread to take the ax to the root of Postmillenialism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, Alexander, please be fair. The OP of the thread was so open-ended, and the conversation leading to godly magistrates (like Asa, or Bahati) so organic, and the different eschatological views so pertinent to the different ways of seeing the efficacy of such magistrates, that I don’t think your “hijack” remark is warranted.
Click to expand...


Fair enough.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Okay, I have gotten this much from you, that referring to the postmil view as “pollyannaistic” is counter-productive in trying to have a civil conversation with you (Tyler did not object to this term specifically – I was the one who brought up the phrase afterwards – but simply to my vigorously seeking to refute the postmil view here on PB where so many post-millers are). I do not want to alienate you in the midst of discussion.



Not the view, sir, the persons who maintain it. You continue to insist that you did not aim at anyone's character, but I'll quote you here:



Jerusalem Blade said:


> “Some pollyanna *theologists* imagine a coming golden age...”



You target the character of the optimistic amil/postmil THEOLOGISTS (sic) when you call them (us) pollyannaist. You and I have gone back and forth on the reach of this term. It involves blind, unfounded, misguided optimism, and in this case, abuse of Scripture. You did not say the ideas/theology were "pollyannaistic" in this instance, but rather that the men/women (the theologists themselves) were "pollyannaistic"- cease denying this.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Not to belabor this, but it is worthy of mention; can you not discuss _ideas_ without attacking the _character_ of your opponent?...It is of no great matter to me how you characterize my _position_ (within godly reason) – for ideas may well be ridiculed, satirized, deconstructed, minutely examined for flaws in reasoning, etc, but a person’s _character_ ought not be brought into question without real cause. Though you seem to think it okay to do that.
> 
> with
> 
> It’s not a _big_ deal for my character to be impugned, as the Lord knows what a wretched character I am apart from His sustaining and purifying grace, and whatever ill you could say about me wouldn’t even approach a fraction of the magnitude of it. If the Lord receives me what do I really care who disdains me? I must carry on in my integrity, for I am drawing nigh my eternal youth. I will have to answer to my Master.



Steve, may I please ask where I've attacked your character (or anyone else's)? You said this more than once but I must be missing where I've done this. If I am guilty, I owe you (or whomever I've attacked) an apology. Where am I guilty of this, please, so that we can have done with this?



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I think it a debate tactic to “poison the well” of the other’s view. Are you not familiar with vigorous debate, and the satirizing of ideas? You want me to be a meek little kitten when talking of views that, if held, will cause great harm to a congregation? When I mentioned (in post 27) the sufferings of our brethren in countries like “North Korea, Eritrea, China, most Islamic nations (and there are _many_ of them!), India, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Columbia, Myanmar (Burma)” etc, it would be cruel in my estimation to give them an eschatology wherein the hope is placed in a coming age of earthly peace and prosperity for the church rather than to gird up their loins and ready their minds to suffer for Christ and patiently await His return, which is *the* hope of the church in this age before the end.



I will not minimize the sufferings of those blessed brethern (of whom this world is unworthy) - that would be a measure of heartlessness that would not accurately represent our Great Shepherd. But, Steve, my point stands. There was a time in the world when there was as few as one family in the whole earth, later one nation (eventually an occupied one until it ceased to exist,) then 11 Gospel teachers (IN THE ENTIRE WORLD WITH ROMAN AND JEWISH AUTHORITIES DOGGING THEIR EVERY STEP!!!) You can despair of our surroundings now, but you would do these brothers of yesterday no justice to swear that current conditions outstrip theirs (which you may or may not have done.) What might happen, how much worse, how much longer, what nation may fall? I'll not hazard. You are the one making Biblically unsubstantiated claims that swear that the world will be soon awash in worldwide cataclysm. To wit:


Jerusalem Blade said:


> ...the flood of lawlessness and iniquity will soon enough carry away all these foolish eschatological dreams”


 Do I read you aright? Are you hazarding a claim that this will occur soon? It must be tiresome to witness disturbing world events and swear that THIS is the one, only for another decade and century to roll along. I think of this more from my former theological background of dispensationalism. Every time a tyrant donning a funny hat popped up on the world scene, it was immediately claimed as a slam dunk proof that the end was near! Do you not see how "girding up loins" by swearing that a massive flood will wipe us all out very soon and instilling terror when you have no warrant for such is problematic? Yes, every believer must know that if the world hated Christ, the same world will hate them. Withholding this spiritual food from them would be impeachable. I continually tell those around me that, shy of God's mercy, our nation will likely be in utter peril soon. I pray each day against the logical consequences of what we are bringing upon ourselves as a nation in America. I further pray with my family that God will withhold his wrath and convert many, turning our hearts OR that if he will not that he would teach us to endure under persecution or lawlessness. I pray likewise that if God will not spare us that He might take us to that place where we will be free to openly name His name without fear of recourse.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Do you think it right for me to be “charitable” to – to treat lovingly and kindly – a false teaching? I think I have been charitable to your person – your character – and if not I would apologize for that. But our ideas are fair game, are they not?


Nice try. I do not see the teaching as "false" so I will not sustain your question. What I’ll do is make the question tenable for us both.
Q:“Given that we stand at odds and interpret passages differently, might we not criticize ideas so that we can set forward what we believe to be true, even if we sharply criticize the merits of the opposing argument presented?”
A: “Yes.”



Jerusalem Blade said:


> (At this point one _could_ say, “Oh, here comes Steve’s ‘Chickenlittleism’,” and if so, so be it.)



*Sigh* Oh, Steve. How I have tried to tell you that I DO NOT characterize your position in this way. Must you insist on accusing me so in order to bolster your argument?



Jerusalem Blade said:


> But it should be noted that I am of no mind to give any quarter – any charity at all – to _doctrines_ that endanger our lives, especially our spiritual lives, and faithfulness to Christ – doctrines that are false to the Scriptures...Alexander, I think you should be able to differentiate between my being “uncharitable” to what I see as a false doctrine – an idea – and being uncharitable to a person. If you (or anyone) were to lambaste the amil position (and really harsh treatments of such have come from both premil – mostly Dispensational – and postmil camps – mostly reconstructionists) but were charitable to the _persons_ of the amillenarians, I would not complain because they were “uncharitable” to what they saw as a false teaching. That’s why we have debates, conducted civilly.



I believe I have sufficiently demonstrated that you have attacked the characters of anyone who hold any but your view. It is this with which I am concerned.

It might surprise you to learn that I've defended you before, even approached the moderators, when I saw what I believed was an attack on your character and reported those that I felt were guilty.

Here, I saved the message:

“Thanks for considering and looking into it. I'm just really disturbed by some of the things said (mind you, I see how the gentleman from Astoria may be pressing a word in a passage from the Greek to an unreasonable place.) Did you see and find any concern in those two posters making reference to him being like a cult member or reminding them of cult involvement? For all my disagreements with him on his point, saying things like that question not only his salvation but suggest that he purposefully leads people from Christ. I don't want to damper spirited discussion and debate, but I personally would never want to be charged with cult-like leanings and can't imagine he's relishing it much. Again, he seems to be getting way far-fetched in his reasoning, but I do believe he deserves charity.”

So, please be done with suggesting I do not understand or appreciate spirited, brotherly debate. No more lectures on my capacity for dealing in heated theological discussions.

Furthermore, you might like to know that I am surrounded by Amils - my church is (to the person, Amil)- I'm the lone standout. The Amils in my life have made me a the Postmil I am. I'm grateful to them. We debate and discuss and get heated and walk away brothers. There's no reason we can't, Steve. So let's do this. I've shown what I believe is wrong on your part and have asked you to show me where I'm guilty (as you've claimed time and again.)

And last, I challenge you with this. Now you’ve claimed that you can support and pray the second petition of the Lord’s Prayer a la question 191 of WLC. But, you said earlier that:



Jerusalem Blade said:


> The time for magistrates upholding God's law is FINISHED; now the time is for the people of God bearing witness to God's law and the coming judgment upon all unrighteousness, and the salvation from that terrible judgment being found only at Christ's hand. This will result in outrage from the world against us, and the determination to silence us at any cost (of course we will pay that cost); this will result in cries going up to Heaven, to Him who sits on the throne, who shall then mete increasing judgments against the wicked idolaters and the persecutors of His people. (caps mine)



Are you praying for something that you believe and teach will never occur? If you are so conscientiously convinced that the time is over according to God’s will, how can you pray contrary? How can you pray something disagreeable to His will? Do you not see the conflict in that? Here is the Q & A:

“Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
A. In the second petition, (which is, Thy kingdom come,) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed...the church...be countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate” et al


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Alexander, it does seem we are miscommunicating! I hope to clear some of this up!

When I said “some pollyanna theologists imagine a golden age coming” [theologist – a word I heard in Cyprus – refers to a person not a theologian theologizing] I was speaking of a person’s theology not a person’s character. If I’d said, “some pollyanna people” you would be right, but I spoke of theologists qua theologists – _in their capacity as theologists_. It is their theology – eschatology in this case – that is overly optimistic.

If I’d said, “some pessimistic theologians . . .” I would be referencing their theology as pessimistic, not their characters. Maybe it is that you don’t want to accept the distinctions I make, but please understand I was referencing theologies not persons. Maybe you still won’t accept my usage, but please take my word that my meaning is as I have said.

------

When you say *I* am being “uncharitable” for making the above remarks you reference my character. It would be true if I were referencing the people per se rather than the people _in their capacity as theologians_. I suppose this is how some wars, divorces, fights start – people misunderstanding each other!

I think your way of saying be charitable to a false teaching is better (less loaded) than mine!

You said, “I believe I have sufficiently demonstrated that you have attacked the characters of anyone who hold any but your view. It is this with which I am concerned.” Alexander, this troubles me as I genuinely seek to do the exact opposite – to attribute good qualities to them even as I may dispute their views, for such is the command of Scripture: “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves” (Phil 2:3). I have tried to make that the “signature” of my approach in discussions and teaching. I can see that you are led to this view of me due to misunderstanding my usage of language spoken of in the beginning of this post.

------

With regard to your question about the LC Q&A 191. You will have noted, if you saw my profile, is that my confessional subscription is the Three forms of Unity. I have changed to that after some long and hard thinking.

I appreciate the WLC 191 gives the Scripture proof 1 Tim 2:1-2 to its saying, “the church...be countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate”.

*1 Tim 2:1-2* I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

“Countenanced and maintained” – does this mean the civil magistrate so governs and maintains order in the land “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” and the church is unmolested? I hold to that. Does it mean that the civil magistrate is able to interfere in the workings of the church and its governance? I do not hold to that.

I have sought to come to clarity on the relation between the church and the civil magistrate, especially on the Two Kingdom teaching, whether it be right or wrong – and I have sought counsel from those on both sides of the discussion (though I have not always been answered) – and I think where I have settled is spelled out in this article: The Messianic Kingdom and Civil Government, by David J. Engelsma.

At this moment the civil magistrate in America (and in Europe and the U.K.) has wickedly turned against the laws of God, and the stage is clearly being set for the unlawfulness – criminalization – of those who holds to it, as it is written,

“Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?” (Ps 94:20) and “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.” (Prov 17:15)

I shall pray that we have godly magistrates once again that bring order and peace in the land, but I also know that we shall be brought before kings and rulers (Lk 21:12) for our Faith, and that we shall be as “sheep for the slaughter” (Ro 8:36-37) if the Lord so ordains it.

In sum, Alexander, I do perceive you are a godly man of good character; please do not take my views on doctrine you may hold as having any bearing on the quality of your heart.


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Alexander, it does seem we are miscommunicating! I hope to clear some of this up!
> 
> When I said “some pollyanna theologists imagine a golden age coming” [theologist – a word I heard in Cyprus – refers to a person not a theologian theologizing] I was speaking of a person’s theology not a person’s character. If I’d said, “some pollyanna people” you would be right, but I spoke of theologists qua theologists – _in their capacity as theologists_. It is their theology – eschatology in this case – that is overly optimistic. If I’d said, “some pessimistic theologians . . .” I would be referencing their theology as pessimistic, not their characters. Maybe it is that you don’t want to accept the distinctions I make, but please understand I was referencing theologies not persons. Maybe you still won’t accept my usage, but please take my word that my meaning is as I have said.



Ah, the fault _is _mine. Please let me beg pardon for overworking a nonexistant point, sir!



Jerusalem Blade said:


> When you say *I* am being “uncharitable” for making the above remarks you reference my character. It would be true if I were referencing the people per se rather than the people _in their capacity as theologians_. I suppose this is how some wars, divorces, fights start – people misunderstanding each other!



No, no! Please reread. I referred to what you _said _as uncharitable. I did not say that _you _are an uncharitable person. One might well be full of charity and yet say something that is uncharitable. That is the total of what I meant, but I see that I was mistaken as you clarified this.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I think your way of saying be charitable to a false teaching is better (less loaded) than mine!


Come, come :/



Jerusalem Blade said:


> With regard to your question about the LC Q&A 191. You will have noted, if you saw my profile, is that my confessional subscription is the Three forms of Unity. I have changed to that after some long and hard thinking.


Ah, I saw that you were a PCA member and ran with that. Love the 3 Forms.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I appreciate the WLC 191 gives the Scripture proof 1 Tim 2:1-2 to its saying, “the church...be countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate”.
> 
> *1 Tim 2:1-2* I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
> 
> “Countenanced and maintained” – does this mean the civil magistrate so governs and maintains order in the land “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” and the church is unmolested? I hold to that. Does it mean that the civil magistrate is able to interfere in the workings of the church and its governance? I do not hold to that.


You'd get some gawks from the Confessors were any alive to hear you suggest this. Take a look at how the Assembly was brought together and subsequent actions that were taken. History and the adjacent statements regarding the magistrate given in the WCF in its original form enforce what I say. The Solemn League and Covenant along undoes this speculations.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> At this moment the civil magistrate in America (and in Europe and the U.K.) has wickedly turned against the laws of God, and the stage is clearly being set for the unlawfulness – criminalization – of those who holds to it, as it is written,
> 
> “Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?” (Ps 94:20) and “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.” (Prov 17:15)


Agreed!



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I shall pray that we have godly magistrates once again that bring order and peace in the land, but I also know that we shall be brought before kings and rulers (Lk 21:12) for our Faith, and that we shall be as “sheep for the slaughter” (Ro 8:36-37) if the Lord so ordains it.


In this, our voices shall blend.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> In sum, Alexander, I do perceive you are a godly man of good character; please do not take my views on doctrine you may hold as having any bearing on the quality of your heart.


As I do you, sir. Were I to have better understood what the "pollyannaist" term modified, I would have avoided dragging this so far along. I hope you know and trust my clarification above that I maligned nothing in your character. I have defended you before and would be loathe to now turn on you!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Alexander, thanks for your understanding. You have surely made me aware of how careful I must be when communicating. As a writer and poet I have long held it incumbent on the author to be clear (in an age when some poets think to make readers labor to decipher their work). 

To clear up another thing; when I say – in mildly self-depreciating humor – here comes Steve’s “Chickenlittleism”, I am sort of poking fun at myself, without reference to you at all. You playfully coined the term, but now it has a life of its own, and you bear no responsibility for how it is put to use henceforth.

You know, were any of the Confessors alive today (does the Lord allow any of them to see what is transpiring in the earth? But the newly departed to the intermediate Paradise can surely give them accurate reports!) they would not be gawking at me, but at what is rapidly becoming a dystopia world where the wicked are in ascendency, and the righteous reviled. They would also gawk incredulously at the chief civil magistrates over the nations and their godless agendas.

I see we both agree that this is what is; where we disagree is on how it shall resolve.

You mentioned The Solemn League and Covenant. Isn’t it remarkable what has happened to those nations involved! And even to our American states!

Thanks, Alexander, for resolving our lively discussion so amicably!


----------



## RamistThomist

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Tyler, I stand corrected. Yet I am not at all convinced that to critique or satirize theological or eschatological _ideas_ is uncharitable, if I continue to treat those _persons_ who may hold to such with respect and kindness.
> 
> Miss Marple, and if the church was _not_ floundering, but uniformly – all churches across the board – requested heavy sanctions from the civil magistrate, what do you think that would accomplish?



Using that logic consistently, why should hte magistrate punish anything?



> These are not the days of yore, but a dark time, darker than any we have seen yet in the church age. For all that, the bride of Christ will stand firm, and bring glory to her Husband.


 
With all due respect, this is where I think you are confused on the thread, and the difference between ethics and eschatology. Who cares if the days are getting darker? I am to live faithfully in my calling and as Rutherford said, "The consequences are God's." If that calling is a Civil magistrate, then I have the obligation to ban behavior that unleashes aids and all sorts of horrible diseases on the commonwealth.


wITH


----------



## RamistThomist

Jerusalem Blade said:


> You mentioned The Solemn League and Covenant. Isn’t it remarkable what has happened to those nations involved! And even to our American states!
> 
> Thanks, Alexander, for resolving our lively discussion so amicably!



I know I sound like a broken record, but who cares what happened to those countries? It is the simple difference between *is* and *ought.* You are committing the naturalistic fallacy.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Jacob, what you are saying seems so academic and hypothetical. Of course we are to do the right thing regardless of consequences.

So what is the right thing – the “law of God” thing – we are to do with regard to the civil magistrate, and the laws which govern the land? What _can_ we do? Besides just theoretically discussing it?


----------



## RamistThomist

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Jacob, what you are saying seems so academic and hypothetical. Of course we are to do the right thing regardless of consequences.
> 
> So what is the right thing – the “law of God” thing – we are to do with regard to the civil magistrate, and the laws which govern the land? What _can_ we do? Besides just theoretically discussing it?



It's not academic. If logic is academic, so be it. Now you are getting back to the thrust of the thread with your last question. And I think I have answered it numerous times:


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Jacob, maybe it's just a typo that you didn't finish your sentence. On a practical level, what "ought" we to do – people like you and me?


----------



## RamistThomist

To use Covenanter language, and they knew after Cromwell they would be politically marginalized, "raise the Lord's standard," confess against the Enemy, etc.

To be honest, I am not giving a definite answer because, as Rutherford demonstrated in Lex, Rex, how you respond to the coming tyranny really depends on a number of factors. I am going to write a long essay in the near future on how to resist tyranny and I will answer some of those questions, then.


----------

