Hi Max,
Here's something to help you in this thicket of info:
An excellent article, in the
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal: April 2004, "The Messianic Kingdom and Civil Government", by David J. Engelsma, on this topic, defending the Reformed amil view. The first few paragraphs:
The relation between the kingdom of Jesus Christ and the civil state is a vexed, controversial subject. Basically, the issue is this: Are the state and its officers mandated by God to promote the true church and the gospel by the physical, steel sword, or is it the duty of the state simply to keep outward order in the nation?
Many Presbyterians have taken and still do take the position that the state is called to promote the true church by establishing and supporting it as the official church of the realm. This position is known as the “Establishment Principle.” These Presbyterians vehemently condemn the position that denies that the state has any duty to establish a church, promote the gospel with physical force, or punish heretics. For some obscure reason these Presbyterians call this position “voluntaryism.” According to William Cunningham, voluntaryism, or the voluntary principle, which he rejected, holds “entire separation” of state and church. “Nations, as such, and civil rulers in the official capacity, not only are not bound, but are not at liberty, to interfere in any religious matters, or to seek to promote the welfare of the church of Christ, as such.” The alternative, which Cunningham espoused, is “the doctrine of national establishment of religion.”
In recent years, the issue has come to the attention of Reformed Christians in North America through the movement known as Christian Reconstruction. As an aspect of its postmillennial eschatology, Christian Reconstruction teaches that in the future a majority of people will become Christians. Civil government then will be in the hands of Christians, indeed, Presbyterian Christians. It will be the duty of civil government to establish the Presbyterian church as the one church of the realm, to throw the whole weight of the government behind the true church, to decree the political laws of the Old Testament (“theonomy”), and to punish idolaters, vocal heretics, and other transgressors of the Old Testament statutes with physical punishments, including death.
In this article, I contend that Scripture teaches the duty of the state and its magistrates to be only the maintenance of outward order and external peace in the nation. I deny that God calls civil government to promote the gospel with its steel sword. Whether and in how far the position set forth in this article may agree with traditional voluntaryism is of no concern to me. I am not defending voluntaryism. I intend to demonstrate the calling of civil government from Scripture. In light of the calling of civil government, I will indicate the right relation between the kingdom of Jesus Christ and civil government.
It must frankly be acknowledged at the outset that the position I hold was not that of most of the Reformers. Calvin strongly affirmed that the state is called to recognize, support, and promote the true church and the gospel. He insisted that the office of the magistrate “extends to both Tables of the Law.”
In footnote #16 of the article, Engelsma remarks on the punishment of heretics and blasphemers that Reconstructionists say should be meted out:
16 It is amusing, how Christian Reconstructionist Greg Bahnsen shrewdly backed away in public debate from the stand of theonomic Christian Reconstruction, that the coming Christian, or “Christianized,” state must and will execute idolaters and heretics. The question to him was, “Should we execute idolaters?” Bahnsen answered: “The prima facie understanding of the biblical texts would seem to support the justice of punishing idolatry, even today. But I have not done sufficient homework and reflection on this question” (God and Politics: Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government, ed. Gary Scott Smith, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1989, p. 268). In fact, it is not difficult to imagine North, De Mar, Gentry, and the other disciples of Rushdoony stoning to death, among all the others, the few remaining uncompromising Reformed amillennialists as blasphemers. For Rousas J. Rushdoony’s charge that Reformed amillennialism is “blasphemy,” see his article “Postmillennialism versus Impotent Religion” in the Journal of Christian Reconstruction 3, no. 2 (Winter, 1976-77): 126, 127.
Engelsma also has an excellent book on the topic,
Christ’s Spiritual Kingdom: A Defense of Reformed Amillennialism, ISBN: 0971659206.
It appears to me that the cultural backlash from the Postmil / Theonomic position (once it is widely comprehended by them) will be fierce, and will contribute to the society's hatred of the church. It was not for nothing our Lord said, "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36)
The church-state aficionados seem not to have learned the lessons of the church in Europe.
Steve
) This question stems from a recent conversation with a Reformed and Seminary trained friend, Question is :Theonomy and the Amill. position, are they mutually exclusive? If not why? If so why/how?
? Anymore thoughts on this?
