Postmill - Theonomy - Presuppositionist Distinctions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Ex Nihilo
Originally posted by Robin
Well, in relation to the King James comment...I was pointing to an awareness that each and every time in history where (any) government got the notion that it was imbued by God, things eventually went awry. (Why don't we want to learn from mistakes in history?)

You know, this is a cheap shot, but I have to ask.

By what standard was King James a tyrant?

And what criterion are you using to state that these governments of the past "went awry"?

And I know you know this, Robin, but theonomy doesn't just mean that the government is imbued by God. It also (and far more importantly) means that the government is morally bound to submit to certain standards of justice. You seem to believe this, too, or else you would have no basis for saying that a government is "awry." I'm just curious as to what standards you're using to measure whether a government is doing what it ought to do or not.

Cheap-shot? No, way....it's a great question, Evie!! :)

James did things in the name of Christ that were not Christian. My standard is a simple one. Whenever the government assumes the authority of God and imposes laws upon the people to live life and worship God contrary to the dictates of conscious....this is what I mean by "awry." Those governments that act in "the name of Christ" especially. (I think of Rome/Vatican; the Crusades....amd of course, there are governments that act in the name of Islam, etc.)

This question necessarily leads to the understanding of what the Bible means by "the Beast" in the book of Revelation...but, that's another thread.

r.

[Edited on 8-15-2005 by Robin]
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
:up: :up: Go to cmt.com and click on main artists; click on "M"; click on "Montgomery Gentry"; click on "more videos" click on "You do your thing."


:2cents: To answer your question to Evie,
I, not all--Not even Bahnsen or Gentry--view this present evil age overlapping with the Age to Come (this is a subtle but still strong theme in Hebrews).

:up: :up: Got it!

:2cents: This is because Jacob is very slowly becoming a Amillinarian (even though he's doing his own thing!)

(hands-over mouth) I know....you may whack me with the Nerf-bat now!

r.
 
Originally posted by JohnV

What some Postmils have shown us is that Amils are not being true to their own views if it causes them to be pessimistic about their eschatology. ( Though I disagree with Bahnsen's arguments, I think he would agree with me that it is a contradiction to hold any eschatological view and be pessimistic. The eschatological hope is not pessimistic by nature in any of the views; they are all eschatologically optimistic. The only pessimism referred to is that of world history yet to be, not of Christ's dominion. ) Some Postmils have rightly referred us back to that rulership of Christ as central to millennial views. But again, not all Amils are pessimistic about world history just because they see a great battle ahead between good and evil.

All this, though, as many Postmils will tell you, does not diminish the Postmil view itself. But neither does it diminish the Amil view.

The argument (or implication) that postmillennialism is correct because it is more optimistic or that amillennialism is wrong because it is supposedly "pessimistic" is a bad one. It has no relationship to the truth of either position.

Let us not get caught up in a battle of the views, as if one must win and the other lose. Let's rather get caught up in both losing our errors and gaining the real truth. I hold to my views resolutely, but not so as to refuse the truth when it hits me between the eyes, or even when it taps me on the shoulder. It is for love of truth that I hold to my views, not that I hold truth for love of my views.

:ditto: :ditto: :ditto: :ditto: :ditto:


Extremely well said, John! Bravo and :amen:

It is an irony, though, that it was Bahnsen's straw-man expressions of Amillennialism that started the so-called "pessimistic" label. No use placing blame....we must live with both apathy, hostility, inappropriate zeal, i.e. we are yet struggling sinners. But there's even more trouble brewing (or ripening) where some say theonomy is leaning towards endangering the gospel. (gasp---I didn't say that....and it's for another post....but the point is: eschatology is important; theology is important and philosophy is NOT theology! Yes, philosophy is important...but frequently, it is used as though it is theology...and it definitely is not; but different....and the servant of theology, which is to be primary in the mind of the Christian.) Our beliefs direct our actions.

Btw, being pessimistic is not as bad as jeopardizing the Gospel. Dispensationalism puts the Gospel at risk; some say theonomy does as well. So careful thinking and rightly dividing the Word is required, as I think we would all agree!

r. :candle:
 
Originally posted by Ex Nihilo

To be frank, I'm not trying to assert that I can prove postmillennialism solely from the writings of Paul. I can't show you with certainty where he teaches that the present evil age will cease, nor can you show me with certainty where he teaches that it will not. I could copy and paste the standard Pauline passages that are used to support postmillennialism, but as I am well aware, there are amill explanations for these. (And plausible ones, too, I might add. I enjoyed Riddlebarger's book on amillennialism, but do tend to lean toward the postmill side. :bigsmile: ) I do see the positions as being fairly close in many respects, which is why I think either can provide a neat explanation of passages like 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, Ephesians 1:9-10, Ephesians 1:15-23, Philippians 3:20-21, Colossians 2:15, etc.

As I said, my main point is that persecution and present suffering are by no means out of line with postmillennialism nor are postmills trying to avoid these things. If anything, postmils are trying to give a narrative structure to suffering, to place it in the context of a plot that leads to a surprise victory. (This is part of the reason that you can't use history to refute postmillenialism. Of course postmills say that the future isn't going to be like the past. History isn't static; it has an underlying plot--not that I am denying amills the right to believe this, too.)

There may be grounds on which you can attack postmillennialism, but the implication that postmillennial theology is an attempt to deny the reality of a persecuted church is decidedly not one of them.

Evie,

First....no one is attacking postmillennialism. I'm not even attacking theonomy! It is not an attack to discuss differences in an effort to have better understanding. An attack shuts-down an exchange of ideas. 'Nuff-said....

About Paul...you are already noticing something interesting....Paul speaks of both suffering and is confident of salvation and victory while in the midst of evil and persecution. THIS is what it means to be Amillennial and Postmillennial! The two SHARE these traits.

To read all of Paul's writings and simply allow him to speak, his eschatology "rises from the Text." Paul is not a millenarian. Some have labeled Paul's eschatological view as the "two age model" meaning he speaks of two distinct ideas: the present evil age" contrasted with the "age to come." These two categories help to discover the qualities of life in both ages.

Postmillennial and Amillennial also SHARE in the idea of what the millennium is. Yet, the main difference is when the millennial begins; what does it look like? What does victorious mean? Will culture be transformed aka civil magistrates enacting Biblical-styled laws, etc., so that Christ returns to a saved earth? Or does Christ intervene in an essential rescue from certain destruction? (Which is the Amill take.) Though Amill has some differences here, we are akin!

I hardly notice our differences...I don't think that my awareness of Scripture's warnings and admonitions to "watch" and "be shrewd" and "test the spirits" and "the great apostasy comes first"...Etc., makes me pessimistic. I've never ever imagined that there was some sort of limit to souls being saved (Gen. 15 "count the stars if you can") and am always eager to evangelize since God has promised to "save a number so great" it cannot be counted. I'm very optimistic and find the "pessimistic" label useless and inaccurate. There is apathy on both sides of the fence, btw. Frankly, I think pride has a lot to do with those who measure other's evangelism as a test of faithfulness.

FTR, I have no intention of "converting"postmillenarians! If the Gospel is not at stake, why do that? Unless of course somebody wants to make our President a postmillenialist that insists the people live life or worship contrary to conscious....well, then I'll have problems with that. I would have problems with any law-maker bent on depriving any religious freedom in this country. (gasp!)

(I can just hear the stake & fire being prepared on that note! :eek: )

r.
 
PS. Evie.....you keep reading Paul!!! :banana: Remember, his words are not just his words....they are the Holy Spirit speaking directly to us!

Sola Scriptura!

Robin
 
Robin:

When you say that eschatology is important, or that eschatology drives theology, what do you mean? Are you talking about millennial views or eschatology in general? Are you saying that one's millennial view frames or forms one's theology? Or are you saying it is the catalyst into deeper theolgy? What exactly do you mean? I don't think I'll agree with it no matter what you mean, because I can't imagine a way that "your eschatology drives your theology" can be true, unless it means that it add zeal to it, nothing more.
 
Originally posted by Robin
FTR, I have no intention of "converting"postmillenarians! If the Gospel is not at stake, why do that? Unless of course somebody wants to make our President a postmillenialist that insists the people live life or worship contrary to conscious....well, then I'll have problems with that. I would have problems with any law-maker bent on depriving any religious freedom in this country. (gasp!)

(I can just hear the stake & fire being prepared on that note! :eek: )

r.

No stakes and fire here...but just a couple of comments:
1. Your president comment...as everyone including non-theonomists have pointed out, if the pres. is a postmil type of guy - it doesn't necessitate him wanting to insist that people live their lives or worship contrary to conscious. I'm guessing that you meant legislating that they do by establishing a national religion. For what it's worth, Bahnsen was not an establishmentarian type of guy. Post-mil and theonomy are not logically related.

2. So your legal theory is summed up as not legislating against one's conscious. So your normative civil ethic is tied to the existential? Using this logic is what has gotten us abortion on demand, p0rnography on demand, welfare states, etc. etc. etc. We don't need to legislate against homosexuality because it would go against the homosexual's conscious. Never mind if God says it is wrong and an abomination it should be legal. What about bestiality? Think I'm going overboard? In Seattle right now there are cases pending because a non-conscious ridden sicko thought he could make some money by offering his ranch as a animal prostitution center. People could pay money to perform acts of bestiality and have it videoed. People were outraged but guess what? No laws against it in Seattle. There are in 37 other states. I actually listened to radio call in show with people defending it on libertarian grounds. Hey, doesn't hurt others and we don't want to legislate against their conscious. Check out the stories here and here
This is the same logic that now allows sodomy to be legal in Texas.

3. I would have problems with any law-maker bent on depriving any religious freedom in this country. (gasp!)

I'm sure that makes Satanists happy that want their virgin sacrifices. Secularism has been defined as a religion as well. Can't outlaw abortion now. They should be free to offer child sacrifices to the altars of choice.

Leave Bahnsen and theonomy out of it. This last statement goes against the majority of the reformers, puritans, and reformed confessions on the civil magistrate. Calvin was all for the magistrate enforcing the first table of the law. I would rather have Calvin's Geneva or the early New England colonies here than what we have now.

And for the record, Bahnsen et.al. did not advocate a top-down approach but appealed to reformation and revival in the churches and a recovering of the gospel and evangelization so that people would embrace His law. But from what I read here, even if revival broke out, the modern day government would not be reformed because we do not want to have the civil law reflect Biblical law.
 
Originally posted by crhoades


I'm sure that makes Satanists happy that want their virgin sacrifices. Secularism has been defined as a religion as well. Can't outlaw abortion now. They should be free to offer child sacrifices to the altars of choice.

Leave Bahnsen and theonomy out of it. This last statement goes against the majority of the reformers, puritans, and reformed confessions on the civil magistrate. Calvin was all for the magistrate enforcing the first table of the law. I would rather have Calvin's Geneva or the early New England colonies here than what we have now.

And for the record, Bahnsen et.al. did not advocate a top-down approach but appealed to reformation and revival in the churches and a recovering of the gospel and evangelization so that people would embrace His law. But from what I read here, even if revival broke out, the modern day government would not be reformed because we do not want to have the civil law reflect Biblical law.

That is why pluralism is, philosophically speaking, a very bad joke. Robin, law is inescapable. You cannot avoid it. Every legislative decision you make has moral implications or is procedural to a moral concept.

Scenario (Tales from Reformia, part 1)
Background: The Neo Cons have sided with Hillary Clinton's Commie Nazis and the Southern and Western States, already having experienced a massive revival, have seceeded and formed their own semi-independent commonwealths. They are functionally independent from the statists, but not practically so. Therefore, a tyrannical law would have technical legal force, but no one would enforce it.

One of the laws at the time is the sacrificing of virgins to the Lord High State.

Characters in the story:
Billy Wallace, an agrarian freedom fighter who nearly lost his life in the Great Betrayal of '08 (a time when Neo Conservatives betrayed their Christian constituency and joined the Christ-hating liberals). He has been rallying the clans for the resistance movement; of third generation scottish descent.

<insert beautiful local girl who will marry Wallace/>

Auto Crat
He believes, consistently, that since there is no Law above the law, man's law is absolute and legally binding. He is the sworn enemy of Billy Wallace.

Auto Nomy, Auto Crat's secondhand man, commander of the Death Troop Guards--a Gestapo like police force operating on the principle that Man's law is absolute.

<more characters to be added later/>

Time and place: Appalachian Mts, 2012.

Wallace is about to be married to a local villager and the whole parish is rejoicing. Sure, there is the danger of Death-Coat Guards approaching, but the locals walk around armed to the teeth. Furthermore, the terrain provided a natural defense.

Parson: We are gathered here together...

(troops approach)

Auto Nomy: We claim the right to this girl's virginity, to be celebrated in the yearly festival. Now, hand her over!

Billy Wallace: The h*** you do!

Auto Nomy: Now, now, play nice. You know that as a Christian you have to obey the law of the land. Now, hand her over!

Wallace: There is a higher law than man's law, and that is what I obey.

Nomy: You are not playing nice. I have read some "principled pluralists" within the Reformed faith and they say that I have to be obeyed no matter what.

Wallace: Yeah, and I have read John Knox and Samuel Davies, and they say your life is forfeit.

Nomy: My law says you have to obey me!

Wallace: My 12-gauge says otherwise.

Nomy: Guards! Arrest him!
(The Death Troop Guards approach; In the meanwhile Wallace had positioned Redneck Snipers in certain trees and rock ledges, waiting for Wallace's signal).

Wallace then unloads both barrels into Auto Nomy. His Redneck Sniper Corps responds by cutting down Nomy's Death Troop Guard. Wallace draws to six-shooters from his belt and runs to his fiancee's side, protecting her with pistol fire. He then escorts her, along with some of his finest men, to a secret grove where she will be protected. He then heads back to the village square to finish off they tyrants.

It is either God's Law or Tyranny
God's Law or Chaos
God's Law or judgment.
 
That's not fair!!! I'm not from Scottish decent and I want to follow Billy:(

You go with your narratival self!;)

[Edited on 8-15-2005 by crhoades]
 
Originally posted by crhoades
That's not fair!!! I'm not from Scottish decent and I want to follow Billy:(

You go with your narratival self!;)

[Edited on 8-15-2005 by crhoades]

My great-grandfather was from St. Andrews. I am the hero of my own story. :p

Samuel Davies exhorts,
""When [our enemies] would enslave the freeborn mind and compel us meanly to cringe to usurpation and arbitrary power; . . . what is then the will of God? Must peace then be maintained? Maintained at the expense of property, liberty, life, and everything dear and valuable? . . . No; in such a time even the God of Peace proclaims by His providence, "To arms!" Then the sword is, as it were, consecrated to God; and the art of war becomes a part of our religion."
 
Originally posted by Robin

First....no one is attacking postmillennialism. I'm not even attacking theonomy!
The way this conversation started out it certainly appeared that way.

Some would say Theonomy is "heresy"...but I'm not ready to do that, yet. I think it's one alternative, not quite fitting the plain reading of Scripture.
I'm not a reconstructionist, but I certainly read this statement with the yet as being pretty bold, if not an assertion that this should be evaluated as potential heresy. I'm sure the reconstructionists here cringed when they saw this and immediately got more aggressive than they otherwise might have. You seem surprised at the friction generated here and I would point to this statement as the potential reason. Not using the "H" word, and not leaving it open that you might still consider it heresy in the future, would have helped.

Yours In Christ,
Ron
 
Originally posted by rgrove
Originally posted by Robin

First....no one is attacking postmillennialism. I'm not even attacking theonomy!
The way this conversation started out it certainly appeared that way.

Some would say Theonomy is "heresy"...but I'm not ready to do that, yet. I think it's one alternative, not quite fitting the plain reading of Scripture.
I'm not a reconstructionist, but I certainly read this statement with the yet as being pretty bold, if not an assertion that this should be evaluated as potential heresy. I'm sure the reconstructionists here cringed when they saw this and immediately got more aggressive than they otherwise might have. You seem surprised at the friction generated here and I would point to this statement as the potential reason. Not using the "H" word, and not leaving it open that you might still consider it heresy in the future, would have helped.

Yours In Christ,
Ron

Don't forget this post (it made me cringe) -

It is an irony, though, that it was Bahnsen's straw-man expressions of Amillennialism that started the so-called "pessimistic" label. No use placing blame....we must live with both apathy, hostility, inappropriate zeal, i.e. we are yet struggling sinners. But there's even more trouble brewing (or ripening) where some say theonomy is leaning towards endangering the gospel. (gasp---I didn't say that....and it's for another post....but the point is: eschatology is important; theology is important and philosophy is NOT theology! Yes, philosophy is important...but frequently, it is used as though it is theology...and it definitely is not; but different....and the servant of theology, which is to be primary in the mind of the Christian.) Our beliefs direct our actions.

Btw, being pessimistic is not as bad as jeopardizing the Gospel. Dispensationalism puts the Gospel at risk; some say theonomy does as well. So careful thinking and rightly dividing the Word is required, as I think we would all agree!

and it was followed by:
First....no one is attacking postmillennialism. I'm not even attacking theonomy! It is not an attack to discuss differences in an effort to have better understanding. An attack shuts-down an exchange of ideas. 'Nuff-said....
I agree with both Robin and Paul - this thread needs to be shut-down. I think this exchange is giving off more heat than light. More than one person who are not theonomic on this thread has at least defended theonomy etc. against wrong assertions.

This forum has allowed for multiple theonomy discussions before. In fact the most replied to thread on the board is Theonomy: What is it? with 280 posts. Threads on theonomy, EP, baptism, etc. cannot go that far unless everyone is being respectful of the topics, each other and try to stay within context.

It was posted earlier:

At the end of the day, is impatience or anger a sign that our theology is in line with God's Word? I mean, the fruit of the Spirit is peace, isn't it?

And I agree. So for peace, I'm bowing out on this one. I've tried to be patient and not get upset but I'm starting to drift that way a bit. Personally I don't enjoy having mentioned that wanting a just government is endangering the gospel, putting the gospel at risk, or is heretical (possibly)

[Edited on 8-15-2005 by crhoades]
 
Originally posted by crhoades

And I agree. So for peace, I'm bowing out on this one. I've tried to be patient and not get upset but I'm starting to drift that way a bit. Personally I don't enjoy having mentioned that wanting a just government is endangering the gospel, putting the gospel at risk, or is heretical (possibly)

[Edited on 8-15-2005 by crhoades]

But you have to admit, my story was pretty cool? Sorry for not including you. You will be in the next addition.

Personally I don't enjoy having mentioned that wanting a just government is endangering the gospel, putting the gospel at risk, or is heretical (possibly)

heretic :p

[Edited on 8--15-05 by Draught Horse]
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by crhoades

And I agree. So for peace, I'm bowing out on this one. I've tried to be patient and not get upset but I'm starting to drift that way a bit. Personally I don't enjoy having mentioned that wanting a just government is endangering the gospel, putting the gospel at risk, or is heretical (possibly)

[Edited on 8-15-2005 by crhoades]

But you have to admit, my story was pretty cool? Sorry for not including you. You will be in the next addition.

Personally I don't enjoy having mentioned that wanting a just government is endangering the gospel, putting the gospel at risk, or is heretical (possibly)

heretic :p

[Edited on 8--15-05 by Draught Horse]

That was weird...started to reply to your post and between that time and now I see you calling me heretic! I might be a harry tick but come on!

Your story was pretty cool but Randall Wallace and Mel Gibson called - They want their script back!:p

And quit trying to suck me back into the thread!:lol:

[Edited on 8-15-2005 by crhoades]
 
Puritanhead, there are futurist postmills. The preterist futurist debate is separate from the nature of the mix of believers/unbelievers in the new covenant. A postmill can be idealist, futurist, historicist or preterist regarding their reading of the book of Revelation. Many look at Matt 24 and see dual fulfillments or the like and believe it's "full" fulfillment is in the future. The historicist view was very popular in the 19th century and earlier. Not as much today.
 
Originally posted by JohnV
Robin:

When you say that eschatology is important, or that eschatology drives theology, what do you mean? Are you talking about millennial views or eschatology in general? Are you saying that one's millennial view frames or forms one's theology? Or are you saying it is the catalyst into deeper theology? What exactly do you mean? I don't think I'll agree with it no matter what you mean, because I can't imagine a way that "your eschatology drives your theology" can be true, unless it means that it add zeal to it, nothing more.

First, John, please forgive...I didn't mean to ignore your former post/criticisms. Honest! (For now, back-burner millennial ideas for a time, OK? Start here...)

I'm pointing to the awareness of the Bible being eschatalogical in its teaching. I point to sweeping themes, expressed in an epic story, spanning history and real people. There are E comments everywhere throughout ....Genesis 3:15 is one, for example. The announcement of the Christ (in type/shadow.) Imagine...Adam and Eve thought this declaration referred to their own firstborn son. Eve's declaration (Gen. 4:1) at the birth of Cain: "..."With the help of the LORD I have brought forth The Man" --- meaning her eschat view was her child was The Messiah (foretold in 3:15.) Of course, time revealed that Cain was the first anti-Christ (type/shadow.) But Eve's expectations were recorded (who knows how she did when the horrid event of Abel's murder occurred?) There's lots to this John..but simply, the subject notices the relationship of what the characters in the Bible thought of God's progressive self-revelations (in real life); what they did in light of their understanding; and applying this observance to our understanding (exegesis) and actions.

The Bible records God's declarations and self-revelations within human history. God at certain times and in certain ways, "breaks-into" history, for He is outside of it.

Ex. 24--40 Why does God impose his religious system this way? The covenant is re-confirmed; a building; garments; furniture priests; animals to be killed; blood, guts, prayers...why these? Every single detail was commanded by God -- down to thread colors; art designs, Etc. What is the overall meaning of it? God was "breaking-into" history to dwell among His people. (A Holy Dwelling place...which is what Eden was...which has a necessary tie-in to Jesus-1st Advent; the church age; Jesus 2nd Advent and in Glory.)

Striving to understand what God was doing in all the OT practices interelated to the "big picture" (NT and beyond)is what eschatology includes...not just last things...or the Second Coming. There is so much more to eschatology than the Second coming. !!!!

The theological thinking used in understanding (for example) Exodus has great impact on our present Faith and life....??? One way or the other. Indifference will inform a Christian mind as powerfully as interest will.

Another example is Jesus got on Niccodemus' case for his poor eschatology...a Pharisee utterly missing the prophecy in Ezekiel 37---Jesus criptic explanation to him covers Ezekiel 36-37. Awesome!

(I hope I'm making sense....stake & fire time?)



:candle:

r.





[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Robin]
 
Originally posted by Puritanhead
I have a friend who says he is postmil but a futurist? This makes no sense too me... Is he mixed up? Or am I?

Ryan,

I am learning that anyone can say they are anything....but only knowing them, learning their worldview, etc., can actually reveal what is going on in their thinking.

It could be that your friend is holding to strands of ideas, mixing them and/or is not fully self-conscious of convictions....perhaps, not even holding a conviction? It would depend.....

Dialogging after reading a book like Professor Riddlebarger "A Case for Amillennialism" or perhaps begin with "Basic Eschatological Views" by M. Erickson? Something broad to help clarify categories.

;)

r.
 
Originally posted by rgrove
Originally posted by Robin

First....no one is attacking postmillennialism. I'm not even attacking theonomy!
The way this conversation started out it certainly appeared that way.

Some would say Theonomy is "heresy"...but I'm not ready to do that, yet. I think it's one alternative, not quite fitting the plain reading of Scripture.
I'm not a reconstructionist, but I certainly read this statement with the yet as being pretty bold, if not an assertion that this should be evaluated as potential heresy. I'm sure the reconstructionists here cringed when they saw this and immediately got more aggressive than they otherwise might have. You seem surprised at the friction generated here and I would point to this statement as the potential reason. Not using the "H" word, and not leaving it open that you might still consider it heresy in the future, would have helped.

Yours In Christ,
Ron

Ron,

please don't project onto my statement something I have not said nor demonstrated in the context of all my posts, OK? That's easy to do for all of us....

YET means I am open-minded; thoughtful (I hope); careful (I hope, God help me) and above all DEVOTED to The Truth.

That is all.

Robin :)
 
It is still bad form to begin an argument in such a way, Robin. There is no need to drop the H-bomb, or imply that it could be possibly dropped in the future, especially over something like Theonomy. :2cents:
 
You may not have meant it, but that's certainly how I read it. We all need to be careful in our statements, especially when using the term heresy. If you don't feel you said anything offending, fine, I'm not your conscience. You were acting surprised at the reactions of some and as I read through the posts it was clear to me why. I was merely trying to point out why this was the case. I have nothing to add to the discussion as I don't holdthe views being discussed, just an interested third party who has tremendous respect for the views of reconstructionists and who has profited enormously from their works.

Yours In Christ,
Ron
 
Originally posted by crhoades
Originally posted by Robin
FTR, I have no intention of "converting"postmillenarians! If the Gospel is not at stake, why do that? Unless of course somebody wants to make our President a postmillenialist that insists the people live life or worship contrary to conscious....well, then I'll have problems with that. I would have problems with any law-maker bent on depriving any religious freedom in this country. (gasp!)

r.

I'm guessing that you meant legislating that they do by establishing a national religion. For what it's worth, Bahnsen was not an establishmentarian type of guy. Post-mil and theonomy are not logically related.

2. So your legal theory is summed up as not legislating against one's conscious.
.

Hey Chris,

Oops!! Of course I want civil law to reflect the Ten Commandments. I think they can be, and even implemented by an unbelieving law-maker. Of course we should strive to restrain evil via the civil magistrate. This is the connection between God's primary and secondary causes.

(No discourtesy in editing your post)...all I meant by the religious freedom comment was exactly THAT. Restate it and substitute any eschatalogical view (Preterist; Amill; Dispie) attach it to a Christian president -- that would still make me quite nervous. Why? We're all sinners...and for other different reasons based on Scripture. My heart's desire is to maintain freedom in this country for the Christian religion - I believe that can be done with a president of any religious view - since God has written His Law in the hearts of all men. But recall, Christianity is not a culture...so I struggle to trust God. There must be a separation...though I hate false religions, as a student of the Apostle Paul, I'm more concerned about the Gospel's proclamation. I will trust Christ for the rest of it. So far, I know I get to vote and do other things that can help preserve civil order in culture. I really do believe what Paul said (during the reign of Nero) which was:

Romans 13:1
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority instituted by except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

r. :chained:

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Robin]
 
Are there any limits to Caesar's power? Say it differently, who rules the rulers of this world?

A few more tough questions:
My love of the Reformed faith teaches me to love and protect my family; we will use fiancee/wife/lady of interest in this case. (I am single, btw, so this is a hypothetical situation). See my Tales from Reformia, part one

The state has instituted a form of prima nocta (see Braveheart the movie--although I don't think that ever happened in real life). Well, what do you do? Does one let his lady friend be treated like a whore for a night? Or does one see a Law above the law?

Moderators: You need to close this thread. It is getting very embarrassing. Reductio ad absurdums have been launched from all sides against the statist position with devastating effeciency. They will not be answered. This is no longer funny.

[Edited on 8--16-05 by Draught Horse]
 
Originally posted by Robin
Originally posted by JohnV
Robin:

When you say that eschatology is important, or that eschatology drives theology, what do you mean? Are you talking about millennial views or eschatology in general? Are you saying that one's millennial view frames or forms one's theology? Or are you saying it is the catalyst into deeper theology? What exactly do you mean? I don't think I'll agree with it no matter what you mean, because I can't imagine a way that "your eschatology drives your theology" can be true, unless it means that it add zeal to it, nothing more.

First, John, please forgive...I didn't mean to ignore your former post/criticisms. Honest! (For now, back-burner millennial ideas for a time, OK? Start here...)

I'm pointing to the awareness of the Bible being eschatalogical in its teaching. I point to sweeping themes, expressed in an epic story, spanning history and real people. There are E comments everywhere throughout ....Genesis 3:15 is one, for example. The announcement of the Christ (in type/shadow.) Imagine...Adam and Eve thought this declaration referred to their own firstborn son. Eve's declaration (Gen. 4:1) at the birth of Cain: "..."With the help of the LORD I have brought forth The Man" --- meaning her eschat view was her child was The Messiah (foretold in 3:15.) Of course, time revealed that Cain was the first anti-Christ (type/shadow.) But Eve's expectations were recorded (who knows how she did when the horrid event of Abel's murder occurred?) There's lots to this John..but simply, the subject notices the relationship of what the characters in the Bible thought of God's progressive self-revelations (in real life); what they did in light of their understanding; and applying this observance to our understanding (exegesis) and actions.

The Bible records God's declarations and self-revelations within human history. God at certain times and in certain ways, "breaks-into" history, for He is outside of it.

Ex. 24--40 Why does God impose his religious system this way? The covenant is re-confirmed; a building; garments; furniture priests; animals to be killed; blood, guts, prayers...why these? Every single detail was commanded by God -- down to thread colors; art designs, Etc. What is the overall meaning of it? God was "breaking-into" history to dwell among His people. (A Holy Dwelling place...which is what Eden was...which has a necessary tie-in to Jesus-1st Advent; the church age; Jesus 2nd Advent and in Glory.)

Striving to understand what God was doing in all the OT practices interelated to the "big picture" (NT and beyond)is what eschatology includes...not just last things...or the Second Coming. There is so much more to eschatology than the Second coming. !!!!

The theological thinking used in understanding (for example) Exodus has great impact on our present Faith and life....??? One way or the other. Indifference will inform a Christian mind as powerfully as interest will.

Another example is Jesus got on Niccodemus' case for his poor eschatology...a Pharisee utterly missing the prophecy in Ezekiel 37---Jesus criptic explanation to him covers Ezekiel 36-37. Awesome!

(I hope I'm making sense....stake & fire time?)



:candle:

r.

Robin:
That does not answer the question. The view one has of the millennium is hardly the whole of eschatology. It is not even a major part. Whatever is believed about the thousand years falls under the firm conviction that Christ will return as He was lifted up, to judge the living and the dead. His victory is assured, and is already completed at the cross and the grave. How that will exactly play out in history is of minor consequence to us, only that we are certain and confident of our Saviour's present power and rulership for our good, to turn to our profit whatever ills befall us, and also over all the earth for all time until He returns. Whatever time frame is involved is not our business, other than it is briefly mentioned in The Aoocalypse.

There is a lot of eschatological expection without any direct reference to the thousand years. So what's the big deal here with what particular millennial views one holds to? How does that "drive" theology? As far as the main eschatological beliefs are concerned, we hold them in common. In other words, we differ on minor points. So where is the danger?

I too see danger, but it more, as I said, in the practice of some, not directly in their persuasions of certain methodologies. Mostly, I see great danger in that many do not find it very important to protect the preaching of the Word; they get more distraught over the teachings being taught than the blatant abuse of the pulpit and the office to teach views which have not received sanction from the denomination. I don't mean permission to hold certain views, but authoritative declarations that those views are the very Word of God, a great deal more than just permissible views. It is one thing for a minister to hold to a millennial view, it is quite another to preach it as God's Word.

It is not the view, you see, it is the licence people take with it. That is the fault. I fully support and uphold everyone's right to hold to either the premillennial or postmillennial view, and that does not in the slightest mitigate against my own view toward amillennialism. Our theology, I will assume, remains the same and common to each of us. If I cannot take that for granted, then what we really have is different religions, not just different views on the millennium.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by JohnV]
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Are there any limits to Caesar's power? Say it differently, who rules the rulers of this world?

A few more tough questions:
My love of the Reformed faith teaches me to love and protect my family; we will use fiancee/wife/lady of interest in this case. (I am single, btw, so this is a hypothetical situation). See my Tales from Reformia, part one

The state has instituted a form of prima nocta (see Braveheart the movie--although I don't think that ever happened in real life). Well, what do you do? Does one let his lady friend be treated like a whore for a night? Or does one see a Law above the law?

Moderators: You need to close this thread. It is getting very embarrassing. Reductio ad absurdums have been launched from all sides against the statist position with devastating efficiency. They will not be answered. This is no longer funny.

[Edited on 8--16-05 by Draught Horse]

Jacob...your point is sensible as it reveals a righteous demeanor towards family and general goodness. How the Christian works-out their faith will always be uncomfortable and challenging. God help us all to obey Scripture and depend on Christ.

I hope I'm understanding you, too....you ask "are there limits to Ceasar's power; or who rules the rulers of the world?" Of course there are limits; God limits all the powers of evil in the present evil age. Even the worst tyrant --- who appears as though he is "winning"....the Lord Reigns Supreme and grants breath to evildoers to curse His name! Like it or not, we are dust to serve God as He wills....even boastful, powerful, oppressors DO serve God's purpose while they enact their own iniquities.

"Though you slay me, yet will I trust Thee" ---Job

(I thought you were "done" long ago, an' doin' yer own thang? btw? :))

Anyway...I would want to defend Scripture. Yes, horridly unjust laws imposed upon men throughout history are to be grieved and countered in the light of Holy Scripture and according to Christ's authority via the authority of the Apostle's teaching.

Let us walk circumspect and recall history and the church's dark hours...remember the Anabaptists? (talk about cringe....) May we first handle the Word of God with reverence and awe - then, show mercy, compassion and patience...holding-dear the whole counsel of God and all of the Apostle's teachings including:

Philippians 2:1-4 Paul to the Church @ Philippi
Imitating Christ's Humility
If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus....

Brothers....I think it meaningful to exchange ideas and explore the reasons why we believe the things we do - thinking God's thoughts after Him, in a fashion. In so doing, (at least in my mind) I hope I've approached uncomfortable ideas with Phil. 2 at heart. Of course, I fail miserably. But, thanks be to Christ, alone....Who covers even that.

I wish thank everyone who graciously brought forth their ideas, in Christian love; and endured with patience, tough questions, remarks and different ideas than their own. :candle:

In Christ,

Robin
 
To quote he who shall not be mentioned,

When is punishment criminal? Follow this out logically, "No longer do men die for crimes committed against a holy God, but now for offenses committed against the arbitrary will of the State." No longer is their any reason for civil disobedience. If the natural law/positive law theory stands then there is no longer a reason to say "we must obey God rather than men."
 
I wish thank everyone who graciously brought forth their ideas, in Christian love; and endured with patience, tough questions, remarks and different ideas than their own.

In Christ,

Robin

How can you do that by calling the opposing position "almost heresy"? Honest question, not trying to start a fight.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by Paul manata
Oops!! Of course I want civil law to reflect the Ten Commandments.

and civil peneology should reflect, what, precisely?

natural law, what else?
:banghead:

yes! yes! Looking at the starry heavens I too came away with the conclusion that rape should be punnished by 12.75 years. But then I was let down when my friend, looking at the same starry heavens, said that it should be 10.86 years. What are we to do???

Duh. Get a calculator and figure out the middle of those two figures.



(It's 11.805 years, by the way)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top