# Postmillennialism and the Law



## pslagle2012

I very much lean toward a postmillennial view of eschatology, however I just can't swallow the theonomic or Covenanter views of the law and its place in the millennium. I hold to the usual Reformed view of the threefold division of the law, with only the moral law being binding. I also definitely believe that the millennium will be ushered in by the preaching of the gospel not through cultural transformation or the influence of the law on politics. 

I am unable to find much online about non-theonomic postmillennialism and have at least found some evidence that older postmils held similar beliefs to mine ("pietistic postmillennialism?"). I was wondering if anyone has some resources that are based on a non-theonomic view of postmillennialism and possibly book recommendations. Also, any authors or theologians who held this view would be helpful. Thanks!


----------



## TylerRay

Patrick,
Don't be too quick to lump the Covenanters and the Reconstructionists together. The Recons do this themselves, but I suspect that it had much more to do with finding historic precedent for their views than with real agreement. The Covenanters embraced the whole doctrine of the WCF, including the threefold division of the law, and the passing away of the judicial law (except insofar as the general equity thereof may require).


----------



## RamistThomist

There is no one brand of postmil. I can identify roughly three:

Pietistic postmil: Jonathan Edwards and some Southern Presbyterians
Theonomic postmil: Gary North
Covenanter postmil: strong Reformed pedigree.

So no, there isn't one single brand of postmillennialism and there is no reason why theonomy would be in place in the millennium. On the flip side, the regenerate would want to live under God's commands, so that really won't be a problem.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> There is no one brand of postmil. I can identify roughly three:
> 
> Pietistic postmil: Jonathan Edwards and some Southern Presbyterians
> Theonomic postmil: Gary North
> Covenanter postmil: strong Reformed pedigree.
> 
> So no, there isn't one single brand of postmillennialism and there is no reason why theonomy would be in place in the millennium. On the flip side, the regenerate would want to live under God's commands, so that really won't be a problem.


Would there be any of the so called Kingdom Now in those listings? As when in Pentecostal circles, that was a vocal group that was big time pushing for the church converting and reclaiming the culture for Jesus, as Jesus was just waiting on us to take over before He could come back.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Would there be any of the so called Kingdom Now in those listings? As when in Pentecostal circles, that was a vocal group that was big time pushing for the church converting and reclaiming the culture for Jesus, as Jesus was just waiting on us to take over before He could come back.



Given that all three groups mentioned above hold to a strong Reformed soteriology, I doubt they think Jesus is just waiting on us to act before he can do anything.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Given that all three groups mentioned above hold to a strong Reformed soteriology, I doubt they think Jesus is just waiting on us to act before he can do anything.


Not so much that the Kingdom Now teaches that Jesus cannot act, they do see Him acting through His church here to affect/transform and convert culture over to Him, so that he can then return to what was set up for Him. They seem to add Pentecostal power by signs and wonders to reconstructionism, and that becomes now Dominion theology. Strange bedfellows.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Not so much that the Kingdom Now teaches that Jesus cannot act, they do see Him acting through His church here to affect/transform and convert culture over to Him, so that he can then return to what was set up for Him. They seem to add Pentecostal power by signs and wonders to reconstructionism, and that becomes now Dominion theology. Strange bedfellows.



Well, that's not Reformed postmillennialism. I see the gospel triumping in history and the Jews being brought in, and I believe that a larger Christian population would want to see God's statutes, applied in the proper sense.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Well, that's not Reformed postmillennialism. I see the gospel triumping in history and the Jews being brought in, and I believe that a larger Christian population would want to see God's statutes, applied in the proper sense.


The Sermon on the Mount gives to us a picture of how we ought to live in the Kingdom, but we will need to be glorified in order to have that fully applied.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> The Sermon on the Mount gives to us a picture of how we ought to live in the Kingdom, but we will need to be glorified in order to have that fully applied.



What does that have to do with the gospel triumphing through the Sword of the Word and the in-calling of the Jews?

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## Peairtach

Patrick Fairbairn, one of the great biblical theologians, from the old pre-1900 Free Church of Scotland, was postmil. See his "The Interpretation of Prophecy". But he wasn't theonomic. See his "Revelation of Law in Scripture".

Also see "The Puritan Hope" by Iain Murray.

Also see "The Restoration of Israel" by Errol Hulse where he lists a lot of postmils, few if any who were theonomic.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Restoration-Israel-Erroll-Hulse/dp/0854790004


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> What does that have to do with the gospel triumphing through the Sword of the Word and the in-calling of the Jews?


My point was that the postmil viewpoint seems to be requiring for those who are saved under the gospel to be able to live as Jesus outlined to us in the Sermon, and to do that perfectly, would require us to be in our glorified states.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> My point was that the postmil viewpoint seems to be requiring for those who are saved under the gospel to be able to live as Jesus outlined to us in the Sermon, and to do that perfectly, would require us to be in our glorified states.



Fair enough, I'm just not sure how that is relevant to the post. I'm not in my glorified state now, yet I presume I am supposed to live out hte sermon on the mount.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Doulos McKenzie

Dachaser said:


> My point was that the postmil viewpoint seems to be requiring for those who are saved under the gospel to be able to live as Jesus outlined to us in the Sermon, and to do that perfectly, would require us to be in our glorified states.



If you are assuming a dispensational interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. I think by the points you make and by the questions you ask, it is more than apparent that you are more of a Progressive Dispensationalist than Reformed Baptist.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Doulos McKenzie said:


> If you are assuming a dispensational interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. I think by the points you make and by the questions you ask, it is more than apparent that you are more of a Progressive Dispensationalist than Reformed Baptist.


No, for I am just suggesting that the Lord Jesus was telling us just how demanding the Law is in having its condition really met, and so we need to fully trust in Him to save us, and not trust in us keeping the law in order to be saved.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> No, for I am just suggesting that the Lord Jesus was telling us just how demanding the Law is in having its condition really met, and so we need to fully trust in Him to save us, and not trust in us keeping the law in order to be saved.



No one is arguing that we should keep the law to be saved. Theonomists are very clear on that.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Doulos McKenzie

Dachaser said:


> No, for I am just suggesting that the Lord Jesus was telling us just how demanding the Law is in having its condition really met, and so we need to fully trust in Him to save us, and not trust in us keeping the law in order to be saved.


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> My point was that the postmil viewpoint seems to be requiring for those who are saved under the gospel to be able to live as Jesus outlined to us in the Sermon, and to do that perfectly, would require us to be in our glorified states.





Dachaser said:


> No, for I am just suggesting that the Lord Jesus was telling us just how demanding the Law is in having its condition really met, and so we need to fully trust in Him to save us, and not trust in us keeping the law in order to be saved.


David,
What postmillennialist have you read that said either (a) that Christians can keep the law perfectly, or, (b) that we can be saved by keeping the law?


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> David,
> What postmillennialist have you read that said either (a) that Christians can keep the law perfectly, or, (b) that we can be saved by keeping the law?


none of them would state that, as far as I know, but my point would be that how would we be able to transform society and culture apart from Jesus ushering the Kingdom in himself?
I think that I am getting confused over those who try to reconstruct society for God , causing a cultural take over, and those who want to have us put back under the law of God directly as Israel was, and those that want Kingdom now dominion?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> No one is arguing that we should keep the law to be saved. Theonomists are very clear on that.


They do wish to impose the law that was given to Israel upon governments though, correct?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> They do wish to impose the law that was given to Israel upon governments though, correct?



Not all of it. And "impose" has negative connotations. But in any case, all law, if it has any kind of penal sanction, is be definition "imposed" law.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Not all of it. And "impose" has negative connotations. But in any case, all law, if it has any kind of penal sanction, is be definition "imposed" law.


Would those advocating to be back and governed under the OT law agree to having those such as homosexuals, adulterers, and other religions stoned then?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Would those advocating to be back and governed under the OT law agree to having those such as homosexuals, adulterers, and other religions stoned then?



Stoning can be an application of general equity. Most theocrats hold that capital punishment is the maximum allowable penalty. 

Those of other religions wouldn't be executed. The Law understood that foreigners would come to Israel, but it didn't say kill them. It's only a capital crime when false religions, like Satanism in the Oklahoma City courthouse, are practiced.

But is execution unjust in those cases?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Stoning can be an application of general equity. Most theocrats hold that capital punishment is the maximum allowable penalty.
> 
> Those of other religions wouldn't be executed. The Law understood that foreigners would come to Israel, but it didn't say kill them. It's only a capital crime when false religions, like Satanism in the Oklahoma City courthouse, are practiced.
> 
> But is execution unjust in those cases?


I think that the Law was in operation for national Israel, as their nation was really under the government of God through the King, but no other nation was ever placed under that same circumstance. This will not work under our system of government, or anyone else, as under the new Covenant era since Calvary, there is no more direct governing under OT Law going on. I think John Calvin tried to do that in his New geneva, but was a failed attempt.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I think that the Law was in operation for national Israel, as their nation was really under the government of God through the King, but no other nation was ever placed under that same circumstance.



The law as a body politic has expired. The general equity of the moral case laws is still binding.


Dachaser said:


> I think John Calvin tried to do that in his New geneva, but was a failed attempt.



That's not true.


----------



## Doulos McKenzie

Dachaser said:


> I think that the Law was in operation for national Israel, as their nation was really under the government of God through the King, but no other nation was ever placed under that same circumstance. This will not work under our system of government, or anyone else, as under the new Covenant era since Calvary, there is no more direct governing under OT Law going on. I think John Calvin tried to do that in his New geneva, but was a failed attempt.



You say "I think" but you never back up your claims with scripture.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edm

God doesn't change His mind. His law is just. So if his Civil law was just before why is it not just now?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## pslagle2012

BayouHuguenot said:


> There is no one brand of postmil. I can identify roughly three:
> 
> Pietistic postmil: Jonathan Edwards and some Southern Presbyterians
> Theonomic postmil: Gary North
> Covenanter postmil: strong Reformed pedigree.
> 
> So no, there isn't one single brand of postmillennialism and there is no reason why theonomy would be in place in the millennium. On the flip side, the regenerate would want to live under God's commands, so that really won't be a problem.



Any idea where I can find resources on Pietistic Postmillennialism? Can't find much online.


----------



## pslagle2012

TylerRay said:


> Patrick,
> Don't be too quick to lump the Covenanters and the Reconstructionists together. The Recons do this themselves, but I suspect that it had much more to do with finding historic precedent for their views than with real agreement. The Covenanters embraced the whole doctrine of the WCF, including the threefold division of the law, and the passing away of the judicial law (except insofar as the general equity thereof may require).



Thanks for the information. Do you know where I could go to learn about the basics of the Covenanters, especially in contrast to Theonomy?


----------



## Dachaser

Edm said:


> God doesn't change His mind. His law is just. So if his Civil law was just before why is it not just now?


The Law as a way to govern was just given to Israel, as that was under the economy of the Old Covenant, and that is not a Dispensational view, as the Law as to its moral aspect is indeed still binding on us, but the civil and ceremonial aspects was just intended to be used in Israel of that time.


----------



## Dachaser

Doulos McKenzie said:


> You say "I think" but you never back up your claims with scripture.


God gave the ceremonial and civil obligation of the Mosaic law unto just Israel herself, but we are still under the moral obligations aspect of His law still.


----------



## Edm

Dachaser said:


> The Law as a way to govern was just given to Israel, as that was under the economy of the Old Covenant, and that is not a Dispensational view, as the Law as to its moral aspect is indeed still binding on us, but the civil and ceremonial aspects was just intended to be used in Israel of that time.



So, beastiality is ok now because it was under the civil law? I am being sarcastic of course. This is something I am interested in as a topic. But can you show me in scripture where God has decided that rape should not be punnishable by death? The Ceremonial law foreshadowed Jesus. We don't need to go to the temple and offer sacrifices anymore like was required in the OT. But why would civil law change? God says the crime should be punished in a specific way. Does man have a better way?


----------



## Doulos McKenzie

Dachaser said:


> God gave the ceremonial and civil obligation of the Mosaic law unto just Israel herself, but we are still under the moral obligations aspect of His law still.



What is the Church in your opinion? Is the Church Israel? And you still haven't quoted any scripture to a back up anyhting you have said.


----------



## RamistThomist

pslagle2012 said:


> Any idea where I can find resources on Pietistic Postmillennialism? Can't find much online.



Iain Murray, _The Puritan Hope_.


----------



## RamistThomist

pslagle2012 said:


> Thanks for the information. Do you know where I could go to learn about the basics of the Covenanters, especially in contrast to Theonomy?



Daniel Ritchie's blog is the best place to go on this

http://reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> God gave the ceremonial and civil obligation of the Mosaic law unto just Israel herself, but we are still under the moral obligations aspect of His law still.



What is the just punishment for adultery? The prohibition against adultery is part of the moral law. So what is the just punishment and how do we know it meets the standards of justice?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> What is the just punishment for adultery? The prohibition against adultery is part of the moral law. So what is the just punishment and how do we know it meets the standards of justice?


Jesus showed to us that Grace trumps the Law though, as he saved the woman caught in adultery from being stoned to death, and David should have died per the law, but God freely forgive him also.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Jesus showed to us that Grace trumps the Law though, as he saved the woman caught in adultery from being stoned to death, and David should have died per the law, but God freely forgive him also.



The woman in adultery scenario is convoluted, as none of the Jews were following the law. And God's forgiving David doesn't parallel for us, since we aren't God. 

So, the state shouldn't punish adultery by any means, then?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Jesus showed to us that Grace trumps the Law though



Grace doesn't trump the law. The whole point of the atonement is that God's law was met, not trumped (Otherwise we are still in our sins)


----------



## Clark-Tillian

pslagle2012 said:


> I very much lean toward a postmillennial view of eschatology, however I just can't swallow the theonomic or Covenanter views of the law and its place in the millennium. I hold to the usual Reformed view of the threefold division of the law, with only the moral law being binding. I also definitely believe that the millennium will be ushered in by the preaching of the gospel not through cultural transformation or the influence of the law on politics.
> 
> I am unable to find much online about non-theonomic postmillennialism and have at least found some evidence that older postmils held similar beliefs to mine ("pietistic postmillennialism?"). I was wondering if anyone has some resources that are based on a non-theonomic view of postmillennialism and possibly book recommendations. Also, any authors or theologians who held this view would be helpful. Thanks!



Old Princetonians, Lorraine Boettner, John Jefferson Davis, and (but be ye careful) James Jordan. Boettner's book is required reading. The historical lines between amill and postmill are blurry. When I was at Covenant Seminary 96-00 I was the only card carrying theonomist on campus. Jack Collins was/is postmill, but not a theonomist. I'm still post-mill, but not overly theonomic in the classical sense of the word.


----------



## Clark-Tillian

BayouHuguenot said:


> No one is arguing that we should keep the law to be saved. Theonomists are very clear on that.


Well noted. JBFA; sanctification via Law is the basic outline. In many respects this is correct, it gets tricky when you've got a Muslim mayor advocating sharia, or a whack job president who attacks Traditional Christianity with every turn.


----------



## Clark-Tillian

BayouHuguenot said:


> The woman in adultery scenario is convoluted, as none of the Jews were following the law. And God's forgiving David doesn't parallel for us, since we aren't God.
> 
> So, the state shouldn't punish adultery by any means, then?



And folks forget that this was still under the Old Covenant. Which means the stoning was licit. The catch was, the man was missing from the trial, and Jesus obviously read the hearts of the gents trying to hold court and found at least some guilty of the crime. The text is also possibly....spurious. It rings like a true narrative; I personally believe the event occurred exactly as it's recorded. But the textual evidence of its original enclosure is by no means convincing.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Clark-Tillian

I'm no Moderator, but hasn't the thread been hijacked a bit? The OP was asking for resources. Thornwell's take in Collected Writings is excellent. You can also follow previous threads and the threads that roll off it. Lots of fun, that!
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/postmill-theonomy-presuppositionist-distinctions.8106/
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/postmillennialism-and-the-reformed-confessions.1362/
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/puritan-postmillennialism-v-rushdoony-postmillennialism.3386/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Grace doesn't trump the law. The whole point of the atonement is that God's law was met, not trumped (Otherwise we are still in our sins)


that would be a better way of saying this truth, as the Grace of God would be meeting the Law and its requirements at the Cross of Christ, but the truth is still that God did withhold the death penalty demanded by the law to be executed upon David and her.


----------



## Dachaser

Clark-Tillian said:


> Well noted. JBFA; sanctification via Law is the basic outline. In many respects this is correct, it gets tricky when you've got a Muslim mayor advocating sharia, or a whack job president who attacks Traditional Christianity with every turn.


There would be though no biblical support for even having the Law in all of its OT aspects be enforced over Christians today, for we are still under its moral aspects, but not he ceremonial and civil aspects.
And I thought that reconstructionists and others wanted to have the law imposed and set up as the governing standards for all in the society?


----------



## TylerRay

Clark-Tillian said:


> The catch was, the man was missing from the trial, and Jesus obviously read the hearts of the gents trying to hold court and found at least some guilty of the crime.


What trial? I don't read of any trial; just a lynching.

There's one more problem. John 18:31:


> Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> that would be a better way of saying this truth, as the Grace of God would be meeting the Law and its requirements at the Cross of Christ, but the truth is still that God did withhold the death penalty demanded by the law to be executed upon David and her.



Be that as it may, the civil magistrate isn't God, nor does he have those prerogatives. Otherwise, we could waive all penalties for all crimes whatsoever.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> There would be though no biblical support for even having the Law in all of its OT aspects be enforced over Christians today, for we are still under its moral aspects, but not he ceremonial and civil aspects.



Should the state punish bestiality?


Dachaser said:


> And I thought that reconstructionists and others wanted to have the law imposed and set up as the governing standards for all in the society?



All law by definition is imposed, so I don't see the problem. And it isn't going to be a handful of recons imposing law on 200 million pagans.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Should the state punish bestiality?
> Yes, the governemntshould still punish crimes, but was just suggesting that we would no longer want to have adultery and homosexuals killed off for their sins, , as they currently due in Islamic nations.
> 
> 
> All law by definition is imposed, so I don't see the problem. And it isn't going to be a handful of recons imposing law on 200 million pagans.


----------



## Dachaser

God no longer requires certain crimes to be punished by death though, as He did under the OT economy.


----------



## Edm

I don't think He REQUIRED all of those crimes to be punished by death, it was just on the table. However, where do you find that the JUST punishment for rape,murder etc, is not death anymore. If it was just then, it is just now. Same God, Same Standard.


----------



## Edm

Now, to be honest how many times in the Bible are Adulters or Homosexuals stoned?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> God no longer requires certain crimes to be punished by death though, as He did under the OT economy.



So what is the punishment, if any, for bestiality?


----------



## Clark-Tillian

TylerRay said:


> What trial? I don't read of any trial; just a lynching.
> 
> There's one more problem. John 18:31:



Ok. Kangaroo court, then. But the essential point is that an adulteress needs, ipso facto, an accomplice. He wasn't there.


----------



## Dachaser

Edm said:


> I don't think He REQUIRED all of those crimes to be punished by death, it was just on the table. However, where do you find that the JUST punishment for rape,murder etc, is not death anymore. If it was just then, it is just now. Same God, Same Standard.


That would be the just penalty under the Mosaic Law, but the Lord also allowed for them not to have death penalty imposed, see David and the woman caught in adultery and taken to Jesus.


----------



## Dachaser

Edm said:


> Now, to be honest how many times in the Bible are Adulters or Homosexuals stoned?


They were under the Mosaic Law though.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> That would be the just penalty under the Mosaic Law, but the Lord also allowed for them not to have death penalty imposed, see David and the woman caught in adultery and taken to Jesus.



We've already proven that the woman in adultery case is a non-starter, so no need to bring it up. 

In fact, I can grant that execution is a maximum penalty. I think I said that several times. Now, back to the question:

What is the just punishment for bestiality?


----------



## Dachaser

Clark-Tillian said:


> Ok. Kangaroo court, then. But the essential point is that an adulteress needs, ipso facto, an accomplice. He wasn't there.


Jesus knew though that she was guilty as charged, but he pardoned her for her sins.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> So what is the punishment, if any, for bestiality?


That person should be jailed, and also gotten competent therapy.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> We've already proven that the woman in adultery case is a non-starter, so no need to bring it up.
> 
> In fact, I can grant that execution is a maximum penalty. I think I said that several times. Now, back to the question:
> 
> What is the just punishment for bestiality?


The person should go to jail, and also have therapy for that state, and also told the good news of new life in Jesus available to them.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> That person should be jailed, and also gotten competent therapy.



A just punishment can neither be too harsh nor too lenient. How does jail fit that criteria?


----------



## Dachaser

Prison would be appropriate for their crime.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Prison would be appropriate for their crime.



How? How does prison fit the crime of sodomizing an animal?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Edm said:


> beastiality is ok now because it was under the civil law?



Beastiality is a sexual sin which would fall under the 7th commandment. Moral, not civil. It's not particular to Israel but rather applies to all of mankind.


----------



## Dachaser

Andrew P.C. said:


> Beastiality is a sexual sin which would fall under the 7th commandment. Moral, not civil. It's not particular to Israel but rather applies to all of mankind.


agreed, but thought that the main question was so that person caught in the be stoned/killed off?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Dachaser said:


> Prison would be appropriate



It would seem that the Lord had a greater punishment for beastiality than prison.

"Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death." Ex. 22:19


----------



## Edm

Andrew P.C. said:


> Beastiality is a sexual sin which would fall under the 7th commandment. Moral, not civil. It's not particular to Israel but rather applies to all of mankind.



What sin doesn't fall under the 10 Commandments?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edm

Dachaser said:


> They were under the Mosaic Law though.



Show me where.


----------



## Edm

Dachaser said:


> That would be the just penalty under the Mosaic Law, but the Lord also allowed for them not to have death penalty imposed, see David and the woman caught in adultery and taken to Jesus.



That's what I'm getting at. You said the Lord REQUIRED death in these cases. I also see no cases of Homosexuals being stoned...except by God.


----------



## TylerRay

Clark-Tillian said:


> Ok. Kangaroo court, then. But the essential point is that an adulteress needs, ipso facto, an accomplice. He wasn't there.


Rev. Bowen,
I want to make my intention for my previous post plain--it's hard to capture the tone of voice one intends using a keyboard!

My post was intended to give strength to your argument, and was meant in a 100% friendly way. It wasn't my intention to scrutinize your post, as I had no doubt that you didn't consider the event to be a legitimate civil trial.

Please accept my apologies if I came across as censorious.


----------



## Clark-Tillian

Dachaser said:


> There would be though no biblical support for even having the Law in all of its OT aspects be enforced over Christians today, for we are still under its moral aspects, but not he ceremonial and civil aspects.
> And I thought that reconstructionists and others wanted to have the law imposed and set up as the governing standards for all in the society?



I prefer "judicial" over "civil" as it makes finer distinction. But that aside, like any other group, Christian Reconstructionists aren't a monolithic entity; you'll find variations of degree and variations of kind within the group. As for the "ceremonial aspects", rare is the Christian Recon who would dissent--although I've known some who've advocated that the dietary laws aren't ceremonial so much as they are moral. And so they assert that the dietary laws are still in place. But they're not actually advocating ceremonial observance; in their view they're advocating continued adherence to the moral law. 

The issue with theonomy is the judicial aspects of the law, especially their public administration and enforcement.
Here are some general questions to answer: 

1. Are all the case laws universally binding? That is, for every civil gov't, in any time period, and in any location. 
This is the first and most important question. If this can be proven then the match is over, checkmate has occurred. It cannot be proven, therefore, the game is afoot. Confessionally WCF 19.4 rules against this.
_
WCF 19.IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require._

N.B.--since Question 1 receives a negative answer the remaining questions deal with particularity. One's definition of the "general equity" is crucial. 

2. Are some particular case laws universally binding? That is, for every civil gov't, in any time period, and in any location. 
2a. If so, what are the determinative factors to be considered before making a decision on a particular case law?

3. Are some particular case laws binding in particular historical situations?
3a. If so, what are the determinative factors to be considered before making a decision on a particular case law?
3b. If so, what are the determinative factors to be considered before making a decision regarding a particular historical situation?

4. Must a civil society acknowledge Christ as King over its particular jurisdiction before any decision on particular case laws may be made?

N.B. If Question 4 is answered positively then we must move onto an entirely different set of questions. If Question 4 is answered negatively, then the following questions bear some weight and require reflection. I will proceed on the grounds that Question 4 has been answered negatively.

5. If some particular case laws are binding, either universally or particularly, how may the civil magistrate determine guilt?
5a. If by jury, what's the quorum?
5b. If via the bench, how many graded courts may a society have for review and control?

6. If some particular case laws are binding, either universally or particularly, is a Christian civil magistrate duty bound to enforce the exact penalties?

7. If some particular case laws are binding, either universally or particularly, is a non-Christian civil magistrate duty bound to enforce the exact penalties?

8. If some particular case laws are binding, either universally or particularly, then may the civil magistrate alter the penalty? E. g. firing squad over and above stoning, hanging over and above burning.

9. Since the Sabbath is filed under the "Moral Law", are the Mosaic penalties for Sabbath infractions binding?
9a. Are so called "Blue Laws" sinful or non-sinful?

10. In WCF 19.4 does the phrase "the State of that people" include the current "State of Israel"? Have fun!

Other fun and interesting questions to ponder
Is the Adultery Test of Number 5:11-31 filed strictly under the "ceremonial aspect" heading because a priest is involved?
May a civil society devise other trials by ordeal based on the "general equity" of the Adultery Test of Number 5:11-31?
Did our Christian ancestors sin by inflicting torture and death upon convicted heretics?
If they didn't, then should we follow their example?

Please note---I've not produced answers, just offered questions for consideration. I was once a theonomist, but am no more. My understanding of "general equity" has altered.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Clark-Tillian

TylerRay said:


> Rev. Bowen,
> I want to make my intention for my previous post plain--it's hard to capture the tone of voice one intends using a keyboard!
> 
> My post was intended to give strength to your argument, and was meant in a 100% friendly way. It wasn't my intention to scrutinize your post, as I had no doubt that you didn't consider the event to be a legitimate civil trial.
> 
> Please accept my apologies if I came across as censorious.



Well, thank you. Apology accepted. I believe I did misinterpret your tone. That's why I tell my parishioners not to debate via text message!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edm

Dachaser said:


> Prison would be appropriate for their crime.



So, as their punishment, I am required to pay for their housing, education, food etc? How long is an appropriate time for me to pay for their crimes?

I am not trying to single you out on here, I just had a few min to get on here and quoted your post. I am enjoying the conversation. I have had the same questions before myself.


----------



## Clark-Tillian

Andrew P.C. said:


> Beastiality is a sexual sin which would fall under the 7th commandment. Moral, not civil. It's not particular to Israel but rather applies to all of mankind.


Granted. But what is the penalty in the civil realm, if any? There are 3 levels of judgment: 1) God will judge the person, 2) A Session/Consistory may suspend the person from the Table or excommunicate, 3) the civil magistrate. Any discussion of theonomy centers around Number 3.


----------



## Clark-Tillian

Edm said:


> What sin doesn't fall under the 10 Commandments?



Indeed. The issue, though, since we've hijacked the poor chap's thread (LOL) is determining what are the civil penalties for sin.


----------



## Dachaser

Edm said:


> That's what I'm getting at. You said the Lord REQUIRED death in these cases. I also see no cases of Homosexuals being stoned...except by God.


Those who committed Homosexual acts were stoned under the Mosaic law.


----------



## Dachaser

Edm said:


> Show me where.


God commanded the Israelites to stone those who did various capital sins, correct?


----------



## Dachaser

Clark-Tillian said:


> I prefer "judicial" over "civil" as it makes finer distinction. But that aside, like any other group, Christian Reconstructionists aren't a monolithic entity; you'll find variations of degree and variations of kind within the group. As for the "ceremonial aspects", rare is the Christian Recon who would dissent--although I've known some who've advocated that the dietary laws aren't ceremonial so much as they are moral. And so they assert that the dietary laws are still in place. But they're not actually advocating ceremonial observance; in their view they're advocating continued adherence to the moral law.
> 
> The issue with theonomy is the judicial aspects of the law, especially their public administration and enforcement.
> Here are some general questions to answer:
> 
> 1. Are all the case laws universally binding? That is, for every civil gov't, in any time period, and in any location.
> This is the first and most important question. If this can be proven then the match is over, checkmate has occurred. It cannot be proven, therefore, the game is afoot. Confessionally WCF 19.4 rules against this.
> _
> WCF 19.IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require._
> 
> N.B.--since Question 1 receives a negative answer the remaining questions deal with particularity. One's definition of the "general equity" is crucial.
> 
> 2. Are some particular case laws universally binding? That is, for every civil gov't, in any time period, and in any location.
> 2a. If so, what are the determinative factors to be considered before making a decision on a particular case law?
> 
> 3. Are some particular case laws binding in particular historical situations?
> 3a. If so, what are the determinative factors to be considered before making a decision on a particular case law?
> 3b. If so, what are the determinative factors to be considered before making a decision regarding a particular historical situation?
> 
> 4. Must a civil society acknowledge Christ as King over its particular jurisdiction before any decision on particular case laws may be made?
> 
> N.B. If Question 4 is answered positively then we must move onto an entirely different set of questions. If Question 4 is answered negatively, then the following questions bear some weight and require reflection. I will proceed on the grounds that Question 4 has been answered negatively.
> 
> 5. If some particular case laws are binding, either universally or particularly, how may the civil magistrate determine guilt?
> 5a. If by jury, what's the quorum?
> 5b. If via the bench, how many graded courts may a society have for review and control?
> 
> 6. If some particular case laws are binding, either universally or particularly, is a Christian civil magistrate duty bound to enforce the exact penalties?
> 
> 7. If some particular case laws are binding, either universally or particularly, is a non-Christian civil magistrate duty bound to enforce the exact penalties?
> 
> 8. If some particular case laws are binding, either universally or particularly, then may the civil magistrate alter the penalty? E. g. firing squad over and above stoning, hanging over and above burning.
> 
> 9. Since the Sabbath is filed under the "Moral Law", are the Mosaic penalties for Sabbath infractions binding?
> 9a. Are so called "Blue Laws" sinful or non-sinful?
> 
> 10. In WCF 19.4 does the phrase "the State of that people" include the current "State of Israel"? Have fun!
> 
> Other fun and interesting questions to ponder
> Is the Adultery Test of Number 5:11-31 filed strictly under the "ceremonial aspect" heading because a priest is involved?
> May a civil society devise other trials by ordeal based on the "general equity" of the Adultery Test of Number 5:11-31?
> Did our Christian ancestors sin by inflicting torture and death upon convicted heretics?
> If they didn't, then should we follow their example?
> 
> Please note---I've not produced answers, just offered questions for consideration. I was once a theonomist, but am no more. My understanding of "general equity" has altered.


Very thought provoking! I am still drawn to concluding that what God had set up and commanded for israel to do under the administration of the Mosaic Law was meant specific unto them at that time. Again, does NOT mean the we are still not obligated to keep the Moral Law of our Lord, but do not think that God intended say the United states to have all laws set up directly under the Mosaic Law of the Lord, as some Islamic nations have their Law applied as under Sharia law.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I am still drawn to concluding that what God had set up and commanded for israel to do under the administration of the Mosaic Law was meant specific unto them at that time.



That's why we say that the laws as a *body politic* have expired. But the moral elements of the case laws do not expire.


----------



## Edm

Dachaser said:


> Those who committed Homosexual acts were stoned under the Mosaic law.



Again, please point me to the verse where the homosexuals WERE stoned. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. But I am asking for scripture showing where it happened. 

OP: I also apologize for the hijack. I am enjoying this thread but more what it has become. And that probably deserves a seperate thread.


----------



## RamistThomist

Edm said:


> Again, please point me to the verse where the homosexuals WERE stoned. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. But I am asking for scripture showing where it happened.
> 
> OP: I also apologize for the hijack. I am enjoying this thread but more what it has become. And that probably deserves a seperate thread.



Indeed, in 1 Kings it talks about Asa removing the sodomites from the land, which sounds like exile.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Clark-Tillian said:


> what is the penalty in the civil realm




I don't think there is one set penalty. I do think we should (if we were in a Covenanted nation) take the death penalty into consideration (Ex. 22). However, with a pagan (or other) nation, I do think the penalty should fit the crime.

I'm not a theonomist, so I don't take their view of the judicial laws (which is not confessional either).


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's why we say that the laws as a *body politic* have expired. But the moral elements of the case laws do not expire.


Agreed.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Agreed.



Which also means the penalties for breaking the moral case laws are valid (or at least a live option).


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Which also means the penalties for breaking the moral case laws are valid (or at least a live option).


Has the application though of the death penalty changed from the Old to the New Covenant?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Has the application though of the death penalty changed from the Old to the New Covenant?



Not really. We still put murderers to death.


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> Has the application though of the death penalty changed from the Old to the New Covenant?


David,
It is not an issue of Old Covenant/New Covenant. It's an issue of justice. Was it a just penalty, or was it not? The Westminster Confession puts it this way:


> To them [i.e., Israel] also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.



"General equity" refers to general principles of justice that were behind many of the judicial laws.


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> David,
> It is not an issue of Old Covenant/New Covenant. It's an issue of justice. Was it a just penalty, or was it not? The Westminster Confession puts it this way:
> 
> 
> "General equity" refers to general principles of justice that were behind many of the judicial laws.


Were those laws meant to be enforced the same way in Israel under the Old Covenant the same way as now under the New one, in nations not under that same relationship with God though?


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> Were those laws meant to be enforced the same way in Israel under the Old Covenant the same way as now under the New one, in nations not under that same relationship with God though?


Again, it's an issue of justice. All civil magistrates are to exercise justice. Inasmuch as the judicial laws display principles of justice, they are to be followed by all governments.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Were those laws meant to be enforced the same way in Israel



No. That's the whole principle behind general equity.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> No. That's the whole principle behind general equity.


If that is true, then why did Jesus allow for the non stoning of those guilty of capital offenses as under the law?


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> If that is true, then why did Jesus allow for the non stoning of those guilty of capital offenses as under the law?


Read posts 41 and 45. Jesus was condemning an illegal act, not putting the Law aside.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> If that is true, then why did Jesus allow for the non stoning of those guilty of capital offenses as under the law?



We've answered this question about a dozen times now. It was a non-case. They didn't produce evidence, witnesses, or all of the guilty parties, which they were required to do.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Andrew P.C.

TylerRay said:


> "General equity" refers to general principles of justice that were behind many of the judicial laws.




General Equity is moral, in that it confirms the Ten Commandments.

"Common and natural equity...[is]..written in the heart of man by nature" (Alexander Henderson, A sermon preached to the Honourable House of Commons At Their Solemn Fast, Dec. 27, 1643)

"Common equity..[is]..the principles of reason and nature" (Jus Divinum, 29-30)

General equity is "founded in the law of nature common to all nations" (Robert Shaw, Exposition on the Confession, Pg. 225)

General equity serves "to the maintenance of the Moral Law" (Jus Divinum, 29-30)

"That which we account moral, and to have a perpetual equity, is the substance of the [moral] Law" (William Gouge, A learned and very useful commentary on the whole epistle to the Hebrews, 170-171)


----------



## TylerRay

Andrew P.C. said:


> General Equity is moral, in that it confirms the Ten Commandments.
> 
> "Common and natural equity...[is]..written in the heart of man by nature" (Alexander Henderson, A sermon preached to the Honourable House of Commons At Their Solemn Fast, Dec. 27, 1643)
> 
> "Common equity..[is]..the principles of reason and nature" (Jus Divinum, 29-30)
> 
> General equity is "founded in the law of nature common to all nations" (Robert Shaw, Exposition on the Confession, Pg. 225)
> 
> General equity serves "to the maintenance of the Moral Law" (Jus Divinum, 29-30)
> 
> "That which we account moral, and to have a perpetual equity, is the substance of the [moral] Law" (William Gouge, A learned and very useful commentary on the whole epistle to the Hebrews, 170-171)


Right. That's what I was getting at--equity means justice, and justice is moral and universal.

I think folks get hung up on the term _general equity_ sometimes, simply because it isn't our usual way of talking. However, it is a very simple concept. Equity means fairness or justice. General means universal. So, _general equity_ refers to universal principles of justice reflective of the moral code that God has written in the heart of man.

A good example is the principle of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." This simply means that the punishment must fit the crime. Who would deny that this is a universal principle of justice?


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> Read posts 41 and 45. Jesus was condemning an illegal act, not putting the Law aside.


He still though pardoned the woman, as he did know that while the method accusing her was not proper, she was still guilty as charged.


----------



## Dachaser

Andrew P.C. said:


> General Equity is moral, in that it confirms the Ten Commandments.
> 
> "Common and natural equity...[is]..written in the heart of man by nature" (Alexander Henderson, A sermon preached to the Honourable House of Commons At Their Solemn Fast, Dec. 27, 1643)
> 
> "Common equity..[is]..the principles of reason and nature" (Jus Divinum, 29-30)
> 
> General equity is "founded in the law of nature common to all nations" (Robert Shaw, Exposition on the Confession, Pg. 225)
> 
> General equity serves "to the maintenance of the Moral Law" (Jus Divinum, 29-30)
> 
> "That which we account moral, and to have a perpetual equity, is the substance of the [moral] Law" (William Gouge, A learned and very useful commentary on the whole epistle to the Hebrews, 170-171)


The Lord does not require though the death penalty to be enacted in the same fashion for the same crimes as he did in Israel


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> He still though pardoned the woman, as he did know that while the method accusing her was not proper, she was still guilty as charged.


There was no legal trial. If she had been tried in an actual court, and found guilty, Jesus would have supported her punishment. It's the magistrate's duty to exercise justice.

That is not to say that Jesus, as the Divine Messiah, wouldn't have forgiven her; but it isn't the job of the civil magistrate to administer God's forgiveness.

We're getting down another rabbit trail. The point is that Jesus did not contradict the law.


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> The Lord does not require though the death penalty to be enacted in the same fashion for the same crimes as he did in Israel


Prove it. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you haven't proven it.


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> There was no legal trial. If she had been tried in an actual court, and found guilty, Jesus would have supported her punishment. It's the magistrate's duty to exercise justice.
> 
> That is not to say that Jesus, as the Divine Messiah, wouldn't have forgiven her; but it isn't the job of the civil magistrate to administer God's forgiveness.
> 
> We're getting down another rabbit trail. The point is that Jesus did not contradict the law.


No, but Jesus, as he is God, was able to show her Grace and pardon and allowed her to stay alive.


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> Prove it. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you haven't proven it.


John Himself tells us that there is a sin that will lead to death, but that does not mean all of the sins that demanded the person to commit that sin to die under the Old Covenant would still be enforced now under the New Covenant established by Christ.


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> John Himself tells us that there is a sin that will lead to death, but that does not mean all of the sins that demanded the person to commit that sin to die under the Old Covenant would still be enforced now under the New Covenant established by Christ.


David, you aren't drawing proper distinctions. We aren't talking about the administration of the covenant. We're talking about the moral duty of magistrates to administer justice. The magistrate, in his office, is not under the administration of the covenant.


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> No, but Jesus, as he is God, was able to show her Grace and pardon and allowed her to stay alive.


That's irrelevant.


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> David, you aren't drawing proper distinctions. We aren't talking about the administration of the covenant. We're talking about the moral duty of magistrates to administer justice. The magistrate, in his office, is not under the administration of the covenant.


I see, so you are referring here to the civil leadership, government, is under the moral obligation and duty to enact punishment due to be rendered for certain crimes that have been committed, so speaking here towards the judicial system, and not the religious one, correct?


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> I see, so you are referring here to the civil leadership, government, is under the moral obligation and duty to enact punishment due to be rendered for certain crimes that have been committed, so speaking here towards the judicial system, and not the religious one, correct?


That's correct.


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> That's correct.


From that perspective, it makes much more sense to me now.


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> From that perspective, it makes much more sense to me now.


That's good to hear, brother.


----------



## RamistThomist

And not all religious sins are crimes. Believing in a false god is a sin, but since it is private it is difficult for a magistrate to even know how to prosecute it.

Getting drunk is a sin, not a crime (unless you get behind a wheel).


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> And not all religious sins are crimes. Believing in a false god is a sin, but since it is private it is difficult for a magistrate to even know how to prosecute it.
> 
> Getting drunk is a sin, not a crime (unless you get behind a wheel).


Holding to a false religion and god would give a different penalty than murder would in society.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Holding to a false religion and god would give a different penalty than murder would in society.



Not necessarily. Those are sins but not necessarily crimes. If someone secretly worships Moloch, that is a sin. But as a prosecutor there isn't too much I can do about that. Building a temple to Moloch, by contrast, is a crime and would get the death penalty.


----------



## Clark-Tillian

BayouHuguenot said:


> And not all religious sins are crimes. Believing in a false god is a sin, but since it is private it is difficult for a magistrate to even know how to prosecute it.
> 
> Getting drunk is a sin, not a crime (unless you get behind a wheel).


And coveting is a sin that is impossible for a finite magistrate to prosecute. Only when the coveting manifests in a concrete action within the realm of another of the Ten Words, can the magistrate even enter the fray.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Clark-Tillian said:


> Only when the coveting manifests in a concrete action within the realm of another of the Ten Words



Like socialism

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Not necessarily. Those are sins but not necessarily crimes. If someone secretly worships Moloch, that is a sin. But as a prosecutor there isn't too much I can do about that. Building a temple to Moloch, by contrast, is a crime and would get the death penalty.


That death penalty would be enacted under the Mosaic law, but not under our nations laws, correct?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> That death penalty would be enacted under the Mosaic law, but not under our nations laws, correct?


Death penalty everywhere for building a Temple to Moloch.


----------



## zsmcd

pslagle2012 said:


> I very much lean toward a postmillennial view of eschatology, however I just can't swallow the theonomic or Covenanter views of the law and its place in the millennium. I hold to the usual Reformed view of the threefold division of the law, with only the moral law being binding. I also definitely believe that the millennium will be ushered in by the preaching of the gospel not through cultural transformation or the influence of the law on politics.
> 
> I am unable to find much online about non-theonomic postmillennialism and have at least found some evidence that older postmils held similar beliefs to mine ("pietistic postmillennialism?"). I was wondering if anyone has some resources that are based on a non-theonomic view of postmillennialism and possibly book recommendations. Also, any authors or theologians who held this view would be helpful. Thanks!



I am not understanding how one can hold to a optimistic view of the future (postmil) where the the knowledge and glory of the Lord covers the whole face of the earth progressively through history and not see how God's Law has a place in that future. Unless one views the Law as being a bad thing - which it is, of course, not. The Law is good, it is just, it reflects the character of God. It is part of the glory of God. The future of the world is not bright if it does not entail obedience to the Law of God, no more than an individual Christians future is bright if he is not brought to greater conformity to God's Law - all by the Spirit, through regeneration and faith.

Likewise, how can you have a nation (or world) made up principally of regenerate Christians_ without_ a transformed culture - including businesses, politics, the arts, etc. As an example, if a pagan couple is converted to Christ, regenerated, and brought into the Church, how is that family and marriage not transformed? How is their family _culture_ - parenting, education, service, etc. not transformed by the preaching of the Gospel and receiving it by faith? It is _necessarily_ transformed. So with society at large - and if that link is not appropriate that one must explain how it is not appropriate. If 99.9% of a nation believes the Gospel than this will be reflected in how their laws, economy, etc. are changed from pagan convictions to Christian convictions.

Sorry, but this "non transformational" idea is just not computing with me. One may disagree with theonomy in the Rushdoony sense of a more strict application of OT civil law. But I don't see how one can reject God's Law outright as the standard for the betterment of society - especially in an optimistic future.

Because of this, I don't know that I have any resources to offer. Stuff by Edwards (History of the Work of Redemption) and maybe Murray (Puritan Hope) may be "pious" as opposed to "theonomic" in the sense that they more so emphasized worship as a basis for their hope. But I think this is too simplistic as both pure _worship _and _justice_ are a part of Christian character. Of _course_ Edwards and the older Puritans held to God's Law as the standard for society. They believed that a converted nation will reflect the character of God in their dealings. They might not agree on specifics - which Laws from the OT carry over, what was part of the general equity and what was a shadow and type, etc. - but they agreed that specific aspects of public life would necessarily be transformed in this optimistic future. And they believed that they happened by means of the preaching of the Gospel, individual regeneration/salvation, covenant succession, and sanctification - reformation _not _revolution.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## zsmcd

Maybe it would be helpful to ask, as one who holds to the postmil position, what do you think the future will look like? In a world where most people and nations are converted to Christ, what would culture look like? Would it look the same as today? (abortion, sex trafficking, corrupt businesses, corrupt and huge government, immoral and ugly 'art', immodest dress, etc.) Or would it look exceedingly different?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

zsmcd said:


> Maybe it would be helpful to ask, as one who holds to the postmil position, what do you think the future will look like? In a world where most people and nations are converted to Christ, what would culture look like? Would it look the same as today? (abortion, sex trafficking, corrupt businesses, corrupt and huge government, immoral and ugly 'art', immodest dress, etc.) Or would it look exceedingly different?


Being one holding to a preMil position, I see the scriptures teaching that the Church main mission is to preach Jesus, to see Him saving sinners into His Kingdom, and the Kingdom will come in full and be established here upon the earth at His second coming.
So I would see the reign and rule of Jesus not fully established here on earth until He returns to set that up.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I see the scriptures teaching that the Church main mission is to preach Jesus, to see Him saving sinners into His Kingdom, and the Kingdom will come in full and be established here upon the earth at His second coming.



Assuming that Jesus is successful in getting people converted, will those people act converted in their daily lives?


----------



## zsmcd

Dachaser said:


> Being one holding to a preMil position, I see the scriptures teaching that the Church main mission is to preach Jesus, to see Him saving sinners into His Kingdom, and the Kingdom will come in full and be established here upon the earth at His second coming.
> So I would see the reign and rule of Jesus not fully established here on earth until He returns to set that up.



I was directing my question to the OP. Still though, here is what Jesus says the mission of the Church is:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

So my response to you is this:
- What does "preach Jesus" mean? Does it mean to just preach the doctrines of grace? Is that what Jesus directed the church to do in the Great Commission? Of course the doctrines of grace are central to the church's teaching, but Jesus commands the church to teach the _nations_ all that he has commanded.
- What exactly is a "Kingdom," what does it consist of, and what is Jesus' Kingdom? When we are brought into Jesus' Kingdom, what effect does that have on the way we live our lives privately and _publically_? When a civil magistrate is converted to Christ, Christ becomes his King. Does that magistrate have a duty to obey Christ _as a civil magistrate_ and not just a private Christian_?_ If the whole of a nation converts to Christ and enters into his Kingdom, what effect does that have on their laws?

I am not here to debate postmil vs premil eschatology. I can _kindasorta _understand that, if one holds to a premil position and believes that the world and culture and nations are going to hell in a hand basket, then one would not _expect_ for a nation's laws to ever reflect God's Laws.

However, you still have to deal with the ethic of particular situations and the duty that we have towards obedience to God's Law. i.e. can you, as a Christian who is commanded to love God and neighbor, be said to be loving God and neighbor if you are not striving to see justice for your neighbor in the civil realm? We know that the standard for justice is God's Law, so can you be an obedient Christian and love your neighbor while simultaneously denying your neighbor justice in the civil realm?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Assuming that Jesus is successful in getting people converted, will those people act converted in their daily lives?


yes, they should be, but we will always be in the minority, as the Kingdoms of this Age will not be summit to Jesus until he returns to force them to.


----------



## Dachaser

zsmcd said:


> I was directing my question to the OP. Still though, here is what Jesus says the mission of the Church is:
> 
> "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
> Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
> 
> So my response to you is this:
> - What does "preach Jesus" mean? Does it mean to just preach the doctrines of grace? Is that what Jesus directed the church to do in the Great Commission? Of course the doctrines of grace are central to the church's teaching, but Jesus commands the church to teach the _nations_ all that he has commanded.
> - What exactly is a "Kingdom," what does it consist of, and what is Jesus' Kingdom? When we are brought into Jesus' Kingdom, what effect does that have on the way we live our lives privately and _publically_? If a civil magistrate is converted to Christ that means that Jesus is now his King. Does the magistrate now have a duty to obey Christ _as a civil magistrate?_ If the whole of a nation converts to Christ and enters into his Kingdom, what effect does that have on their laws?
> 
> I am not here to debate postmil vs premil. I can _kindasorta _understand that, if one holds to a premil position and believes that the world and culture and nations are going to hell in a hand basket, then one would not _expect_ for judicial laws to ever reflect God's Laws. However, you still have to deal with the ethic of your situations and the duty that men have towards obedience. i.e. can you, as a Christian who is to love God and neighbor, be said to be loving God and neighbor if you are not striving to see justice for your neighbor in the civil realm? We know that the standard for justice is God's Law, so can you be an obedient Christian and love your neighbor while simultaneously denying your neighbor justice in the civil realm?


Again, while we should try to be Christian principles into our cultures, we are mandated to be do that as our primary focus, as we are to preach to see God save out His own, and to then discipline and mature those now saved. We will still influence our cultures and relationships, but not in full will that happen until the Second Coming occurs.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> yes, they should be, but we will always be in the minority, as the Kingdoms of this Age will not be summit to Jesus until he returns to force them to.



That doesn't necessarily follow. Minority groups usually determine the laws and structure of any nation. Most people are apathetic and don't care unless one gets them riled up.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Again, while we should try to be Christian principles into our cultures, we are mandated to be do that as our primary focus, as we are to preach to see God save out His own, and to then discipline and mature those now saved. We will still influence our cultures and relationships, but not in full will that happen until the Second Coming occurs.



A postmillennial reconstructionist agrees with everything you stated. The phrase" not in full" is ambiguous but it doesn't contradict postmil.


----------



## Dachaser

I agree, but my understanding is that we as the Body of Christ are not here to affect laws and change society as our main emphasis though. as that is the natural byproduct of being salt and light, but not the primary focus.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> A postmillennial reconstructionist agrees with everything you stated. The phrase" not in full" is ambiguous but it doesn't contradict postmil.


I misquoted here, should have stated"NOT our primary focus" as the Preaching and teaching Of Jesus is to be our main focus while still here.


----------



## zsmcd

Dachaser said:


> the Preaching and teaching Of Jesus is to be our main focus while still here.



Sure but, again, you haven't answered my question about what preaching and teaching Jesus entails. Are we to just preach on the hypostatic union? Christology? Soteriology? Ministers are to preach the whole counsel of God, not just "Christ" in this strict sense. Further, preaching does not happen in a vacuum. You are preaching to real people. Businessmen, mothers, civil magistrates, doctors, lawyers, electricians, legislators, artists etc. The job of the minister is to equip the saints. Equip them for what? The work of service. Service where? Just in the home and church? Or also in their roles as citizens and public people? If you are a pastor in your state capital and you know that you have a congregation full of politicians, you have a job to equip those men to obey and serve King Jesus and to love their neighbors with their vocations.


----------



## zsmcd

One of the main aspects of the New Covenant is the Law being written on our hearts that we may walk in it. I don't really understand how we can get around affirming that this Law applies to our home and church but once we step foot outside those two institutions than the Law is not much of a concern.


----------



## Dachaser

zsmcd said:


> One of the main aspects of the New Covenant is the Law being written on our hearts that we may walk in it. I don't really understand how we can get around affirming that this Law applies to our home and church but once we step foot outside those two institutions than the Law is not much of a concern.


the law will not be the main rule of the land, as in the entire earth until the Second Coming event though, in my understanding, as the King has to be present to have His full kingdom and ans His will be done here on earth as in heaven.


----------



## Dachaser

zsmcd said:


> Sure but, again, you haven't answered my question about what preaching and teaching Jesus entails. Are we to just preach on the hypostatic union? Christology? Soteriology? Ministers are to preach the whole counsel of God, not just "Christ" in this strict sense. Further, preaching does not happen in a vacuum. You are preaching to real people. Businessmen, mothers, civil magistrates, doctors, lawyers, electricians, legislators, artists etc. The job of the minister is to equip the saints. Equip them for what? The work of service. Service where? Just in the home and church? Or also in their roles as citizens and public people? If you are a pastor in your state capital and you know that you have a congregation full of politicians, you have a job to equip those men to obey and serve King Jesus and to love their neighbors with their vocations.


----------



## Dachaser

We instruct Christians on how to be better disciples, and to take the scriptures and those principles to wherever they are at, to be an influence for the common good.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I misquoted here, should have stated"NOT our primary focus" as the Preaching and teaching Of Jesus is to be our main focus while still here.





Dachaser said:


> We instruct Christians on how to be better disciples, and to take the scriptures and those principles to wherever they are at, to be an influence for the common good.



And how is that different from Reconstructionism? I admit, it's watered-down but no recon would disagree.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> And how is that different from Reconstructionism? I admit, it's watered-down but no recon would disagree.


I see us as Christians influencing society and culture by bring into them the light of Christ, but do not expect to see a turn to God on a big scale, nor to see the law as being instituted as a national civil rule in nations.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I see us as Christians influencing society and culture by bring into them the light of Christ, but do not expect to see a turn to God on a big scale, nor to see the law as being instituted as a national civil rule in nations.



Yes, I am aware of what premils teach. But I'm not sure how "influencing society and culture by bring into them the light of Christ" is that different from what I am claiming.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Yes, I am aware of what premils teach. But I'm not sure how "influencing society and culture by bring into them the light of Christ" is that different from what I am claiming.


I think the 2 main differences is what the mission of the Church actually is here on earth, and to what extent the non saved world will get affected by the Church until the Second Coming event.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I think the 2 main differences is what the mission of the Church actually is here on earth, and to what extent the non saved world will get affected by the Church until the Second Coming event.



Spell out that extent, then. Will it look more like defeat for Jesus or victory for Jesus?

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Spell out that extent, then. Will it look more like defeat for Jesus or victory for Jesus?


Victory for Him when he returns, as then the whole Earth and all humanity will worship and acknowledge Him as the Lord.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Victory for Him when he returns, as then the whole Earth and all humanity will worship and acknowledge Him as the Lord.



So, he is defeated within history before the Return?


----------



## JimmyH

Reverend Martyn Lloyd-Jones in his sermons on the last days contained in 'Great Doctrines of the Bible', goes over the various positions on the millennium, and when he gets to post mill he says that since the two world wars, the great depression, the failure of education to change man for the better, the post mill viewpoint is virtually dead.

I used to go along with that point of view, and if current 'culture' is any barometer it would seem a golden age preceding the millennium is a fantasy. Then I began to think more about the power of God. While I still hold to the amill perspective, with man post mill is impossible, with God all things are possible.

Of course, if there is a revival that encompasses mankind such a world is possible. We are transformed by the renewing of our mind. If the Spirit is not in you, you are none of his, and in spite of the sin that dwells in us, I think that as a person grows in Christ he will begin to hunger and thirst after righteousness, and mourn that he cannot achieve it in this life. Say that to say, that Christians begin to reflect that change in all of their daily life. Perhaps mine is a naive outlook, as I'm no theologian, but that is what I think at present.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

JimmyH said:


> and when he gets to post mill he says that since the two world wars, the great depression, the failure of education to change man for the better, the post mill viewpoint is virtually dead.



I remember his saying that. The sword cuts both ways. The black plague wiped out most of Europe at one time. Things have gotten beter. ERgo, postmillennialism.


----------



## BG

BayouHuguenot said:


> and the Jews being brought in,



Are the So called Jews still Gods Special People the apple of his eye?

I was under the impression that God Divorced the synagogue of Satan and therefore cannot take her back again.


----------



## RamistThomist

BG said:


> Are the So called Jews still Gods Special People the apple of his eye?
> 
> I was under the impression that God Divorced the synagogue of Satan and therefore cannot take her back again.



No. They are covenantally dead and divorced. However, God promises ethnic Jews back into the fold on Jesus' terms.


----------



## TylerRay

Note WLC 191 on the conversion of the Jews:


> *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 gospel propagated throughout the world,* the Jews called*, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel-officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, 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: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.



Note also that the clause is placed right next to "the fullness of the Gentiles brought in." Both clearly refer to Romans 11:


> *25*For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
> 
> *26*And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
> 
> *27*For this _is_ my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
> 
> *28*As concerning the gospel, _they are_ enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, _they are_ beloved for the fathers' sakes. *29*For the gifts and calling of God _are_ without repentance. *30*For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: *31*Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. *32*For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.



This follows right on the heels of Paul's discussing the Jews being cut out of the vine, the Gentiles being grafted in, and God's intention to graft the Jews back in.


----------



## Dachaser

Paul states though in Romans that He will save all of Israel, and that when the Jews do finally return back to God, how much greater will that be, as we gentiles are wild roots grafting in, but they are the natural ones.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> No. They are covenantally dead and divorced. However, God promises ethnic Jews back into the fold on Jesus' terms.


Those alive the time of His returning will all get saved.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> So, he is defeated within history before the Return?


Not defeated, as it is NOT His goal in this present age to do what Post Mil sees happening, as His main concern and emhasis is to call out a People for His name sake, and once He comes back, then we will have that Golden Age foretold by the OT prophets and the NT Apostles.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Not defeated, as it is NOT His goal in this present age to do what Post Mil sees happening, as His main concern and emhasis is to call out a People for His name sake, and once He comes back, then we will have that Golden Age foretold by the OT prophets and the NT Apostles.



His goal is to have his disciple the nations and reign until they are brought under his feet, then the comes the end.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> His goal is to have his disciple the nations and reign until they are brought under his feet, then the comes the end.


He will reign over this earth , when His full Kingdom is established on the earth at His second coming, as until that event happens, he is permitting evil and sin to runs its course here.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> He will reign over this earth , when His full Kingdom is established on the earth at His second coming, as until that event happens, he is permitting evil and sin to runs its course here.



That is the opposite of what 1 Corinthians 15 says. He will reign, _then _comes the end, where he delivers his kingdom over to his Father.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> That is the opposite of what 1 Corinthians 15 says. He will reign, _then _comes the end, where he delivers his kingdom over to his Father.


Jesus will reign here upon the earth, and then deliver the kingdom over to the Father.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Jesus will reign here upon the earth, and then deliver the kingdom over to the Father.



Is Jesus reigning now?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Is Jesus reigning now?


He is right now the Lord, so yes, but he also is right now allowing/permitting sin and evil to go on for His purposes here on earth, and when he reigns here in person, that shall all cease, as His will shall be done on earth just as now in heaven.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> He is right now the Lord, so yes, but he also is right now allowing/permitting sin and evil to go on for His purposes here on earth, and when he reigns here in person, that shall all cease, as His will shall be done on earth just as now in heaven.



Well, all of that depends on the premillennial framework, which I find untenable.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Well, all of that depends on the premillennial framework, which I find untenable.


I once held to the Dispensational version of it, no longer, but still find support for a premil view within the scriptures, as someone like Spurgeon did also.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I once held to the Dispensational version of it, no longer, but still find support for a premil view within the scriptures, as someone like Spurgeon did also.



The same difficulties apply: multiple resurrections. Unsaved and unglorified bodies coexisting with saved and glorified bodies with the risen Christ on Earth from Jerusalem.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> The same difficulties apply: multiple resurrections. Unsaved and unglorified bodies coexisting with saved and glorified bodies with the risen Christ on Earth from Jerusalem.


I understand those objections, but still see this as being the view that most explains how this earth will have the Kingdom existing over all the earth, and how all worship Him as their Lord and King, as OT prophets foretold of His Messianic Age.


----------



## arapahoepark

Dachaser said:


> I understand those objections, but still see this as being the view that most explains how this earth will have the Kingdom existing over all the earth, and how all worship Him as their Lord and King, as OT prophets foretold of His Messianic Age.


Have you read amill or postmill authors? Christ clearly reigns now from heaven and nothing escapes him. All is decreed! How is that not reigning? It seems you have a lingering dispensational mindset and no matter how many Calvinists ' may hold to it, it wreaks of Arminianism. I am not saying you espouse it but, just check you presuppositions in this area.


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> Have you read amill or postmill authors? Christ clearly reigns now from heaven and nothing escapes him. All is decreed! How is that not reigning? It seems you have a lingering dispensational mindset and no matter how many Calvinists ' may hold to it, it wreaks of Arminianism. I am not saying you espouse it but, just check you presuppositions in this area.


Jesus is the Lord, but is he not permitting things to go on in this world that is contrary to what he would be putting down once His Kingdom comes in full?
The Kingdom is here, but not yet in full, as that awaits His second coming event.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Jesus is the Lord, but is he not permitting things to go on in this world that is contrary to what he would be putting down once His Kingdom comes in full?
> The Kingdom is here, but not yet in full, as that awaits His second coming event.



Again, postmillennials wouldn't necessarily disagree with the substance of that statement. We are asking you which postmil authors you have read, what was their specific theses, and what about those theses you find unpersuasive.


----------



## zsmcd

Dachaser said:


> I understand those objections, but still see this as being the view that most explains how this earth will have the Kingdom existing over all the earth, and how all worship Him as their Lord and King, as OT prophets foretold of His Messianic Age.



As I mentioned earlier, how do you come to this conclusion - especially as a Calvinist?

If you believe that God can raise a dead man to life, and give life and joy to a dead heart that hates him and his Law, than why can't you see God doing this on a mass scale so as to expand his Kingdom and Church upon the whole earth?

Why does it seem to you that Jesus has to come and reign with a literal rod of iron in order to bring his Kingdom upon the whole earth and uphold his Law? Psalm 110 is, after all the most quoted OT Scripture in the NT.

Again, the Great Commission is clear: disciple the nations, baptize and teach them. Likewise, the very purpose of the New Covenant is clear: the Law written on man's heart so that, eventually, no one will have need to say to their neighbor "know the Lord." None of this, in the context of the Scriptures that we find them, are merely looking forward to Jesus' second advent. Rather, they are seen as being definitively fulfilled in Christ and progressively fulfilled in his Church _now. _

Of course, there is a sense in which the mission of God will not be completed until the second advent. No one is denying this. But, not to question your piety and love for God, you seem to be working on an entirely pessimistic basis and you seem to revert to the idea that this does not seem plausible - as if God cannot do these things.

Again, I must ask you, do you believe that God can raise dead people? Do you believe he has done so in Jesus Christ and has given us that same very Spirit that raised him from the dead? Do you believe that he takes his enemies who hate him, gives them new hearts, and adopts them as sons? If he can do these things which _seem_ impossible, why does it not seem to make sense that he could accomplish the seemingly impossible task of using redeemed sinners to expand his Kingdom upon the whole earth until the day when he defeats death itself?

"And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God"

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Will Jesus use bazookas?

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## zsmcd

BayouHuguenot said:


> Will Jesus use bazookas?



In all seriousness, this is a good question. How does the premil position deal with their notion of the future Kingdom in light of Jesus' words to Pilate when he says that his Kingdom does not come from this world, otherwise his "servants would _fight_"?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Again, postmillennials wouldn't necessarily disagree with the substance of that statement. We are asking you which postmil authors you have read, what was their specific theses, and what about those theses you find unpersuasive.


I have read gary North, some holding to Theonomy, and those in Dominion Kingdom Now views.
I see the OT prophets foretelling a Messianic Age that would be here on earth, as the King directly rules over all, with no more wars/disease/famines/natural disasters etc.
Post Mil views seem to be on the right track, but still need the King actually here in order to have that Kingdom fully here, and Jesus over all nations and kingdoms, as Daniel foresaw.


----------



## Dachaser

zsmcd said:


> As I mentioned earlier, how do you come to this conclusion - especially as a Calvinist?
> 
> If you believe that God can raise a dead man to life, and give life and joy to a dead heart that hates him and his Law, than why can't you see God doing this on a mass scale so as to expand his Kingdom and Church upon the whole earth?
> 
> Why does it seem to you that Jesus has to come and reign with a literal rod of iron in order to bring his Kingdom upon the whole earth and uphold his Law? Psalm 110 is, after all the most quoted OT Scripture in the NT.
> 
> Again, the Great Commission is clear: disciple the nations, baptize and teach them. Likewise, the very purpose of the New Covenant is clear: the Law written on man's heart so that, eventually, no one will have need to say to their neighbor "know the Lord." None of this, in the context of the Scriptures that we find them, are merely looking forward to Jesus' second advent. Rather, they are seen as being definitively fulfilled in Christ and progressively fulfilled in his Church _now. _
> 
> Of course, there is a sense in which the mission of God will not be completed until the second advent. No one is denying this. But, not to question your piety and love for God, you seem to be working on an entirely pessimistic basis and you seem to revert to the idea that this does not seem plausible - as if God cannot do these things.
> 
> Again, I must ask you, do you believe that God can raise dead people? Do you believe he has done so in Jesus Christ and has given us that same very Spirit that raised him from the dead? Do you believe that he takes his enemies who hate him, gives them new hearts, and adopts them as sons? If he can do these things which _seem_ impossible, why does it not seem to make sense that he could accomplish the seemingly impossible task of using redeemed sinners to expand his Kingdom upon the whole earth until the day when he defeats death itself?
> 
> "And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God"


The Lord can anything that he so chooses to, and I think that some Calvinist and Reformed have held to a PreMil viewpoint, as this is not a radical and novel new ideal.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Will Jesus use bazookas?


No, but will use His Iron Rod, as in Psalms.


----------



## Dachaser

zsmcd said:


> In all seriousness, this is a good question. How does the premil position deal with their notion of the future Kingdom in light of Jesus' words to Pilate when he says that his Kingdom does not come from this world, otherwise his "servants would _fight_"?


Jesus kingdom right now is a spiritual one, as he is saving sinners, but when he returns, His physical Kingdom shall be over the whole earth.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I have read gary North, some holding to Theonomy, and those in Dominion Kingdom Now views.
> I see the OT prophets foretelling a Messianic Age that would be here on earth, as the King directly rules over all, with no more wars/disease/famines/natural disasters etc.
> Post Mil views seem to be on the right track, but still need the King actually here in order to have that Kingdom fully here, and Jesus over all nations and kingdoms, as Daniel foresaw.



Which Gary North books?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Which Gary North books?


The Reduction of Christianity


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> The Reduction of Christianity



Not a bad start, but not really a defense of postmil, either. Start with _Dominion and Common grace _and _Millennialism and Social Theory_.


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> Jesus kingdom right now is a spiritual one, as he is saving sinners, but when he returns, His physical Kingdom shall be over the whole earth.


David, I'm going to let you in on a secret: @BayouHuguenot was a convinced premillennialist for a long time, and he may know that system better than anyone else on the board.


----------



## RamistThomist

TylerRay said:


> David, I'm going to let you in on a secret: @BayouHuguenot was a convinced premillennialist for a long time, and he may know that system better than anyone else on the board.



It's true. I was actually writing a monograph on it.


----------



## TylerRay

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's true. I was actually writing a monograph on it.


By the way, your profile still says that you hold that view. I just checked.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Not a bad start, but not really a defense of postmil, either. Start with _Dominion and Common grace _and _Millennialism and Social Theory_.


Thanks


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> David, I'm going to let you in on a secret: @BayouHuguenot was a convinced premillennialist for a long time, and he may know that system better than anyone else on the board.


Good to know, as premil has been the minority view among Calvinists/reformed , but has been held as a viable option.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's true. I was actually writing a monograph on it.


What made you rethink and change your viewpoint?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> What made you rethink and change your viewpoint?


The premillennial reading of Revelation demands a specific literal reading of a single key point in the midst of a high symbolic book, a book that even admits it is symbolic.

And some key partial preterist books: Chilton, North, and others.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Thanks


http://www.garynorth.com/DOMINION_AND_COMMON_GRACE.pdf


----------



## RamistThomist

TylerRay said:


> By the way, your profile still says that you hold that view. I just checked.


THanks. I'll update it.


----------



## zsmcd

Dachaser said:


> Post Mil views seem to be on the right track, but still need the King actually here in order to have that Kingdom fully here, and Jesus over all nations and kingdoms, as Daniel foresaw.



How did you come to this conclusion?



Dachaser said:


> Jesus kingdom right now is a spiritual one, as he is saving sinners, but when he returns, His physical Kingdom shall be over the whole earth.



Why pit the spiritual against the physical? Does not the spiritual have an effect on the physical, and vice versa?

Addressing the issue of Christ ruling with a rod of iron, I don't remember who initially said this, but of course God destroys his enemies two ways: by pouring out his wrath on them and by making his enemies his friends. So yes, Christ will destroy his enemies with his rod of iron in a vengeful sense. But is this the primary means he uses to _expand _his Kingdom?

I am not familiar enough with the premil position, which is why I am asking these questions. But, in your understanding, when Jesus comes back for his millennial rule, will he establish and expand his Kingdom by means of the sword? If so, again, how do you understand that in light of Christ's words to Pilate, as well as the other Scriptures that clearly teach that Christ's Kingdom expands by means of regeneration, discipleship, teaching, baptism, etc.?

Again, I am not saying that Jesus does not use the sword. He does and will. I just don't see the sword as the means by which Jesus establishes and especially _expands_ his Kingdom. In my understanding, it was established in his first advent and expands to the outer parts of the earth by means of baptizing and teaching.


----------



## Dachaser

zsmcd said:


> How did you come to this conclusion?
> 
> 
> 
> Why pit the spiritual against the physical? Does not the spiritual have an effect on the physical, and vice versa?
> 
> Addressing the issue of Christ ruling with a rod of iron, I don't remember who initially said this, but of course God destroys his enemies two ways: by pouring out his wrath on them and by making his enemies his friends. So yes, Christ will destroy his enemies with his rod of iron in a vengeful sense. But is this the primary means he uses to _expand _his Kingdom?
> 
> I am not familiar enough with the premil position, which is why I am asking these questions. But, in your understanding, when Jesus comes back for his millennial rule, will he establish and expand his Kingdom by means of the sword? If so, again, how do you understand that in light of Christ's words to Pilate, as well as the other Scriptures that clearly teach that Christ's Kingdom expands by means of regeneration, discipleship, teaching, baptism, etc.?
> 
> Again, I am not saying that Jesus does not use the sword. He does and will. I just don't see the sword as the means by which Jesus establishes and especially _expands_ his Kingdom. In my understanding, it was established in his first advent and expands to the outer parts of the earth by means of baptizing and teaching.


The preMil position would be that the messianic Age will be a lietral and physical state established here upon the earth by Jesus at the time of His second coming, and at that time, there shall be no more wars/famines/diseases etc, and that there shall be only Him being worshiped as the real and true Lord.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> The premillennial reading of Revelation demands a specific literal reading of a single key point in the midst of a high symbolic book, a book that even admits it is symbolic.
> 
> And some key partial preterist books: Chilton, North, and others.


I tend to see this as the pre mil viewpoint best establishes the Messianic Age as foretold by the OT Prophets.


----------



## arapahoepark

Dachaser said:


> I tend to see this as the pre mil viewpoint best establishes the Messianic Age as foretold by the OT Prophets.


Could it be that many of those prophecies relate either to the end of the exile and/or Christ's first coming?
I am not claiming these prophecies are allegorical or symbolic either, as amills are routinely charged with. I just do not think such colorful language is absolutely woodenly literal that seems to ignore word plays and things like metaphors.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I tend to see this as the pre mil viewpoint best establishes the Messianic Age as foretold by the OT Prophets.



I know what premil teaches, and if partial preterism is true, then premil is wrong.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## zsmcd

Dachaser said:


> there shall be only Him being worshiped as the real and true Lord.


And how does this principally come to pass? By means of regeneration or force? Does Jesus come back with an iron rod and force everyone into submission? I am not trying to create a faulty dichotomy. Jesus _will_ destroy his enemies by force. But not necessarily in order to establish and expand his Kingdom. This happens by means of regeneration.

I too believe that Jesus will return and will from thereon be only worshiped on the earth - but this is because he has delivered the Kingdom over to his Father and has brought together heaven and earth and given us glorified bodies.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## zsmcd

arapahoepark said:


> Could it be that many of those prophecies relate either to the end of the exile and/or Christ's first coming?
> I am not claiming these prophecies are allegorical or symbolic either, as amills are routinely charged with. I just do not think such colorful language is absolutely woodenly literal that seems to ignore word plays and things like metaphors.



Right. And this becomes easier to grasp when we grasp partial preterism. Days of judgment that occurred within history were often identified with language that was very 'end-of-the-worldly'. Of course, history and creation did not cease with the destruction of Jerusalem in the sense that history and creation carried on. But in a very real way the history and culture of OT Israel had ended and a new age had been ushered in.

_If _this is true, why can't the same type of language be utilized to express the blessings of the return from exile, birth of the savior, and the NT age in general?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## zsmcd

In fact, this is exactly how Mary responds to the conception of our Lord.


"And Mary said:
My soul exalts the Lord,
And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
“For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave;
For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed.
“For the Mighty One has done great things for me;
And holy is His name.
And His mercy is upon generation after generation
Toward those who fear Him.
_“_*He has done mighty deeds with His arm;
He has scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart.
“He has brought down rulers from their thrones,
And has exalted those who were humble.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
And sent away the rich empty-handed.*
“He has given help to Israel His servant,
In remembrance of His mercy,
As He spoke to our fathers,
To Abraham and his descendants forever.”


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> Could it be that many of those prophecies relate either to the end of the exile and/or Christ's first coming?
> I am not claiming these prophecies are allegorical or symbolic either, as amills are routinely charged with. I just do not think such colorful language is absolutely woodenly literal that seems to ignore word plays and things like metaphors.


I am open to that suggestion, as I do think that all of us will be surprised in some fashion when it all plays out as God intends.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> I know what premil teaches, and if partial preterism is true, then premil is wrong.


Then so would the other options like Amil/Post Mil also.


----------



## Dachaser

zsmcd said:


> Right. And this becomes easier to grasp when we grasp partial preterism. Days of judgment that occurred within history were often identified with language that was very 'end-of-the-worldly'. Of course, history and creation did not cease with the destruction of Jerusalem in the sense that history and creation carried on. But in a very real way the history and culture of OT Israel had ended and a new age had been ushered in.
> 
> _If _this is true, why can't the same type of language be utilized to express the blessings of the return from exile, birth of the savior, and the NT age in general?


Except that there still remains some NT prophecy not fulfilled in AD 70, as pretierists seem to hold with as happening.


----------



## Dachaser

zsmcd said:


> And how does this principally come to pass? By means of regeneration or force? Does Jesus come back with an iron rod and force everyone into submission? I am not trying to create a faulty dichotomy. Jesus _will_ destroy his enemies by force. But not necessarily in order to establish and expand his Kingdom. This happens by means of regeneration.
> 
> I too believe that Jesus will return and will from thereon be only worshiped on the earth - but this is because he has delivered the Kingdom over to his Father and has brought together heaven and earth and given us glorified bodies.


Well, Paul does state that when Jesus returns with His flaming Angels, they will execute fiery judgment upon those who have denied the Gospel and rejected Jesus, correct?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Then so would the other options like Amil/Post Mil also.



Are you saying that if partial preterism is true, then postmil is false? That's incorrect. I am postmil because I am partial preterist.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Well, Paul does state that when Jesus returns with His flaming Angels, they will execute fiery judgment upon those who have denied the Gospel and rejected Jesus, correct?



Right, so will he kill the unbelievers or convert them for the millennium?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark

Dachaser said:


> I am open to that suggestion, as I do think that all of us will be surprised in some fashion when it all plays out as God intends.


It seems pretty obvious how it is intended by having the historical books first then the Prophets which have a lot of history too, showing how it is and was interpreted.


Dachaser said:


> Then so would the other options like Amil/Post Mil also.


If you are talking Full Preterist then this is heaven. Partial (as I keep saying, it is a shame that it has to be labeled to distance itself from borderline cultish though) has a different mindset than the all or nothing mindset of dispensationalists and full preterists.
Either the Kingdom is now because the king has actually come and 'inagurated' it or the opposite extreme is that of Hagee, that Jesus is not Messiah or King right now but a good teacher during his first coming.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Right, so will he kill the unbelievers or convert them for the millennium?


He will execute judgment upon those who denied Jesus as Messiah.


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> It seems pretty obvious how it is intended by having the historical books first then the Prophets which have a lot of history too, showing how it is and was interpreted.
> 
> If you are talking Full Preterist then this is heaven. Partial (as I keep saying, it is a shame that it has to be labeled to distance itself from borderline cultish though) has a different mindset than the all or nothing mindset of dispensationalists and full preterists.
> Either the Kingdom is now because the king has actually come and 'inagurated' it or the opposite extreme is that of Hagee, that Jesus is not Messiah or King right now but a good teacher during his first coming.


Or the Kingdom is here in partial, but not not yet in its fullness.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> He will execute judgment upon those who denied Jesus as Messiah.



So no mass conversions? When does Israel get converted?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> So no mass conversions? When does Israel get converted?


When the see Him whom they killed off, when Jesus appears at His second coming.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> When the see Him whom they killed off, when Jesus appears at His second coming.



So there is at least one group that Jesus doesn't kill off?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> So there is at least one group that Jesus doesn't kill off?


I am not saying kill off, but he does judge them for their rejection of Him, and it does say that he slays many at the end when he appears in revelation, correct?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I am not saying kill off, but he does judge them for their rejection of Him, and it does say that he slays many at the end when he appears in revelation, correct?



You don't have a clear account of what's happening. On one hand many are killed off, but that doesn't explain the following:
a) there has to be enough people for a golden age, yet where do these people come from--as the church has always been a minority?
b) there will be those who fall away at the end of the millennium. But that raises a problem: the believer can't fall away. So where did the unbeliever come from during the millennium?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> You don't have a clear account of what's happening. On one hand many are killed off, but that doesn't explain the following:
> a) there has to be enough people for a golden age, yet where do these people come from--as the church has always been a minority?
> b) there will be those who fall away at the end of the millennium. But that raises a problem: the believer can't fall away. So where did the unbeliever come from during the millennium?


There will be normal human being still alive after Jesus returns to populate the earth.
During the reign of Jesus, there will be those who merely profess Him, and will show their true colors at the end of that time.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> There will be normal human being still alive after Jesus returns to populate the earth.
> During the reign of Jesus, there will be those who merely profess Him, and will show their true colors at the end of that time.


What "return" is this? The Second Coming and the judgment immediately following?
Some time before the judgment?
Please explain.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> What "return" is this? The Second Coming and the judgment immediately following?
> Some time before the judgment?
> Please explain.


The time of when Jesus returns to earth at His second coming, and then the lost will be judged and have judgment executed upon them, and then we go into the time of Him ruling over all the nations and people left on the earth.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> The time of when Jesus returns to earth at His second coming, and then the lost will be judged and have judgment executed upon them, and then we go into the time of Him ruling over all the nations and people left on the earth.



How does that align with this:


Dachaser said:


> There will be normal human being still alive after Jesus returns to populate the earth.
> During the reign of Jesus, there will be those who merely profess Him, and will show their true colors at the end of that time.



Are you actually stating that following the Judgment, while Our Lord reigns in the new heaven and earth, there will be non-believers?


----------



## Dachaser

No, for my understanding of the judgment of all sinners is that happens at end of the reigning of Christ here on the earth.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> No, for my understanding of the judgment of all sinners is that happens at end of the reigning of Christ here on the earth.



In this post you said he will execute fiery judgment with his angels at his coming. Which coming is that?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> No, for my understanding of the judgment of all sinners is that happens at end of the reigning of Christ here on the earth.


So Jesus comes sometime before the Judgment, rules on earth populated by believers and non-believers for some period of time, then the Judgment. Have I understood you correctly, David?

How long will this earthly reign of Jesus to last?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> In this post you said he will execute fiery judgment with his angels at his coming. Which coming is that?


Just upon the wicked still alive at His second coming


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> So Jesus comes sometime before the Judgment, rules on earth populated by believers and non-believers for some period of time, then the Judgment. Have I understood you correctly, David?
> 
> How long will this earthly reign of Jesus to last?


When the second coming happens, all of the saved who died in Christ, and those alive shall be glorified, to be in the same type of form that Jesus has, and those still living in their normal bodies shall go into the earthy reign of Jesus,
For an extend period of time, normally held to be roughly a thousand years.
One of my reasons for seeing is that I see the First Resurrection mention in revelation 20 as being that of the saved at time of Second Coming, while the great White Throne will be the lost at second resurrection.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Just upon the wicked still alive at His second coming



So where do the wicked come from in the millennium who will rebel at the end of the 1,000 years?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> So where do the wicked come from in the millennium who will rebel at the end of the 1,000 years?


Among those who will be born during that time.
Believe that in Isaiah 65:17, the prophet talks about this reigning of Messiah as time when children die at 100 years of age.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Among those who will be born during that time.
> Believe that in Isaiah 65:17, the prophet talks about this reigning of Messiah as time when children die at 100 years of age.



Even on a premil scheme, we are glorified when Jesus returns (so that we don't die in the millennium). Do glorified believers procreate?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Even on a premil scheme, we are glorified when Jesus returns (so that we don't die in the millennium). Do glorified believers procreate?


No, for there are many who survived unto the coming of Christ who were not glorified, as they accepted Jesus at that time itself.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> No, for there are many who survived unto the coming of Christ who were not glorified, as they accepted Jesus at that time itself.



So people accept Christ at the moment of his appearing? And those people, while saved, aren't glorified?


----------



## JimmyH

I was taught if you've dug yourself into a hole stop digging .........

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser

JimmyH said:


> I was taught if you've dug yourself into a hole stop digging .........


I guess that meant that the majority of the ECF who held to some form of premil were all grave diggers, eh?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I guess that meant that the majority of the ECF who held to some form of premil were all grave diggers, eh?



While Irenaeus and Justin Martyr held to premillennialism, they also admit that it was one option among many. They were premil, to be sure, but they also weren't dominant.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> While Irenaeus and Justin Martyr held to premillennialism, they also admit that it was one option among many. They were premil, to be sure, but they also weren't dominant.


That is my position, that the premil was a held view, and that other options are also viable to hold with, so reformed need not just be as Amil/post/pre Mil, but any of them.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> That is my position, that the premil was a held view, and that other options are also viable to hold with, so reformed need not just be as Amil/post/pre Mil, but any of them.



My contention was never whether premillennialism was a viable historical option among the Reformed. My problem is whether it is correct or not.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> My contention was never whether premillennialism was a viable historical option among the Reformed. My problem is whether it is correct or not.


It is just as viable as per the scriptures as the others are.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> It is just as viable as per the scriptures as the others are.



Posts #210-212 illustrate a lot of difficulties. The only way you were able to make it work in this thread is by ad hoc solutions.


----------



## Dachaser

The premil position was advocated for and held by many of the Ecf, who had no doubt received that information from those who knew the Apostles themselves, and there have been many throughout church history who also have advocated for the historical premil position, even among reformed and Calvinistic Christians.


----------



## arapahoepark

Dachaser said:


> The premil position was advocated for and held by many of the Ecf, who had no doubt received that information from those who knew the Apostles themselves, and there have been many throughout church history who also have advocated for the historical premil position, even among reformed and Calvinistic Christians.


https://www.preteristarchive.com/dEmEnTiA/1996_hill_fathers-rejected-premill.html


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> https://www.preteristarchive.com/dEmEnTiA/1996_hill_fathers-rejected-premill.html


I think the single biggest reason was rejected as the prominent viewpoint later on was due to the influence of those such as Origen and Augustine, who both went for a much more spiritual view on understanding prophecy in the bible than the prior Ecf did on the whole.


----------



## arapahoepark

Dachaser said:


> I think the single biggest reason was rejected as the prominent viewpoint later on was due to the influence of those such as Origen and Augustine, who both went for a much more spiritual view on understanding prophecy in the bible than the prior Ecf did on the whole.


You didn't read it did you?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> You didn't read it did you?


Yes, and that was a main emphasis that the author seemed to be making, as the church shifted form the "Jewish: literal understanding of prophecy to a more allegorical understanding, as a kind of now realized eschatology.


----------



## arapahoepark

Dachaser said:


> Yes, and that was a main emphasis that the author seemed to be making, as the church shifted form the "Jewish: literal understanding of prophecy to a more allegorical understanding, as a kind of now realized eschatology.


Yes sort of. He highlighted the idea that the church, correctly, was reading the OT in light of the NT, not merely literal vs allegorical.


----------



## RamistThomist

arapahoepark said:


> Yes sort of. He highlighted the idea that the church, correctly, was reading the OT in light of the NT, not merely literal vs allegorical.



And not all non-premils hold to Augustine's reading. His allegorizing is pretty bad.


----------



## Dachaser

His viewpoint though became the dominant held position around that time, and continued forward in church history.


----------



## Dachaser

arapahoepark said:


> Yes sort of. He highlighted the idea that the church, correctly, was reading the OT in light of the NT, not merely literal vs allegorical.


We who are premil do to read the OT into the NT prophecy accounts, but also still see that at times the literal position fits the context and intended meaning better.


----------

