# Some Reconsiderations (I Recant!)



## WrittenFromUtopia (Dec 13, 2005)

From months of thought, Scripture reading, and consulation with my elders and other ordained men, I have reconsidered many things.

*Theonomy*- I no longer hold to the Theonomic thesis (not that I ever fully held to it, but had considered it a long while) as taught by Greg Bahnsen. As much good as Bahnsen did for apologetics, I still believe that the WCF/3FU have the most appropriate view of the OT Law and its application.

*Postmillennialism*- I just don't buy the dominion mandate. I think it is blatant eisogesis. God has revealed to us in His Word what He does and does not like, and we have no business "taking over for Christ" things that God abhors. I have a very optimistic future as far as eschatology is concerned, but I do not believe in a literal thousand year millennium. Yes, I know many today who claim Postmil do not either, but they're really not Postmil, and more often than not, fall under the Christian Reconstructionalist/Dominionist/Theonomic camp, not traditional Reformed Postmillennialism. I would say I'm an Optimistic Amillennialist, and I don't believe that I have changed my eschatological views one bit... I'm just being honest about what my view actually is (i.e. NOT postmillennialism as normally understood).

*Ecclesiology*- I don't believe that I should be out on the internet blogging it up and giving my two cents about every theological concept in the world, and taking a role of a teacher and authority over other brothers in Christ. I believe that I should discuss theology openly and with caution if I absolutely must discuss it online, and even then, with submission to my Session and other Biblically ordained elders who I come in contact with. I have come to appreciate more and more what ordained men have been teaching me about theology and theological discussion the past few months, especially men on this board such as Pastor King and Pastor Buchanan who have helped me and encouraged me a great deal, whether they may know this or not. That being said, I humbly and wholly apologize to any ordained minister in Christ's Church on this board whom I have offended or taken an unlawful role of authority over in conversations on this message board or elsewhere. I repent of my sinfulness to overthrow the authority of your position in Christ's Church. Please forgive me for my arrogance and stubbornness. I pray that God would help me stay in check more often and learn to speak my mind with an open mind of submission to the leaders in the Church.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> From months of thought, Scripture reading, and consulation with my elders and other ordained men, I have reconsidered many things.



I'm glad you're sharing this, as it serves as a reminder (at least to me) to continually re-examine our own views on various issues, and always be willing to learn. Also, I don't want to start any debate in this thread and side-track it as such, but I just have a couple of thoughts on your points below...



> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> *Theonomy*- I no longer hold to the Theonomic thesis (not that I ever fully held to it, but had considered it a long while) as taught by Greg Bahnsen. As much good as Bahnsen did for apologetics, I still believe that the WCF/3FU have the most appropriate view of the OT Law and its application.



While I certainly respect your view on theonomy and interpretation of the Confession here (as both are indeed held by the majority of people in Reformed Christendom today), I would just say that I believe the theonomic thesis as described and defended by Bahnsen and others is consistent with the Confession's view on the law, and in fact that the non-theonomic thesis is not. I realize my view is the minority view, but I just wanted to clarify that most theonomists do not accept "Westminster-Theonomy" as a true dichotomy.



> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> *Postmillennialism*- I just don't buy the dominion mandate. I think it is blatant eisogesis. God has revealed to us in His Word what He does and does not like, and we have no business "taking over for Christ" things that God abhors. I have a very optimistic future as far as eschatology is concerned, but I do not believe in a literal thousand year millennium. Yes, I know many today who claim Postmil do not either, but they're really not Postmil, and more often than not, fall under the Christian Reconstructionalist/Dominionist/Theonomic camp, not traditional Reformed Postmillennialism. I would say I'm an Optimistic Amillennialist, and I don't believe that I have changed my eschatological views one bit... I'm just being honest about what my view actually is (i.e. NOT postmillennialism as normally understood).



Eschatology is something that I have yet to make any decisions on whatsoever as far as the various Reformed viewpoints are concerned, and I honestly may never arrive at one above another. But I agree with you that the historical lines should not be blurred, and that anyone who calls themselves "Postmillennial" needs to distinguish whether it is the classical Puritan, 1000 years view or the theonomic view - and since you do not hold to the literal 1000 years _or_ theonomy, it was a good thing to note your view as Amillennial.



> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> *Ecclesiology*- I don't believe that I should be out on the internet blogging it up and giving my two cents about every theological concept in the world, and taking a role of a teacher and authority over other brothers in Christ. I believe that I should discuss theology openly and with caution if I absolutely must discuss it online, and even then, with submission to my Session and other Biblically ordained elders who I come in contact with. I have come to appreciate more and more what ordained men have been teaching me about theology and theological discussion the past few months, especially men on this board such as Pastor King and Pastor Buchanan who have helped me and encouraged me a great deal, whether they may know this or not. That being said, I humbly and wholly apologize to any ordained minister in Christ's Church on this board whom I have offended or taken an unlawful role of authority over in conversations on this message board or elsewhere. I repent of my sinfulness to overthrow the authority of your position in Christ's Church. Please forgive me for my arrogance and stubbornness. I pray that God would help me stay in check more often and learn to speak my mind with an open mind of submission to the leaders in the Church.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Dec 13, 2005)

I would say I hold to Westminsterian theonomy, but not *T*heonomy.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 13, 2005)

Love ya brother. Be Encouraged. The Elders are good People who you are under. You are a good man also Gabe. I could tell from the beginning God has a calling on you and is doing a work in your life. May I always be an encouragement to you. 

FCCAC, Randy


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Love ya brother. Be Encouraged. The Elders are good People who you are under. You are a good man also Gabe. I could tell from the beginning God has a calling on you and is doing a work in your life. May I always be an encouragement to you.
> 
> FCCAC, Randy



Love you too, friend. Thanks for all your help, in every way.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 13, 2005)

May the Lord guide and direct your steps, brother!


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 13, 2005)




----------



## turmeric (Dec 13, 2005)

What? ANOTHER repentant sinner? Am I the only Pharisee left?

God bless you, Gabriel, for your humility and courage.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Dec 13, 2005)

Wow! This is an awesome example of how to do this. I really appreciate your humility in this and find it a great encouragement.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 13, 2005)

Keep studying... pretty soon you'll also recant of acapella EP!


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 13, 2005)

and being a USC fan!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> and being a USC fan!



Not likely!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> Keep studying... pretty soon you'll also recant of acapella EP!



Even if I was to be convinced by Scripture that it wasn't required, I would still prefer it, from a practical argument's standpoint.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I would say I hold to Westminsterian theonomy, but not Theonomy.



All I ever mean by "theonomy" is that there are general principles illustrated in the judicial laws that are still more specific than the simple moral law, and that those principles are binding today - and that is the position I see as being consistent with the Confession (rather than interpreting the "general equity" to merely refer to the moral law, as non-theonomists seem to interpret it).

Right along with you though, I say that many "Theonomists" can keep the dominion baggage as far as I'm concerned.



> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> ...



But because of the very nature of the RPW, the only way EP wouldn't be required is if there is a command to sing hymns, in which case one would be obligated to do that. Thus, there really is no room for a "preferred" option even in a purely hypothetical sense, since either hymns are not commanded (in which case they are sinful), or they are commanded (in which case EP is sinful for not singing them).

Just sayin...


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> ...



Such a position would be appreciated.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> But because of the very nature of the RPW, the only way EP wouldn't be required is if there is a command to sing hymns, in which case one would be obligated to do that. Thus, there really is no room for a "preferred" option even in a purely hypothetical sense, since either hymns are not commanded (in which case they are sinful), or they are commanded (in which case EP is sinful for not singing them).
> 
> Just sayin...



This reply will be kind of rude, but I'm just tired of this type of nonsense. And I do mean nonsense. This is an utterly manmade argument that literally denies the plain teaching of Scripture. I don't care if you give me a list of 100 (or more) "scholars" who play smoke and mirrors games to deny Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16. These verses provide the very positive instruction that you people claim is needed. Give me a break. 2 Tim 3:7 most clearly applies.


----------



## historyb (Dec 13, 2005)

Are you saying yes EP or no EP? The verses seem to suggest that there's more than EP. 



> 19Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord
> 
> Eph 5:19



For example. :shrug:

[Edited on 12-14-2005 by historyb]


----------



## Craig (Dec 13, 2005)

Wow...some recant Theonomy and repent of it...

I'm now a theonomist who leans toward a postmil reconstructionist view...strange how things go.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 13, 2005)

If y'all wish to debate EP (again!) start another thread


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> If y'all wish to debate EP (again!) start another thread



 I have no interest to debate the issue here, as I explain below...



> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



Ben, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my post. For the record, I am not EP, and at this point I do not especially expect to be at any time, either. In fact, my whole point was that if EP "wasn't required" as Gabe said, there would be no place for "still preferring it" over hymnody as he also said, since if EP wasn't required, that would inevitably mean that hymns _are_ in fact required. Basically, I'm just noting how one cannot be "neutral" or even "safe" on the matter, since if one side is not in sin, the other is, exactly the same way that such is the case with the baptism issue.

But fortunately, the invalidity of the "still preferring for practicality" position isn't even an issue for any of us here and now, since Gabe is convinced that EP is required, and you and I are both convinced that hymnody is.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Ben, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my post. For the record, I am not EP, and at this point I do not especially expect to be at any time, either. In fact, my whole point was that if EP "wasn't required" as Gabe said, there would be no place for "still preferring it" over hymnody as he also said, since if EP wasn't required, that would inevitably mean that hymns _are_ in fact required. Basically, I'm just noting how one cannot be "neutral" or even "safe" on the matter, since if one side is not in sin, the other is, exactly the same way that such is the case with the baptism issue.
> 
> But fortunately, the invalidity of the "still preferring for practicality" position isn't even an issue for any of us here and now, since Gabe is convinced that EP is required, and you and I are both convinced that hymnody is.



My, don't I feel sheepish. Sorry for responding so abruptly.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 14, 2005)

Gabriel:

Its not a sin to hold to any of these positions, of course. Its not that it needs repentence. But changing your understanding on them takes quite a bit of personal self-examination all the same. 

The "wrong" in them is not so much that one holds to these positions, but what one does with them. The fact that you could suspend your own views, and hold them up for re-examination and re-evaluation is quite something, I believe. But then to sincerely change your mind on some of them is extraordinary. 

Have you noticed that changing your mind in one direction on some things is quite different than changing your mind on those same matters in the other direction? There is a difference not only in the way that is received by others, but also in the personal results that follow. I think that is an important consideration as well. Just a thought.


----------



## SRoper (Dec 15, 2005)

Thank you for your humility, Gabe.

"But because of the very nature of the RPW, the only way EP wouldn't be required is if there is a command to sing hymns, in which case one would be obligated to do that. Thus, there really is no room for a "preferred" option even in a purely hypothetical sense, since either hymns are not commanded (in which case they are sinful), or they are commanded (in which case EP is sinful for not singing them)."

This isn't true if you take psalms, hymns and spiritual songs to be increasing in generality rather than three spheres with no intersection. A "neutral" view could say that every psalm is also a hymn and a spiritual song. So acording to this view one could not hold to EP and yet still prefer to sing only the psalms.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> "But because of the very nature of the RPW, the only way EP wouldn't be required is if there is a command to sing hymns, in which case one would be obligated to do that. Thus, there really is no room for a "preferred" option even in a purely hypothetical sense, since either hymns are not commanded (in which case they are sinful), or they are commanded (in which case EP is sinful for not singing them)."
> 
> This isn't true if you take psalms, hymns and spiritual songs to be increasing in generality rather than three spheres with no intersection. A "neutral" view could say that every psalm is also a hymn and a spiritual song. So acording to this view one could not hold to EP and yet still prefer to sing only the psalms.



That's true - thanks for calling out my logic on that point. Still, it would not be completely neutral of course since the belief that "every psalm is also a hymn and a spiritual song" is a claim with which many would disagree. We should, however, start a new thread if we want to go further into it.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Right along with you though, I say that many "Theonomists" can keep the dominion baggage as far as I'm concerned.



Does that mean we should stop singing ...



> Christ shall have dominion, over land and sea,
> Earth´s remotest regions shall His empire be;
> They that wilds inhabit shall their worship bring,
> Kings shall render tribute, nations serve our King.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Dec 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



Quit your hymn-singing, you. Christ has dominion _right now,_ according to His songs.



> _Psalm 93_
> *THE LORD DOTH REIGN,* and clothed is He
> With majesty most bright;
> His works do show Him clothed to be,
> And girt about with might.



[Edited on 12-17-2005 by Kaalvenist]


----------



## mybigGod (Dec 17, 2005)

The great weakness of the greater part of mankind, in any affair that is new and uncommon, appears in not distinguishing, but either approving or condemning all in the lump. They who highly approve of the affair in general, cannot bear to have any thing at all found fault with; and, on the other hand, those who fasten their eyes upon some things in the affair that are amiss, and appear very disagreeable to them, at once reject the whole. Both which errors oftentimes arise from the want of persons having a due acquaintance with themselves. It is rash and unjust when we proceed thus in judging either of a particular person, or a people. Many, if they see any thing very ill in a particular person, a minister or private professor, will at once brand him as a hypocrite. And, if there be two or three of a people or society that behave themselves very irregularly, the whole must bear the blame of it. And if there be a few, though it may not be above one in a hundred, that professed, and had a show of being the happy partakers of what are called they saying benefits of this work, but afterwards give the world just grounds to suspect them, the whole work must be rejected on their account; and those in general, that make the like profession, must be condemned for their sakes.So careful are some persons lest this work should be defended, that now they will hardly allow that the influences of the Spirit of God on the heart can so much as indirectly, and accidentally, be the occasion of the exercise of corruption, and the commission of sin. Thus far is true, that the influence of the Spirit of God in his saving operations will not be an occasion of increasing the corruption of the heart in general; but on the contrary of weakening it: but yet there is nothing unreasonable in supposing, that, at the same time that it weakens corruption in general, it may be an occasion of turning what is left into a new channel. There may be more of some kinds of the exercise of corruption than before; as that which tends to stop the course of a stream, if it do it not wholly, may give a new course to so much of the water as gets by the obstacle. The influences of the Spirit, for instance, may be an occasion of new ways of the exercise of pride, as has been acknowledged by orthodox divines in general. That spiritual discoveries and comforts may, through the corruption of the heart, be an occasion of the exercise of spiritual pride, was not used to be doubted, till now it is found to be needful to maintain the war against this work J Edwards.

Could we quench the Spirit by being too ridged. If you we a strick Psalmist would you sing a hymn in a church you visit on vacation. Whats wrong with asking am i quenching the Spirit and His work by this attitude?


----------



## Kaalvenist (Dec 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by mybigGod_
> Could we quench the Spirit by being too ridged. If you we a strick Psalmist would you sing a hymn in a church you visit on vacation. Whats wrong with asking am i quenching the Spirit and His work by this attitude?



True beliefs and practices will not, in and of themselves, quench the Spirit. False beliefs and practices, or true beliefs and practices from a wrong attitude, may quench the Spirit.

I would not sing a hymn in a church that I might visit, because I do not believe anything other than the Psalms should be sung, whether in my church or any other. I will actually be going on vacation in less than a month, and intend to be in a Reformed Presbyterian church the two Lord's Days I am home. If that were not an option for me, and I had to attend the Evangelical Free church my parents are members of, I would not join in the singing (just like I regularly attended that church for two years without singing).

But I do not believe that one can quench the Spirit simply by rigidly adhering to a biblical practice.

And I don't think Tom Albrecht is under the impression that I was attacking him for his hymn-singing. (If you are, Tom, I apologize.) I was simply pointing out that, although he may have the testimony of man-made hymns for his postmillennialism, I have the testimony of the God-breathed Psalms for my amillennialism.

[Edited on 12-17-2005 by Kaalvenist]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 17, 2005)

For clarification, I'd like to add that when I spoke of the "dominion baggage" that many theonomists carry, I was not talking about Postmillennialism (since I currently have no preference on that versus other Reformed views), but rather the full-fledged Christian Reconstructionist movement, put forth by Gary North, etc.


----------



## mybigGod (Dec 17, 2005)

Thanks Sean, I have most all of the Psalms memorized and i can attest to the power of the Spirit from meditation. My question is how can you accept a form of instruction from the exegisis of a text from a sinful man as being from God and yet need to hold to a strict scriptural wordage in the music that really does not have exegisis in its melody. I think singing sound doctrine is just like listening to sound preaching.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 17, 2005)

Even then, Chris, I don't mind people having their views, whatever they may be. If they're sincerely trying their best to do what is right, even in their thinking, you have to support that effort as much as possible, whether it is by gentle correction, suggestions, or even admonitions: its a matter of love and fellowship. 

The difference is not so much whether one person is more righteous than the other in his own perception, or less righteous in another's, but whether each person is open to the Spirit's leading through the Word applied and through sound reasoning ( which is the Spirit at work in the mind. ) We're all still on the road from error to truth. 

What I do mind is people making into the Bible their own speculative opinions, obligating them on others. Suddenly some new philosophy or perspective becomes the Biblical precept of the day, when it never was before. That's just overdoing something, and shows a real lack of understanding on those issues. 

The Bible is supposed to be a clear exposition on its own of the basics of the Chrisian life of salvation and thankfulness. Perspicuous and Sufficient! The more complicated and hard-to-understand things do not negate the simple things, but amplify and fill them out. Sometimes we're making things impossible for the budding believer because we're setting the bar too high for our believing peers, and sometimes we're making things too easy for the believing peers by setting the bar too low for budding Christians. It really comes down to something simple: do you know God, and do you believe that Jesus died for sins, yours included? The level of understanding, one's educated achievements, makes no difference here. None of us were perfect when saved; and we don't lose our salvation because we didn't attain to others' expectations. The simple truths are still simple truths, and we should be allowed to believe them as such. We should grow where we can, but not to the point where we deny our salvation's beginnings.


----------



## mybigGod (Dec 17, 2005)

I would say there is a tension there and to feel obligated in that tension could be a good thing. Yet not going about growing in the biblical way can add to the lack of confidence of a believer as well as making the bar too high by those around him. I still cannot ignore that tension though.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 17, 2005)

Definitely the call should be upward. I'm just saying that the initial things ought not to be negated. You can't kick someone out of the faith because he's not as legalistic or as antinomian. The tension has to be a beneficial one, of expectations of the Spirit for both the other and for oneself. Looking down the nose is usually a sign of being laying flat on the back, not of being higher.


----------



## mybigGod (Dec 17, 2005)

Thank you John. I may have misunderstood you because i thought we were talking about believers and had no thought about judgment on someones faith in our exchange. 
I also think that being rigid can be a bad thing. It depends apoun what your rigid about.
The whole argument about music is just about preference when it comes to the question of singing doctrinal hymns or singing strictly psalms, i guess i would enjoy both churches but i would probably react to the attitude that this particular music must be the only valid music . Like i said it depends apoun what you want to be rigid about.


----------



## Myshkin (Dec 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> From months of thought, Scripture reading, and consulation with my elders and other ordained men, I have reconsidered many things.
> 
> *Postmillennialism*- I just don't buy the dominion mandate. I think it is blatant eisogesis. God has revealed to us in His Word what He does and does not like, and we have no business "taking over for Christ" things that God abhors. I have a very optimistic future as far as eschatology is concerned, but I do not believe in a literal thousand year millennium. Yes, I know many today who claim Postmil do not either, but they're really not Postmil, and more often than not, fall under the Christian Reconstructionalist/Dominionist/Theonomic camp, not traditional Reformed Postmillennialism. I would say I'm an Optimistic Amillennialist, and I don't believe that I have changed my eschatological views one bit... I'm just being honest about what my view actually is (i.e. NOT postmillennialism as normally understood).



For what it's worth, this makes two of us. I have recently joined the amillennial persuasion, and left the postmillenial position.


----------

