Question about the Amill. position.

[etexas]

OK I had no idea where to put this so to any Mods and Admins forgive me for using general here (you will not hurt my feelings by moving it ) 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?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Greg Bahnsen says that Postmillennialism is a presupposition of Theonomy. I don't know if he actually limited Theonomy to postmillennialism.

Amillennialism is a form of Postmillennialism in that Amill's believe that Jesus will return "post" or after the millennium.

So, to answer your question, I do not think that the two are mutually exclusive. However, I do not think that Amil's tend to be Theonomic in the Bahnsen sense.

-CH

 

[etexas]

Greg Bahnsen says that Postmillennialism is a presupposition of Theonomy. I don't know if he actually limited Theonomy to postmillennialism.

Amillennialism is a form of Postmillennialism in that Amill's believe that Jesus will return "post" or after the millennium.

So, to answer your question, I do not think that the two are mutually exclusive. However, I do not think that Amil's tend to be Theonomic in the Bahnsen sense.

-CH

Thank you. I think that was the "direction" my friend was taking on this.

 

[etexas]

? Anymore thoughts on this?

 

[Timothy William]

I'm a reasonably convinced Amil, though eschatology isn't an area I know a great deal about, and I lean towards theonomy, though not very strongly (I'm probably more libertarian.) To the extent that I'm a theonomist, I think that instituting biblical law is what governments should do, but I don't particularly believe that it is what they will do. From what I can tell, Postmill theonomists believe that there will be a period of rule by biblical governments, followed by Jesus return; I don't see any basis for believing this.

There are two questions here: a) how should governments rule, and b) will there be a time before Jesus' return when governments rule in accordance with a)? My answer to a) is leaning towards theonomy, but, unlike Postmills, I think the answer to b) is most likely "no".

 

[turmeric]

I keep wanting to move this but I don't know where.

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

I keep wanting to move this but I don't know where.

"Revelation and Eschatology" Forum, perhaps?

 

[Pergamum]

Depending on who I explain my views to, I alternately get classified as either an Amil or a Postmil.

Most of all I believe in OPTIMISM.


I think there is much similarity between many forms of Amil and Postmil and that the line blurs between them and it is hard to tell whhich is what at times.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

SermonAudio.com - Amillennialism Described

 

[etexas]

I keep wanting to move this but I don't know where.

LOL! I feel, better, the question IS hard to place given that it weaves end-times views and current Christian approach to Govt. (I always complicate things so.)

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

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

 

[JohnV]

Steve:

I don't know that I'd agree with Engelsma about the state's role of only maintaining. I'm one of those so-called "pessimistic" (and sometimes even "defeatist") amillennialists, and I think the state's role is to promote and encourage the gospel and the church. After all, that's the best thing for society as a whole whether they're Christian or not. A society is either moral or its not, so its basis is either Christian or its not. And what's better still is if society is Christian. So why shouldn't the civil government promote and encourage the gospel and the church? Even if it is merely as a practicality, never mind Biblical command.

That's not where the mutual exclusivity is for me, at least. I do not reject the centrality of God's law, nor its' normative demands. But it isn't what Theonomists conclude it to be. But most of all, that's not how you go about promoting a Biblical concept or idea.

To give a summary explanation of how I see these in relation to each other, namely Theonomy and Amillennialism, I think the mutual exclusivity is in how you get to these conclusions, the way things are argued for, and not at all that Amillennialism is somehow opposed to God's law.

 

[Pergamum]

We can even keep the civil state out of this.

I am a non theonomic person that is either optimistic amil or postmil depending on who I ask.

I see God's promises being fulfilled as the Gospel spreads to every people group so that some from every tongue, tribe and nation will be saved.

One need not even focus on gov't. but on the sucess of the Gospel and missions as the glory of the Lord spread across all ethno-linguistic boundaries.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello JohnV,

I can't find in Scripture that the state's role "is to promote and encourage the gospel and the church." If in God's providence it does that, well and good, but it is beyond it's Biblical purview.

That the early U.S. government and courts did this is another matter, which I will comment on when I review the book, Backfired: A Nation Born for Religious Tolerance No Longer Tolerates Religion, by William J. Federer.

 

[JohnV]

Hello JohnV,

I can't find in Scripture that the state's role "is to promote and encourage the gospel and the church." If in God's providence it does that, well and good, but it is beyond it's Biblical purview.

That the early U.S. government and courts did this is another matter, which I will comment on when I review the book, Backfired: A Nation Born for Religious Tolerance No Longer Tolerates Religion, by William J. Federer.

It just seems to me that a civil government is in place for the good of the people, and that nothing is better for the people than God's blessings upon them. What better way to do that than to promote and encourage the gospel and the church?


getting back to the topic...

When I first learned about the millennial views a little less than forty years ago this is what I was told by my elder: "As an elder I can't tell you which millennial view to believe, but whichever one you do end up believing remember to hold it at arm's length, and not close to your heart like the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith." I think that this says a lot.

Amillennialists tend toward their millennial view as an afterthought to doctrinal matters, while both Premils and Postmils have been known to place their millennial views in places of determining importance. If therefore one is an old school Amillennialist this would then tend to obviate him from being a Theonomist.

Well, at least for me this is the case.