Post Mil but not Reconstruction?

[Kpsingletary]

Hello all,

Just wanted to post the question: does it necessary follow that if you are post mil, you are theonomic/reconstructionist? Is there a way to be the former without the latter?

Background: were recent converts from being Reformed Baptists (10+ years) to Presbyterian. Thanks.

 

[Sam Jer]

Hello all,

Just wanted to post the question: does it necessary follow that if you are post mil, you are theonomic/reconstructionist? Is there a way to be the former without the latter?

Background: were recent converts from being Reformed Baptists (10+ years) to Presbyterian. Thanks.

It depends on what you mean. I don't know if the Escondido view is compatible with postmill but it isn't necessarily modern theonomy.
Diffrences between covenanters and reconstructionists: https://purelypresbyterian.com/2015/06/07/8-differences-between-covenanters-and-reconstructionists/
Diffrences between modern postmillenialism and Puritan postmillenialism: https://purelypresbyterian.com/2015...al-preterist-and-historist-postmillennialism/

 

[RamistThomist]

Hello all,

Just wanted to post the question: does it necessary follow that if you are post mil, you are theonomic/reconstructionist? Is there a way to be the former without the latter?

Background: were recent converts from being Reformed Baptists (10+ years) to Presbyterian. Thanks.

The old Banner of Truth guys like Iain Murray were postmil but critical of theonomy. The articles linked above are pretty good in explaining the differences.

 

[retroGRAD3]

The old Banner of Truth guys like Iain Murray were postmil but critical of theonomy. The articles linked above are pretty good in explaining the differences.

Did Iain Murray pass? Or, is he no longer Postmil?

 

[RamistThomist]

Did Iain Murray pass? Or, is he no longer Postmil?

My mistake. I think he is still alive.

 

[Rom]

Did Iain Murray pass? Or, is he no longer Postmil?

He is still alive (92 years of age, praise God) and as far as I know, his position on eschatology has not changed. I expect when he passes into glory much will be written concerning his labors for the Lord and he will undoubtedly receive the "well done, thou good and faithful servant" reception in heaven.

 

[cthorn14]

From my recollection of The Puritan Hope, it seemed like Murray was generally advocating for 'optimistic' eschatology accompanied by the majority puritan view of Romans 11. I do not recall many arguments for the historicist postmillennial position against something like the 'optimistic amillennial' view, which seems to usually be accompanied by an idealist view of revelation.

Does Murray, or another accessible writer, elsewhere take up the differences between (historicist) post-mil and (idealist) optimistic amil? Apologies if the question is off-topic.

 

[MilitaryBrat2007]

Hello all,

Just wanted to post the question: does it necessary follow that if you are post mil, you are theonomic/reconstructionist? Is there a way to be the former without the latter?

Background: were recent converts from being Reformed Baptists (10+ years) to Presbyterian. Thanks.

Okay, so here is the thing: Theonomy actually has nothing to do with postmillennialism. It is simply a governmental structure that some postmillennialists believe is what the millennium represents. One could be premillennialist and want government founded on theonomy.

I myself am a postmillennialist who believes that the millennium represents a huge expanse of the gospel via the Holy Spirit and not a Christian state. Now does mean that I would be opposed to a theonomy state? In no way (which is a debate for another time)! But rather I don't believe that's what the millennium represents.

So yes, it is very possible to be a postmillennialist and not a reconstructionist.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Hello all,

Just wanted to post the question: does it necessary follow that if you are post mil, you are theonomic/reconstructionist? Is there a way to be the former without the latter?

Background: were recent converts from being Reformed Baptists (10+ years) to Presbyterian. Thanks.

No and Yes. I always find it helpful to go back to the Confession and Catechisms and ground myself in their hopeful view of the future. When I read sections like WCF (original) chapters 19, 23, 25, and 31 and the LC 191-192, I can see what I hope for in a post-mil position without needing the particulars of theonomy and/or reconstructivism.

I agree with Diego above that theonomy could be compatible with a confessionally post-mil position, but I do not see how what is promoted by present-day reconstructionists (I am thinking of the strict and consistent types) can be as compatible given the "general equity" clause in WCF 19.4.

Any Confessional eschatology has to maintain the distinction between:

• the moral law ("The moral law doth forever bind all" WCF 19.5)
• the ceremonial law ("...God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a Church under age, ceremonial laws.... All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament." WCF 19.3)
• the judicial laws ("To [the people of Israel] also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require." (WCF 19.4).

 

[LeviRPCGA]

I believe it depends on the view of the agency of man and God’s use of means in the eschatological framework. I’m postmil, but I believe that any revival or “reconstruction” of society will begin in the Church only after the hearts of individuals are changed and are more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces to tremble at the great threatenings of God and embrace His promises. I have seen many try to argue that changed hearts, reformation, revival, and then reforming the civil magistrate is a simultaneous effort, but, quite frankly, you can’t have a raw chicken, eat it, and not expect some sort of problem no matter how hard you may believe it is cooked.

Any sort of reconstruction that finds it’s roots outside of where the means of Grace are, or does not work ordinarily to embrace the promises of God as the means of Grace encourage us to do, is incompatible with Scripture and is a counterfeit eschatology as I see it. That sort of thinking is no different than having hope in the means, as even the vapid, material realization and hope of the promises of God as the Judaic zealots had, rather than what the means point to and sustain us for.

Theonomy has some flexibility in it’s definition as well. I believe the OT civil laws were bound up in Israel as a nation and died with Israel in 70AD, but that does not mean they don’t have a moral use to draw out principles of application of the moral law today. In this sense, I would be “theonomic.” Precepts come and go according to the general equity of nations within the bounds of the moral law (Exodus 21:1), but the moral law abides as it always has.

Rushdoony believed we are here to keep the OT laws better than Israel did as the “better Israel.” I believe this was a grave misunderstanding on his part.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I believe it depends on the view of the agency of man and God’s use of means in the eschatological framework. I’m postmil, but I believe that any revival or “reconstruction” of society will begin in the Church only after the hearts of individuals are changed and are more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces to tremble at the great threatenings of God and embrace His promises. I have seen many try to argue that changed hearts, reformation, revival, and then reforming the civil magistrate is a simultaneous effort, but, quite frankly, you can’t have a raw chicken, eat it, and not expect some sort of problem no matter how hard you may believe it is cooked.

Any sort of reconstruction that finds it’s roots outside of where the means of Grace are, or does not work ordinarily to embrace the promises of God as the means of Grace encourage us to do, is incompatible with Scripture and is a counterfeit eschatology as I see it. That sort of thinking is no different than having hope in the means, as even the vapid, material realization and hope of the promises of God as the Judaic zealots had, rather than what the means point to and sustain us for.

Theonomy has some flexibility in it’s definition as well. I believe the OT civil laws were bound up in Israel as a nation and died with Israel in 70AD, but that does not mean they don’t have a moral use to draw out principles of application of the moral law today. In this sense, I would be “theonomic.” Precepts come and go according to the general equity of nations within the bounds of the moral law (Exodus 21:1), but the moral law abides as it always has.

Rushdoony believed we are here to keep the OT laws better than Israel did as the “better Israel.” I believe this was a grave misunderstanding on his part.

Your first post I think, and we look forward to many more! To create a signature per PB rules you can follow the link below.

 

[LeviRPCGA]

Your first post I think, and we look forward to many more! To create a signature per PB rules you can follow the link below.

What link are you referencing? Or perhaps I missed it

 

[LeviRPCGA]

Your first post I think, and we look forward to many more! To create a signature per PB rules you can follow the link below.

Got it, I think