Paul's Gospel and Caesar's Empire

[Reformed Covenanter]

So, the apostasy I (repeat I) see that you see too prepares the soil for the anti-Christ. That is why I get really nervous about any type of theonomy. IT becomes popish/beast-like in my understanding and prepares the way for THE beast and trib.

You need to read a few theonomists before you misrepresent them. The view you are saying theonomy holds to presupposes big govt.

Theonomy advocates extremely limited govt. Even if they wanted to do all those meany things you think they will, they simply will not have the resources to carry them out.

Well, brother, what about when they did have a limited gov't in the Anglican church (wasn't world-wide I mean) We Baptists got the sharp end of the blade (among other non-conformists)

Modern Theonomists are not in favour of persecuting orthodox Protestants (such as Baptists); this was one of the mistakes of the past.

 

[RamistThomist]

So, the apostasy I (repeat I) see that you see too prepares the soil for the anti-Christ. That is why I get really nervous about any type of theonomy. IT becomes popish/beast-like in my understanding and prepares the way for THE beast and trib.

You need to read a few theonomists before you misrepresent them. The view you are saying theonomy holds to presupposes big govt.

Theonomy advocates extremely limited govt. Even if they wanted to do all those meany things you think they will, they simply will not have the resources to carry them out.

Well, brother, what about when they did have a limited gov't in the Anglican church (wasn't world-wide I mean) We Baptists got the sharp end of the blade (among other non-conformists)

That wasn't theonomy. Theonomy started in 1973 with the publication of Rushdoony's Institutes.

 

[staythecourse]

Well your wait is over my friend (and no need to worry about "the queen") for Christ has already taken his seat on the throne.

Yes, in heaven but not on earth.

But the same Christ taught us to pray that the Kingdom come on earth now, while also in heaven.

And heaven isn't just some place in the sky. Heaven is God's dimension of reality (earth is the other side of the coin). Heaven and earth meet in Christ.

Why are we still praying it? I still want Christ's kingdom to come with him making short business of Satan on Earth

Heaven and earth meet in Christ.

You would have to explain that more.

 

[staythecourse]

That wasn't theonomy. Theonomy started in 1973 with the publication of Rushdoony's Institutes.
Reply With Quote

Well then I ask for forgiveness. What do you call a church-state combination. Theonomy is a type of, correct or no?

 

[staythecourse]

You need to read a few theonomists before you misrepresent them. The view you are saying theonomy holds to presupposes big govt.

Theonomy advocates extremely limited govt. Even if they wanted to do all those meany things you think they will, they simply will not have the resources to carry them out.

Well, brother, what about when they did have a limited gov't in the Anglican church (wasn't world-wide I mean) We Baptists got the sharp end of the blade (among other non-conformists)

Modern Theonomists are not in favour of persecuting orthodox Protestants (such as Baptists); this was one of the mistakes of the past.

I ain't convinced! Pardon my apprehension!

 

[RamistThomist]

That wasn't theonomy. Theonomy started in 1973 with the publication of Rushdoony's Institutes.
Reply With Quote

Well then I ask for forgiveness. What do you call a church-state combination. Theonomy is a type of, correct or no?

No. Theonomy rejects all combinations of church and state. Again, even a superficial reading of any theonomic text would tell you this. Bahnsen had a whole chapter defending the separation of church and state.

the word you are looking for is "Erastianism."

 

[staythecourse]

As Daniel said, the general trend is that it shall shrink. I am convinced that too many Western Christians take the current state of their country as what is happenning globally. If my eschatology was based upon the state of UK Christianity I would be very pessimistic indeed. Yet when we look globally we see thousands-upon-thousands of conversions in Africa, China and South America.

I am not sure where in the world you are talking about, but we have missionaries in China (one continuing his ed at seminary right now and attends our church now. I speak with him when I can as I was there too) who says the pastors in China are freaked (ok filled with grave legitimate concern) at Christianity drying up as China becomes Westernized with materialism and views that now include homosexuality being fine (way against their culture 20 years ago)

So, I see that the last days will be like the days of Noah with only a few believers, not many.

Who gets to define "few?" God told Abram that he would make his descendants like the sand on the seashore. Not exactly few.

Come on now, we are talking 4000+ years of a combination of Jews Arabs and believers. No I can't count them either.

 

[RamistThomist]

Yes, in heaven but not on earth.

And heaven isn't just some place in the sky. Heaven is God's dimension of reality (earth is the other side of the coin). Heaven and earth meet in Christ.

Why are we still praying it? I still want Christ's kingdom to come with him making short business of Satan on Earth

Have you read any of the texts Richard posted? The Kingdom grows like a mustard seed. Not all at once.

Heaven and earth meet in Christ.

You would have to explain that more.

In OT typology the temple was the place where God symbolically dwelled with man. Man met God ( heaven) in the temple. Jesus proclaimed himself the new temple. He is where man meets God.

 

[RamistThomist]

I am not sure where in the world you are talking about, but we have missionaries in China (one continuing his ed at seminary right now and attends our church now. I speak with him when I can as I was there too) who says the pastors in China are freaked (ok filled with grave legitimate concern) at Christianity drying up as China becomes Westernized with materialism and views that now include homosexuality being fine (way against their culture 20 years ago)

So, I see that the last days will be like the days of Noah with only a few believers, not many.

Who gets to define "few?" God told Abram that he would make his descendants like the sand on the seashore. Not exactly few.

Come on now, we are talking 4000+ years of a combination of Jews Arabs and believers. No I can't count them either.

These promises apply to the Church! Read Galatians 3.

8And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed."

14so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

 

[staythecourse]

That wasn't theonomy. Theonomy started in 1973 with the publication of Rushdoony's Institutes.
Reply With Quote

Well then I ask for forgiveness. What do you call a church-state combination. Theonomy is a type of, correct or no?

No. Theonomy rejects all combinations of church and state. Again, even a superficial reading of any theonomic text would tell you this. Bahnsen had a whole chapter defending the separation of church and state.

the word you are looking for is "Erastianism."

Well, please forgive me for not using the right definition. I thought theonomy was combining Mosiac law with a government, like Israel's laws. That's Erastianism?

 

[staythecourse]

Gotta go guys.

 

[staythecourse]

Who gets to define "few?" God told Abram that he would make his descendants like the sand on the seashore. Not exactly few.

Come on now, we are talking 4000+ years of a combination of Jews Arabs and believers. No I can't count them either.

These promises apply to the Church! Read Galatians 3.

8And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed."

14so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

Even, so, 4000+ years of believers. Now I gotta go.

 

[RamistThomist]

Well then I ask for forgiveness. What do you call a church-state combination. Theonomy is a type of, correct or no?

No. Theonomy rejects all combinations of church and state. Again, even a superficial reading of any theonomic text would tell you this. Bahnsen had a whole chapter defending the separation of church and state.

the word you are looking for is "Erastianism."

Well, please forgive me for not using the right definition. I thought theonomy was combining Mosiac law with a government, like Israel's laws. That's Erastianism?

No. Theonomy doesn't apply "Mosaic laws en toto." It only applies the general equity of the civic laws.

Erastianism is when the head of the church is the head of the state.

 

[RamistThomist]

Come on now, we are talking 4000+ years of a combination of Jews Arabs and believers. No I can't count them either.

These promises apply to the Church! Read Galatians 3.

8And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed."

14so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

Even, so, 4000+ years of believers. Now I gotta go.

What's the conclusion? You are stating the obvious.

 

[staythecourse]

What's the conclusion? You are stating the obvious.

The conclusion was that just because God promised Abraham many descendants does not mean that there will not necessarily mean few believers will be on the planet just before Christ returns "just as in the days of Noah."

I understand that to be many many unsaved partying like the world will just keep going on as is while a few people are actually ready with oil in their lamps for the returning bride-groom.

 

[staythecourse]

OK. I got Bahnsen in my hands. I will make an attempt to read it (Theonomy in Christian Ethics) I also checked out Institutes.

 

[RamistThomist]

What's the conclusion? You are stating the obvious.

The conclusion was that just because God promised Abraham many descendants does not mean that there will not necessarily mean few believers will be on the planet just before Christ returns "just as in the days of Noah."

I understand that to be many many unsaved partying like the world will just keep going on as is while a few people are actually ready with oil in their lamps for the returning bride-groom.

Postmillennialism (to which I do not subscribe) can affirm both: numerous of Abraham's seed and a final apostasy.

As to Bahnsen:
I am not a theonomist in his sense of the word. But he is a father in the faith to me so I respect him.

 

[AV1611]

Why are we still praying it? I still want Christ's kingdom to come with him making short business of Satan on Earth

Westminster Larger Catechism:

Question 191: What do we pray for in the second petition.?
Answer:​

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.​

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Well, brother, what about when they did have a limited gov't in the Anglican church (wasn't world-wide I mean) We Baptists got the sharp end of the blade (among other non-conformists)

Modern Theonomists are not in favour of persecuting orthodox Protestants (such as Baptists); this was one of the mistakes of the past.

I ain't convinced! Pardon my apprehension!

Prove it. Show me a work by a modern Theonomist that advocates persecuting orthodox Protestants. Not to mention the fact that some Theonomists are Baptists (William O. Einwechter).

 

[AV1611]

Bryan,

Let's remember that the eschatology Daniel and I have is not directly related to theonomy. Both Daniel and I are optimistic in our eschatology, he is a postmillennialist whilst I am an amillennialist, yet we differ on theonomy (he is a theonomist and I am not). The key point is that if theonomy is wrong (which I believe it is) that does not mean an optimistic eschatology is wrong. So whilst you are attacking theonomy you are not thereby proving the optimistic eschatology to be wrong.

Deal with the verses I posted earlier.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Bryan,

Let's remember that the eschatology Daniel and I have is not directly related to theonomy. Both Daniel and I are optimistic in our eschatology, he is a postmillennialist whilst I am an amillennialist, yet we differ on theonomy (he is a theonomist and I am not). The key point is that if theonomy is wrong (which I believe it is) that does not mean an optimistic eschatology is wrong. So whilst you are attacking theonomy you are not thereby proving the optimistic eschatology to be wrong.

Deal with the verses I posted earlier.

Distinctions must also be made between holding a Theonomic view of the OT penalties (like many Reformers and Puritans) and being a Christian Reconstructionist. One may hold a Theonomic view of the OT penalties, and yet not be a modern Theonomist (i.e. you believe that the magistrate may punish sins outside of those for which penalties have been prescibed in Scripture). And you may also hold this and not be a Reconstructionist, because you are not a postmillennialist.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Which pretty much describes me Daniel.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Which pretty much describes me Daniel.

So you are a Theonomist, but not a Christian Reconstructionist.

The cause of Theonomy has not been helped by being so closely linked to postmillennialism. Now while I believe there is a psychological link, as one who is a postmillennialist is more likely to be a Theonomist (I was postmill before becoming Theonomic), and that a Theonmist is more likely to be postmillennial, nevertheless, the issues are logically distinct, as one can embrace one without embracing the other.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I think that would be a good description. I am an Amillenialist and I have been swayed by Bahnsen in embracing the hermeneutic that unless a specific Old Testament law has been abrogated by the New Testament, either by specific revelation or because of an application of a New Testament principle, its authority is still morally and/ or judicially binding.

 

[RamistThomist]

This is sort of why books like Theonomy a Reformed Critique aren't helpful. Richard Gaffin writes an essay rebuking postmillennialism from an amillennial standpoint. Problem is, he fails to take theonomy as a position. Claire Davis, in a later essay in the same book, refutes Gaffin's entire essay in one sentence!

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

This is sort of why books like Theonomy a Reformed Critique aren't helpful. Richard Gaffin writes an essay rebuking postmillennialism from an amillennial standpoint. Problem is, he fails to take theonomy as a position. Claire Davis, in a later essay in the same book, refutes Gaffin's entire essay in one sentence!

They are good for one reason; it gives us more great Theonomic books to read, like the three in reply - Westminster's Confession, No Other Standard, and Theonomy: An Informed Response.

I would not mind writing a brief, up-to-date response to Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, by going through every essay and writing a chapter-by-chapter rebuttal. But maybe it's too late for that.

 

[RamistThomist]

This is sort of why books like Theonomy a Reformed Critique aren't helpful. Richard Gaffin writes an essay rebuking postmillennialism from an amillennial standpoint. Problem is, he fails to take theonomy as a position. Claire Davis, in a later essay in the same book, refutes Gaffin's entire essay in one sentence!

They are good for one reason; it gives us more great Theonomic books to read, like the three in reply - Westminster's Confession, No Other Standard, and Theonomy: An Informed Response.

I would not mind writing a brief, up-to-date response to Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, by going through every essay and writing a chapter-by-chapter rebuttal. But maybe it's too late for that.

I wouldnt worry about it. TARC went out of print immediately upon going into print.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Well I think No Other Standard pretty much walloped TRC. Having read both now I was kind of taken aback by how "uninformed" and "sloppy" TRC was in responding to the Theonomic positions.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

This is sort of why books like Theonomy a Reformed Critique aren't helpful. Richard Gaffin writes an essay rebuking postmillennialism from an amillennial standpoint. Problem is, he fails to take theonomy as a position. Claire Davis, in a later essay in the same book, refutes Gaffin's entire essay in one sentence!

They are good for one reason; it gives us more great Theonomic books to read, like the three in reply - Westminster's Confession, No Other Standard, and Theonomy: An Informed Response.

I would not mind writing a brief, up-to-date response to Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, by going through every essay and writing a chapter-by-chapter rebuttal. But maybe it's too late for that.

I wouldnt worry about it. TARC went out of print immediately upon going into print.

I actually finally came across it in a theological library in Belfast just last week; previously I just had to content myself with individual articles scattered all over the internet. Anyway, I am working on an article for The Counsel of Chalcedon against Maurice Roberts' "critique" of Theonomy in the Free Church Witness magazine. I'll keep it basic, then maybe develop it into a small book later.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Well I think No Other Standard pretty much walloped TRC. Having read both now I was kind of taken aback by how "uninformed" and "sloppy" TRC was in responding to the Theonomic positions.

It was self-atonement for giving Greg Bahnsen a ThM., and an excuse for not appointing him as CVT's replacement - which is what he should have been.

Before I became a Theonomist, I could never understand why Theonomists were so disliked by others in the Reformed world, just as before I became a Calvinist I could not understand why other evangelicals did not like them? The answer to both these questions is the same: they rule out human autonomy, and therefore sinners don't like them.

Put simply, Theonomy is nothing more than Calvinism applied to ethics.