Rehoboam, Asa, and Sodomy

[Jerusalem Blade]

This is something I just saw in The Opinion Pages of the NYTimes online, on the very topic of the OP. A brief article, and an 8 minute video clip of an African Anglican clergyman opposed to American churches (IHOP) funding and influencing the church in Uganda to do away with homosexuals.

Gospel of Intolerance

Thoughts?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I understand your point, sexual deviance in any form should not be tolerated by the church

While true, that was not the motivation behind the post, in fact there was no motive or "point", ulterior or otherwise, behind the posting of these two sets of verses. I just thought the juxtaposition of these two sets of verses was interesting and I shared it with the board. Like I said everything doesn't have to have some kind of "agenda" behind it.

Sometimes it just is what it is and that's that. Not sure why the original responder was seeking a motivation for the posting in the first place.

In fairness, you are assuming that everyone would just get that the juxtaposition was all there was to your post. Perhaps, in your spirit of sharing with others, you could have added a wee bit more to the post and made that clear. Just sayin'.

 

[Pergamum]

I think that the wise magistrate will know what punishments to attach to various crimes.

How would modern penalties differ from the OT ones? Theonomists can tinker with the severity of the penalties?

It's a general equitable fulfillment, so we would expect non-theonomists to tinker with them. Theonomists on the other hand are committed to the abiding validity of every jot and tittle.

Wouldn't commitment to the abiding validity of every jot and tittle imply similar penalties for sins such as homosexuality and the like?

 

[he beholds]

I think that the wise magistrate will know what punishments to attach to various crimes.

Ha! Good one.

 

[Peairtach]

I think that the wise magistrate will know what punishments to attach to various crimes.

How would modern penalties differ from the OT ones? Theonomists can tinker with the severity of the penalties?

It's a general equitable fulfillment, so we would expect non-theonomists to tinker with them. Theonomists on the other hand are committed to the abiding validity of every jot and tittle.

Wouldn't commitment to the abiding validity of every jot and tittle imply similar penalties for sins such as homosexuality and the like?

It would imply the exact same penalties according to the theonomist hemeneutic i.e. death for homosexual acts.

The non-theonomist however, takes into account redemptive-historical considerations in particular, apart from any others. Why was the death penalty (or ransom in its place) extended to these offences at the time of Moses? To teach people that without a sacrifice there is no remission of sins. God claimed the penalty that was due - death - where there was no sacrifice, and that was the case with all the most presumptuous wickedness.

See e.g. Numbers 15.

Since the death penalty under Moses was a form of excommunication (cutting-off/kareth) from God's Church/Israel, anyway, the first way we should be seeing how these lawa are fulfilled is in the Church/the "Israel of God", re Church sanctions. The implications for the modern state are broader.

 

[Miss Marple]

I think one of the objections I have to non-theonomist thinking is exemplified by thoughts such as "a wise magistrate will know what punishments to attach to various crimes."

I wonder, is that exalting man over God? God has attached a punishment to most crimes. Can we "do Him one better," so to speak?

I do understand that we have different circumstances now, at times. God did not address drunken driving for example, specifically. So we need to apply principles.

But still, is it our place to alter punishments?

 

[Peairtach]

I do understand that we have different circumstances now,

We have different circumstances now in that these punishments were part of the OT administration of the Covenant of Grace. We're moving from that, not to the NT administration of the CoG, but to the civil administration of New Testament states, in which the NT Church/Israel is at various stages of development.

 

[Afterthought]

But still, is it our place to alter punishments?

From what I understand I think the non-theonomist might answer, with respect to the crimes in Scripture for which there is a moral warrant to punish (and I post this here so that I can have my understanding corrected if it is wrong)....

The punishment must always fit the crime, and the Christian magistrate should be taught by Scripture when it comes to law making. However, punishment always fitting the crime necessarily means the same punishment is not given to all crimes, since not all crimes deserve the same punishment. Punishment is thus case-specific. Cases necessarily depend on circumstances; indeed, it is the different circumstances that make a different case. For example, a person who steals candy will not receive the same punishment as a person who murders another, nor the same punishment as the person who steals information that compromises national security. In the stealing case, in both cases, there is undoubtedly something similar involved in the action (that is, in both cases, one is stealing), but they are two different cases--the difference being in the circumstances (in this case, what is stolen).

Circumstances of cases can be extended to time and place. To borrow an example from an earlier thread, a thief who comes willingly is punished whatever the law says he should be punished with, but a thief who resists violently (i.e., to the point where shooting may occur) may be subject to the maximum penalty of the law: death. And as another, a nation that is in covenant with God (for those that acknowledge such covenanting) may need to punish blasphemy more harshly than a nation that isn't, because for such a nation, the blasphemy attacks the core of the nation in a way that it doesn't for a nation not in covenant. I think--and I could be wrong--that if a nation were to be in covenant with God, in a similar manner to the way Israel was, non-theonomists might say that the punishments given in Scripture would be applied in the covenanted nation.

There was a thread posted in the Theonomy subforum recently that has lots of links to previous threads that you may find useful.

Edit: Ahh. Just saw Richard's post. I forgot that some (all?) non-theonomists see the punishments as part of the administration of the Covenant of Grace. In which case, such punishments would never be re-enacted, since those circumstances could never be met?

 

[Peairtach]

Raymond

Edit: Ahh. Just saw Richard's post. I forgot that some non-theonomists see the punishments as typological and part of the administration of the Covenant of Grace. In which case, such punishments would never be re-enacted, since those circumstances could never be met?

I see the use of the death penalty under Moses, as related to the sacrificial system, and teaching about God's eternal curse - they were permanently expelled from God's kingdom by death after all -but I believe there are general lessons that can be learned for church sanctions and civil penalties from the judicial law.

 

[A5pointer]

I think one of the objections I have to non-theonomist thinking is exemplified by thoughts such as "a wise magistrate will know what punishments to attach to various crimes."

I wonder, is that exalting man over God? God has attached a punishment to most crimes. Can we "do Him one better," so to speak?

I do understand that we have different circumstances now, at times. God did not address drunken driving for example, specifically. So we need to apply principles.

But still, is it our place to alter punishments?

I think that was meant to be tongue in cheek

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Gospel of Intolerance

I see no one has commented on this video clip (and brief article) from a documentary on the influence of an American church so influencing churches in Uganda that the churches there are taking upon themselves to execute the death penalty on homosexuals.

We may academically / theologically discuss the capital punishments of the old theocratic state, but there are Americans who run with the OT laws (who have they been listening to?) and are not only wreaking havoc in the world, but documentaries such as that above will come back to bite us – and some bites are lethal. We are accruing to ourselves despising and wrath from the culture, and seem to be oblivious to it.

This is not what the Gospel of Christ should be known for – death under the law, instead of forgiveness under the cross.

 

[Peairtach]

This is something I just saw in The Opinion Pages of the NYTimes online, on the very topic of the OP. A brief article, and an 8 minute video clip of an African Anglican clergyman opposed to American churches (IHOP) funding and influencing the church in Uganda to do away with homosexuals.

Gospel of Intolerance

Thoughts?

Thanks for this, Steve.

I'm not in favour of the death penalty for homosexual behaviour, but am in favour of it being criminalised, as it was in Britain until only 45 years ago. Not that that is likely to happen in the near future.

I was sorry to see that the homosexual man in the video was ill-treated by the police.

There was no indication that these American Christians were in favour of capital punishment for homosexual activity or that they were sponsoring that with their money.

The video indicated that the Ugandan Bill has had the death penalty removed from it.

 

[Pergamum]

I think one of the objections I have to non-theonomist thinking is exemplified by thoughts such as "a wise magistrate will know what punishments to attach to various crimes."

I wonder, is that exalting man over God? God has attached a punishment to most crimes. Can we "do Him one better," so to speak?

I do understand that we have different circumstances now, at times. God did not address drunken driving for example, specifically. So we need to apply principles.

But still, is it our place to alter punishments?

It would appear that a consistent Theonomist would not argue against the death penalty for practicing homosexuals. Is that what you believe? If not, why? If the law abides forever in its civil implications, then why not the punishments, also?

p.s. I just read the history of early America and it appears that the first instance of capital punishment was for bestiality (I think the animal, too, was put to death maybe)

 

[RamistThomist]

In Coffey's biography on Rutherford, he notes that Rutherford believed that witches should be prosecuted qua Deuteronomy, even sitting in on some witch trials. In Lex, Rex Rutherford says idolaters should be executed, or at least exiled.

* If the law abides forever in its civil implications, then why not the punishments, also?*

That phrasing is misleading. The law does abide such--God isn't a relativist--but the civil situations often change (When Moses gave these laws Israel was a desert community; I bet the "general equity" changed for the Israelite a generation after it was given!)

I am a theocrat. I do not believe God was a relatvist or a meanie in giving these laws. They are infinitely more just than the US Tax Code. Still, there are some areas of application that theonomists havnen't sufficiently addressed: like why was Mary executed, since the "evidence" seemed to indict her?

 

[Pergamum]

In Coffey's biography on Rutherford, he notes that Rutherford believed that witches should be prosecuted qua Deuteronomy, even sitting in on some witch trials. In Lex, Rex Rutherford says idolaters should be executed, or at least exiled.

* If the law abides forever in its civil implications, then why not the punishments, also?*

That phrasing is misleading. The law does abide such--God isn't a relativist--but the civil situations often change (When Moses gave these laws Israel was a desert community; I bet the "general equity" changed for the Israelite a generation after it was given!)

I am a theocrat. I do not believe God was a relatvist or a meanie in giving these laws. They are infinitely more just than the US Tax Code. Still, there are some areas of application that theonomists havnen't sufficiently addressed: like why was Mary executed, since the "evidence" seemed to indict her?

In Coffey's biography on Rutherford, he notes that Rutherford believed that witches should be prosecuted qua Deuteronomy, even sitting in on some witch trials. In Lex, Rex Rutherford says idolaters should be executed, or at least exiled.

Jacob,

Several weeks ago I posted about the Reformation-era witch craze. It seems that Protestantizing Germany was a chief offender in rounding up and killing old women and loners in the name of witch-prosecution.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Richard, when it is preached to Ugandans that God hates homosexuality – with no nuance that we are to lovingly call them to repentance, and warn them of judgment to come – it is translated by the people that if God hates them we should too, and if His law in the OT says they should be killed, then we too should kill them.

On the other hand, one of the things David Bahati (the Ugandan legislator who proposed the outlawing gay bill) said was that homosexuals sought to recruit and entice children into homosexuality. In an interview Rachael Maddow tried to debunk this assertion by Bahati, but it is true that current teaching in the Western schools seeks to indoctrinate elementary-age children into learning of and accepting homosexuality as normal and healthy, and materials – some graphic – are exported abroad. Our Secretary of State is pushing this agenda to the max internationally.

It is also true that homosexuals actually seek to recruit children into that lifestyle; as my mother was ill with cancer I went to boarding schools for many years as a child and I saw much that confirms this.

What I am saying is that this is a battle we're not going to win (in this life). If we keep silent, the land – the world – is overrun. If we speak we will be silenced. I think there is no other way than to boldly proclaim the Law of God, the penalty for disobedience to it (eternal death), and the offer of mercy, forgiveness, and eternal life given by Christ to all who come to Him desiring these of Him.

Unlike yourself, I have no faith at all that the tide will turn before the return of Christ in judgment. There is only the witness of the church. But it must be a wise and caring witness: "A true witness delivereth souls . . . and he that winneth souls is wise" (Prov 14:25a; 11:30b).

 

[AlexanderHenderson1647]

No, Perg, these comments above are not made by "theonomists".

It's an interesting thing, the state of our nation – and the West in general; in other times, Tyler and Richard, the civil magistrate could have applied severe penalties, and some would have given the death penalty for sodomy (what alternatives would you have suggested, jail time?). But now, such magistrates in the U.S. would be picketed, impeached, or assassinated. Now there is such lawlessness – with accompanying disdain (that is perhaps too mild a word) for God's holy laws of life and love, there would be instant outrage from all quarters were a godly magistrate to judge according to righteousness.

Some pollyanna theologists imagine a coming golden age (some thinking it will be built on the wreckage of our civilization – more pollyannaism of a sort!), but the flood of lawlessness and iniquity will soon enough carry away all these foolish eschatological dreams and we will be left with the stark realities lambs face when surrounded by ravenous wolves. In other parts of the world this is already the case with our brethren.

The time for magistrates upholding God's law is finished; now the time is for the people of God bearing witness to God's law and the coming judgment upon all unrighteousness, and the salvation from that terrible judgment being found only at Christ's hand. This will result in outrage from the world against us, and the determination to silence us at any cost (of course we will pay that cost); this will result in cries going up to Heaven, to Him who sits on the throne, who shall then mete increasing judgments against the wicked idolaters and the persecutors of His people.

But most in the church think things will go on as usual. They are not mentally prepared. It will be a shock to many. It will be hard to worship, to find sound places to worship, for these will be bold in witness, and they will be silenced first.

Guns won't help, you Americans. The use of them will only engender immensely fierce responses. You don't have to be a prophet to see and say these things, just discerning the times. We have no Asa, no godly kings or rulers (for the people won't have it), but a world in which satan is – or is about to be – loosed for a little season, and he will inflame the earthlings with passions that wipe out sanity and all reason. You knew it was coming, you have been told often enough, but there are so many who say, Peace, peace, when there really is no peace.

What do you hope to accomplish with your inflammatory rhetoric? Besides being inflammatory, it was completely foreign to the minds of the Puritans. Noone represented at the drafting of the confession would have endorsed your position. If I may ask, why post at a place named "Puritan Board" such uncharitable things, knowing good and well that we "Pollyannsists" are out here? Would you hazard such language on that godly group? Why not go to Sermon Audio or Christianity Today or elsewhere and post in their wasteland of confused theology where the Puritans are relegated to "those cook wackos that burned witches" types? Some of us here just happen to endorse the Puritan view (by and large) of magistracy and eschatology resemble those for whom the site is named. That ought not surprise you. Honestly, no offense aimed, but I hope a healthy dose of brotherly sharpening can be got. I'll certainly withhold the uncharitable name calling you descended to. While I know that *most* of the tidy American revisions to the WLC have given a bit of accommodation for your position, might I ask how you dealt with WLC Q. 191 over the years? Have be been sincere in taking exception to it and noting as much? This starkly contrasts with your view. Would you blandish "Pollyannaist" over this wise statement?

 

[Miss Marple]

As we mentioned the first death penalty in America being for bestiality, I am reminded that I have learned that George Washington himself had a soldier (or more than one) executed for sodomy.

I am willing to stand corrected but have been informed of this on more than one occasion.

Are we perhaps too tolerant now? I don't deny that sinners should be given the gospel. But is there a protective reason for the death penalty for this behavior? Is it a "victimless crime," or is it not? Statistics bear out a far greater incidence of child molestation by homosexuals. Per capita. Lots of other negative stats, too, from domestic abuse to suicide to other anti-social behaviors. Is it possible God prescribes the death penalty for homosexual acts (not inclinations) to defend a great number of innocent people?

I am NOT implying that all homosexual molest kids, nor that all heteros don't.

I do not hate homosexuals. I am not arguing for their death. I am just wondering if my squeamishness about it is man-centered or God-centered. I am a product of my culture, too.

As for Mary being put to death, a woman impregnated by her fiancee was not a death penalty candidate. Normally, the betrothed had to pay like a bride price and marry her. If my understanding is correct.

As for the situation in Uganda, if the law is not retroactive and is fairly administered, is it right to feel excessively sorry for the guilty?

For example, if we made eating potato chips a death penalty offense in the U.S., that is obviously a terrible and onerous law. But you know, I would not eat potato chips until it was reversed. So why, if it was law and properly applied, did these men continue with their vile behavior? Were they ignorant of the law or repercussions? Who would continue in this perverse behavior if they knew a death penalty could be the result? What kind of mind set is that?

This week in Thailand, a 56-year old Grandma tourist from the UK was sentenced to death for smuggling cocaine in the lining of her suitcase. Tourists are warned repeatedly that drug smuggling is a death penalty offense in Thailand. They even announce it over all international flight loudspeakers. She did it anyway. Should I see her as a victim? I do actually feel sorry for her, as I have done very stupid and sinful things, too. But is it the same as being knifed when walking down the street?

I can't put "tone" in my words, here, so believe me when I say I am not asking these things in an angry or accusatory fashion, but I am trying to figure these things out.

 

[TylerRay]

I think one of the objections I have to non-theonomist thinking is exemplified by thoughts such as "a wise magistrate will know what punishments to attach to various crimes."

I wonder, is that exalting man over God? God has attached a punishment to most crimes. Can we "do Him one better," so to speak?

I do understand that we have different circumstances now, at times. God did not address drunken driving for example, specifically. So we need to apply principles.

But still, is it our place to alter punishments?

I think that was meant to be tongue in cheek

Quote Originally Posted by TylerRay View Post
I think that the wise magistrate will know what punishments to attach to various crimes.
Ha! Good one.

Bruce, I don't know whether you meant that my statement was meant tongue in cheek or that Mrs. Rothenbuhler's was, but I would like to ensure you all that I meant mine wholeheartedly.

Romans 16 states that the magistrate is the minister of God--his position is appointed by God himself! The passage also says that he is given the power of the sword.

The Church is regulated strictly by God's ordinance. He does not allow leeway with regard to the offices, doctrines, and practices of the Church (there are, of course, circumstantial issues with regard to how some of what God has ordained is to be carried out).

Not so the magistrate. Unlike in the Theocracy of the Old Covenant Church, God does not regulate the offices, the distribution of land, and the civil punishments of modern commonwealths with strictness. Instead He gives the magistrate the power of the sword to govern according to His moral law. The offices, land laws, civil punishments, etc. are the prerogative (given by God) of the commonwealth, and of the magistrate.

 

[Miss Marple]

Yes, if the magistrate is a wise and God-fearing man, or group of men, we have protection.

However he is often not such.

Thus the argument for "Lex Rex," the law is in charge. We are all supposed to be subject to the law.

Which leads us back to discussing what laws are just. What laws should we, as believers, be promoting in regards to the issue of homosexual behavior?

 

[RamistThomist]

Innocent people always get rounded up. We live in a fallen world. If someone goes to jail wrongly for 35 years for being mistaken as a murderer or such, shouuld we not punish murderers because we have an imperfect system?

Per the "witch craze:" We might need to own up to the fact that there are people who commune with the powers of hell and act accordingly.

In Coffey's biography on Rutherford, he notes that Rutherford believed that witches should be prosecuted qua Deuteronomy, even sitting in on some witch trials. In Lex, Rex Rutherford says idolaters should be executed, or at least exiled.

* If the law abides forever in its civil implications, then why not the punishments, also?*

That phrasing is misleading. The law does abide such--God isn't a relativist--but the civil situations often change (When Moses gave these laws Israel was a desert community; I bet the "general equity" changed for the Israelite a generation after it was given!)

I am a theocrat. I do not believe God was a relatvist or a meanie in giving these laws. They are infinitely more just than the US Tax Code. Still, there are some areas of application that theonomists havnen't sufficiently addressed: like why was Mary executed, since the "evidence" seemed to indict her?

In Coffey's biography on Rutherford, he notes that Rutherford believed that witches should be prosecuted qua Deuteronomy, even sitting in on some witch trials. In Lex, Rex Rutherford says idolaters should be executed, or at least exiled.

Jacob,

Several weeks ago I posted about the Reformation-era witch craze. It seems that Protestantizing Germany was a chief offender in rounding up and killing old women and loners in the name of witch-prosecution.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hey, Christopher – I think this is the first time we’ve conversed. Glad to meet you.

Do you really think the “pollyanna . . .” reference is inflammatory rhetoric? It only means “a person characterized by irrepressible optimism . . . an excessively or persistently optimistic person” –Webster’s Dict. You sound like you might be a bit “inflamed”, but I don’t think my expressions were.

I think the “the tidy American revisions to the WLC” you claim “have given a bit of accommodation for your position” is part of the Confessional Standards held (and published) by the OPC of which you are a member. It was with good reason the Standards were corrected in those very few places.

When you talk like this,

Why not go to Sermon Audio or Christianity Today or elsewhere and post in their wasteland of confused theology where the Puritans are relegated to "those cook wackos that burned witches" types?

that is inflammatory! Yet I am not offended by this, as I perceive you are a stand-up believer “contending for the faith” as you see it. I am not a Puritan, but a 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century disciple of Jesus Christ holding to the Reformed tradition, although I treasure Puritan spirituality, and the fervency with which they held forth the doctrines of godliness.

The more I become exercised in this discussion, the more I see the value of godly magistrates, and “the church . . . 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 . . .” (WLC 191 Q&A). For when I listened to (Ugandan legislator) David Bahati's defense of his gay bill to Rachael Maddow, I saw he was indeed seeking to protect the children of his nation and the families in his nation from the corruption we see rampant in Canada, America, the UK, and Europe. He is doing the work of a “God-fearing” (his expression) magistrate. Hearing him has cast a light on the darkness enveloping our own nation (the U.S., as well as others). Our children are being catechized in the doctrines of an evil agenda; to wit:

Canada: teacher shows drag queen video to kids aged 9-10

Library survey asks kids as young as six about sexuality

Explicit sex ed DVD used in Scottish primary schools

Lesbian mums storybook ‘forced’ into Utah schools

Now in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., this agenda is being enforced by the civil magistrate. You have no argument from me (having thought this through afresh) that the civil magistrate ought be not only vigorously opposing such, but vigorously upholding the righteousness that God’s law commands.

Being a martial artist you probably should realize that hot-headedness may cause you to lose your poise of mind and self-control and thus make some foolish moves. One needs poise of mind to strategize in combat situations. So please get clear I am not demeaning or denying the validity and need of godly magistrates. What I am saying is that the magistracies – in all the West! – have been co-opted by the demonic power, and are working evil on an increasing basis. At least understand clearly what I am saying before you take a (verbal) punch at me.

I will excerpt here Professor David J. Engelsma of the Protestant Reformed Church in his answer to Gary DeMar’s response to an earlier published letter of Engelsma (this is sort of long, but I trust folks are interested in this discussion):
--------

The Westminster Standards

That I did not quote the Westminster Confession and its catechisms is not at all "curious". I pointed out why I did not: "I leave to those whose creeds they are to demonstrate that the Westminster Standards rule out the illusory hope of postmillennialism." The creeds that bind me (and the majority of readers of the Standard Bearer) are the "Three Forms of Unity." Therefore, I limited myself to references to them.

I offer my judgment, nevertheless, that the four quotations by DeMar from the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms prove absolutely nothing for a postmillennial interpretation of the Westminster documents. No amillennialist has any difficulty with these expressions whatsoever. All of these statements square perfectly with "Engelsma's notion that 'the church in the end time will be a persecuted church, not a triumphalist church'." Christ has been restraining and subduing His and our enemies by His sovereign power since His ascension into heaven (Eph. 2:20-23). The fulfillment of this sovereign restraint and subduing in history does not require the "Christianizing of the world" and a kingdom of earthly power and glory. The risen Christ restrains and subdues His enemies by His secret providence, and He governs and exalts His church by His grace.

The right understanding of the Larger Catechism's explanation of the second petition of the Lord's prayer, in Question 191, an explanation that is virtually identical with the explanation of the Heidelberg Catechism in Question 123, will serve to make clear the meaning of all of DeMar's quotations from the Westminster Catechisms.

In the second petition, the Catechism explains, believers pray that God in Christ will destroy the kingdom of Satan and build up the kingdom of Christ, which is the church. DeMar thinks that this refers to some future time before the coming of Christ. Also, he supposes that the destruction of Satan's kingdom and the victory of Christ's kingdom in this future time are earthly, that is, physical, political, social, and visible to the bodily eye. The saints will have dominion: the carnal kingdom.

He is mistaken on both counts. Christ has been destroying the kingdom of Satan and building up His own kingdom, the church, ever since He ascended into heaven. The nature of the defeat of Satan's kingdom and of the victory of Christ's kingdom is spiritual. It consists of the gathering out of Satan's kingdom of the elect; of the sanctification of the elect to serve the Lord in every sphere of life; and of the preservation of the church in truth and holiness against the onslaught of the devil. The perfect answer to the second petition will be granted in the Day of Christ.

How does the Larger Catechism itself sum up its explanation of the second petition? "...that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever."

There is not so much as a hint of postmillennialism in Question 191 of the Larger Catechisms or in the other quotations adduced by Gary DeMar. One finds postmillennialism in these confessional statements only if he has decided beforehand to understand "restrain,", "subdue," "defend," and "conquer" in the earthly sense they had for Old Testament Israel in the day of shadows.

The answer to question 191 of he Larger Catechism is by no means "almost identical to that of The Savoy Declaration (26.5)." Chapter 26.5 of the Congregational Savoy Declaration (which I quoted in the editorial "Jewish Dreams") differs radically from Question 191 of the Presbyterian Larger Catechism. The Savoy Declaration posits "enlarged" churches enjoying "a more quiet, peaceable, and glorious condition than they have enjoyed" "in the latter days, Antichrist being destroyed... and the adversaries of the kingdom of his dear Son broken" and "in this world."

Take note: "in this world."

The Independents who drew up the Savoy Declaration, dissatisfied with Presbyterian Westminster's refusal to do so, gave clear expression to the postmillennial dream of an earthly kingdom. Their churches are taught to look forward to earthly peace, earthly prosperity, and earthly power!

Even the quotation from Thomas Ridgeley, although obviously originating in a misguided longing for "latter-day glory," only very cautiously advance the mildest forms of postmillennialism "...greater magnificence, more visible marks of glory ... the welfare and happiness of his church in a greater degree." A sleepy amillennialist might let this get past him.

This is worlds apart form the "Christianizing" of America, and then of the world, envisioned and promoted by "Christian Reconstruction" as the real triumph of Christ in history.

"Behold, I Come Slowly"

With DeMar's remarks on the Bible's teaching concerning the second coming of the Lord and the condition of the church in the days preceding that coming, I am simply delighted. I knew these things, of course, as do all those who have read in "Reconstruction" literature. But many of the readers of this magazine have not read the "Reconstruction" books. They are largely dependent upon the analyses of others. Now they can read for themselves from a leading, authoritative "Christian Reconstructionist" the main teachings of that movement concerning the end of the world.

The church of the last days will not be persecuted!

All of the prophecy of the New Testament of apostasy, tribulation, and Antichrist in the last days has already been completely fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70! Nothing of all of this sizable and significant portion of the New Testament Scripture, as well as Old Testament Scripture, including nearly all of the book of Revelation, applies to the New Testament church of our day and the future!

Most astounding of all, and well-nigh incredible, is the flat, bold denial that the coming of Jesus Christ -- the second, bodily, visible coming of Jesus Christ -- is "soon" and "near"! The Reformed church has been mistaken in her teaching that Jesus' coming is "near"! Indeed, "this doctrine has been the bane of Reformed theology"! (emphasis mine -- DJE).

Postmillennialism denies and opposes, with might and main, that Jesus' coming is soon, near, and quickly, exaclty as I charged against it in "Jewish Dreams."

I ignore the tactic of blackening Reformed eschatology by linking it with that of premillennial dispensationalism. It is not Reformed amillennialism that agrees with premillennialism in denying future persecution to the church and in affirming an earthly kingdom of Christ.

Eschatological Apostasy

DeMar may well be right when he says that the number of Reformed and Presbyterian amillennialists "is steadily declining". The reason, in part, is the great apostasy now fulfilling the apostle's prophecy in II Thessalonians 2:3. This falling away is due, in part, to the failure of Presbyterian and Reformed churches, ministers, theologians, and editors of religious periodicals vigorously to defend amillennialism and equally vigorously to expose and condemn postmillennialism.

Lest I be guilty of failing to do what little I can to stop the decline from the truth of amillennialism, I intend to devote future editorials to a biblical, confessional defense of amillennialism against erroneous doctrine of postmillennialism. These will have the "Christian Reconstruction" movement especially in view.

The Challenge

Gary DeMar throws out an intriguing challenge: a public debate on postmillennialism on the campus of the Protestant Reformed Theological Seminary. My only hesitation is that I must not be responsible for giving a platform to error. I certainly would not want to leave the impression that the Bible is unclear on this important doctrine of the last things, so that amillennialism and postmillennialism are two legitimate options for Reformed and Presbyterian Christians.

But DeMar is the well known and popular theologian. He would draw the audience. He would be giving a platform to a defense of amillennialism. There is nothing wrong with this. I am interested.

[end Engelsma]

----------

The exchange between the two men may be found here: A Letter and Response on "Jewish Dreams".

To sum: Christopher, what I am saying is that what we are seeing in the West is a rapid deterioration of law and order, and with that all Biblical influence in the public sphere, at least as far as institutions and magistracies are concerned. Even parts of the professing church are acquiescing to the onslaught. I hold that Scripture shows, in the long run, this will continue and grow. Your post-mil view holds exactly the opposite. I consider that dangerous. And it is incumbent on me, as a minister of the gospel (albeit retired) to speak up about this, both among the brethren, and publicly.

Rather than malign me, why not meet me on the field with the arms given by the Lamb of God: His word, in the Spirit of grace?

Again I say, I am not offended by your remarks – I like that you have spunk.

 

[RamistThomist]

Steve, you keep pointing out how the standards rule out postmillennialism, but this thread began as an ethical one: what to do about sodomites? Ethics and eschatology are two different questions, contra Gary north

 

[Pergamum]

Innocent people always get rounded up. We live in a fallen world. If someone goes to jail wrongly for 35 years for being mistaken as a murderer or such, shouuld we not punish murderers because we have an imperfect system?

Per the "witch craze:" We might need to own up to the fact that there are people who commune with the powers of hell and act accordingly.

In Coffey's biography on Rutherford, he notes that Rutherford believed that witches should be prosecuted qua Deuteronomy, even sitting in on some witch trials. In Lex, Rex Rutherford says idolaters should be executed, or at least exiled.

* If the law abides forever in its civil implications, then why not the punishments, also?*

That phrasing is misleading. The law does abide such--God isn't a relativist--but the civil situations often change (When Moses gave these laws Israel was a desert community; I bet the "general equity" changed for the Israelite a generation after it was given!)

I am a theocrat. I do not believe God was a relatvist or a meanie in giving these laws. They are infinitely more just than the US Tax Code. Still, there are some areas of application that theonomists havnen't sufficiently addressed: like why was Mary executed, since the "evidence" seemed to indict her?

In Coffey's biography on Rutherford, he notes that Rutherford believed that witches should be prosecuted qua Deuteronomy, even sitting in on some witch trials. In Lex, Rex Rutherford says idolaters should be executed, or at least exiled.

Jacob,

Several weeks ago I posted about the Reformation-era witch craze. It seems that Protestantizing Germany was a chief offender in rounding up and killing old women and loners in the name of witch-prosecution.

So you support capital punishment for witches?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Yes, Jacob, it was originally about ethics! Somehow – I think regarding the matter of civil magistrates and their place in the world today – there was an overlap into eschatological views bearing on the topic.

 

[RamistThomist]

Depending on the evidence and a few other "equity" matters, yes.

We already deal with the horrors of it today, pace the Santierra cult (Bahnsen brought this up in a debate with the Westminster Faculty on theonomy. It was almost embarrassing to see (or not see) the nonresponse).

Innocent people always get rounded up. We live in a fallen world. If someone goes to jail wrongly for 35 years for being mistaken as a murderer or such, shouuld we not punish murderers because we have an imperfect system?

Per the "witch craze:" We might need to own up to the fact that there are people who commune with the powers of hell and act accordingly.

In Coffey's biography on Rutherford, he notes that Rutherford believed that witches should be prosecuted qua Deuteronomy, even sitting in on some witch trials. In Lex, Rex Rutherford says idolaters should be executed, or at least exiled.

* If the law abides forever in its civil implications, then why not the punishments, also?*

That phrasing is misleading. The law does abide such--God isn't a relativist--but the civil situations often change (When Moses gave these laws Israel was a desert community; I bet the "general equity" changed for the Israelite a generation after it was given!)

I am a theocrat. I do not believe God was a relatvist or a meanie in giving these laws. They are infinitely more just than the US Tax Code. Still, there are some areas of application that theonomists havnen't sufficiently addressed: like why was Mary executed, since the "evidence" seemed to indict her?

In Coffey's biography on Rutherford, he notes that Rutherford believed that witches should be prosecuted qua Deuteronomy, even sitting in on some witch trials. In Lex, Rex Rutherford says idolaters should be executed, or at least exiled.

Jacob,

Several weeks ago I posted about the Reformation-era witch craze. It seems that Protestantizing Germany was a chief offender in rounding up and killing old women and loners in the name of witch-prosecution.

So you support capital punishment for witches?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

The Santeria and application of "Theonomic" penalties is a real can of worms. It is almost indigenous to the Hispanic communities, having come from African-type voodoo via South America and its mixing with Roman Catholicism. They do seriously involve themselves with the demonic, although they term them deities of a sort. There is a hierarchy of practitioners, some of them highly feared in their communities, and who hire themselves out to do hurt to others by demonic power. It is now very big in the large cities with large Hispanic populations.

 

[TylerRay]

Which leads us back to discussing what laws are just. What laws should we, as believers, be promoting in regards to the issue of homosexual behavior?

It should be criminalized. That alone is a step in the right direction. I would be glad to support any kind of civil measure against sodomy, regardless of the punishment (so long as the punishment itself is in accord with God's moral law--i. e., no torture [which is not to say no corporal punishment]).

As Steve seemed to indicate earlier, prison time would be counterproductive for reasons which it is shameful to go into detail about. In my humble opinion, prisons are not very helpful for much of anyone, anyway.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Here's the rub with Santeria: like with Native American shamanistic religions (having permission from the Federal gov't to use psychedelic drugs in their worship), Santeria has almost the same status as a religion in these Latino communities. And there is "freedom of religion" in this country. Wicca is accepted now as well. If one religion can be outlawed, then any can. We've gotten ourselves in a mess. But there is only one religion the world hates.

 

[RamistThomist]

A Discourse on the Damned Art of Witchcraft by William Perkins.