Rehoboam, Asa, and Sodomy

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thanks for that, Jacob. Two free downloadable formats for that book here.

 

[Pergamum]

Jacob,

Most of those killed during the witch-craze were not witches. It was one of the greatest evils tolerated by the Church during the Reformation-era.

 

[AlexanderHenderson1647]

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.

Let's see, a daudling little lady who whistled blindly through the word, regardless of the situation, despite better wisdom, and without anything but optimism for optimism's sake -yes, that's a very unhelpful characterization of eschatalogical positions that believe in a large expansion of Christ's church. I wish you could see that. It would be no more helpful if I were to refer to your position as "Chickenlittleism." We would get nowhere with that, and I wouldn't characterize your position as such as much as I don't agree with it. It would offer you no help and withhold the grace I owe you.

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.

In the first place, yes, to my great chagrin and in the second, in your opinion.

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.

If you say so, but I fear you miss my point if you see any inflammatory overtones in that. My point is simply, if you went out to one of those sites, you'd be met by "huzzahs" as that is the popular view in broad evangelicalism. I merely hinted that it makes sense there. But say what you say in the way that you did, knowing that many of your Postmil or even Optimistic Amil and Optimistic Premil (after Spurgeon's type) are here makes no sense to me.

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.

Helpful links, thank you for the share. We do not part ways in this place.

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.

Again, no argument here. If I understand what you mean, I have no conflict with this. Incidentally, though, are you accusing me of hot-headedness? Flat medium presents thorns so I hope I am not coming off as such nor misunderstanding you.

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)

So goes Dr. Englesma's interpretation of WLC and the eschatology. Debating this will be pointless, so I'll just let it lay. I will offer though, you are largely aiming at the wrong target. I am not chiliastic. I believe the entire interadvental period to be "the millennium" and Christ's reign. I'm also very convinced of a great apostasy. Though I would wonder what it is that ALL these leagues of people are falling away FROM. For all Englesma's scare that preaching that a "carnal" visible expanse of Christ's kingdom will threaten Biblical orthodoxy, I'm always puzzled why men such as he present current trials as a strong evidence for his position while not acknowledging the church past. There was a time when the entire church was one man and his family, then one tiny land in the midst of a godless globe, even after a very nominal expanse this land was subject to a variety of political captivities and internal declensions, at one point 11 gospel pastors IN THE ENTIRE EARTH on the run from Jewish and Roman threats on every side. That puts this in a bit of a different context when one can look on most nations in the earth and find a Biblically faithful church therein, many under fierce opposition. I'm furthermore NOT Reconstructionist, so many of Englesma's problems with DeMar are not problems he'd have with me. Besides, Englesma and Hoesksema (love them though I do, and helpful though they are on SO many point and perhaps more faithful than most of our Presbyterian churches) are not afraid to say that we Postmils serve AntiChrist and will help to establish that kingdom http://www.hopeprc.org/reformedwitness/1993/RW199303.htm. I would never say as much about my brethern who part ways on this difficult and complex issue of eschatology.

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.

In terms of that you say about our CURRENT condition, I see the same. What happens beyond this I suggest is not bleak. I would be no less faithful, though I do not hold now nor ever in time past help any public office, if I were not to suggest that you are mistaken and if in nothing else to charge that you are being uncharitable in the way you address your brothers.

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?

Where have I done any but this?

Anyhow, sir, you must understand this- I am very willing to be wrong on this matter. Were the world to devolve into chaos tonight and remain until His glorious return or were my Savior to return tonight, I would gladly worship, adore and enjoy Him forever. I would be ashamed that I'd misunderstood this subject. I arrived at it by looking at several expressions in Scripture that mention: the earth being full of the knowledge of the Lord Isaiah 11:9; at times when a man couldn't turn to his brother and say "know the Lord" as all will know Him from the greatest to the least Jeremiah 31:34; that the stars of the sky/sand of the beaches/dust of the earth wouldn't outnumber the children of Abraham, Genesis 13, 22, 26, 28; that God's King will reign in all the earth (not just all the church) Ps. 2, that God's great rock shall smash the kingdom and fill the whole earth (not just the whole church) Dan 10, etc, a kingdom starting small as a mustard seed but growing titanically in all the earth Matthew 13. In all these the expression suggests ALL THE EARTH. Were it "all the church" or "among the saints," I would be of a mind to consider otherwise. As it is, I see it otherwise. BUT, If in these things I've erred, I'm only glad to be wrong if I've misunderstood their thrust. As with all presumptuous sins I might have committed, I can honestly say that I have not consciously intended to superimpose anything upon Scripture as best as my frail mind is able. If in fact I have, I count on Christ's mercy and his sweet rebuke in this life or the one to come. For everything I've done to misrepresent Christ, eschatology aside, I beg the mercy of the Savior and trust that I have it.

 

[RamistThomist]

The ethical and logical point in question is whether they should, not whether the power is abused. If we say that magistrate shouldn't do x because the innocent might be prosecuted by mistake, then we quickly lose the right to enact any laws. The radical Anabaptists specifically reasoned according to your logic.

Jacob,

Most of those killed during the witch-craze were not witches. It was one of the greatest evils tolerated by the Church during the Reformation-era.

 

[RamistThomist]

I should also point out something else: while theonomy always gets attacked in these discussions, people forget that in Europe it was natural law reasoning (and the common laws of nations) that allowed for the execution of Servetus (Code of Justinian, anyone?), the prosecution of perverts, the prosecution of witches and the dethroning of tyrants by armed force. Theonomy is quite tame, by comparison.

This is particularly ironic since much of the opposition to theonomy was "Let's just get back to natural law." Indeed, why not?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Christopher, thanks for the response. What I am left with is that post-millennialists do not like being challenged – even in the mildest terms – and will charge those who do with being “uncharitable”. It is common for postmils to say of amils they are “pessimistic”, which is made more graphic by your term “Chickenlittleism” (which I find quite humorous rather than uncharitable). “Pollyanna” is simply a term for misplaced optimism. It but illustrates optimism unwarranted, without any reference to the characters of those holding such optimism.

You will note, Christopher, that I did not, in any of my remarks, address the character of post-mil folks, but their doctrine; yet you continue to call me “uncharitable”, for my doctrine, i.e., its explicit critique of yours.

I have just read Hanko’s first article you gave the link to, The Illusory Hope of Postmillennialism, and see where he writes, “The Postmillennialists are an ardent group of men. They have little patience with anyone who does not agree with them.” Do you think this true?

At any rate, you did present some Scriptures to defend your brand of optimism. To take a quick look at them: Isa 11:9, Jer 31:34, Gen 13, 22, 26, 28, Ps 2, and Dan 10 (though I think you meant Dan 2:34,35,44,45 instead) are Old Testament types of other than a post-mil golden age; to wit: Isa 11:9 shows the eternal state; Jer 31:34 shows the new covenant House of Israel, comprised of only the regenerated elect; Gen 13, 22, 26, 28 where all the nations and the families of the earth shall be blessed through Abraham’s Seed refer either to the gospel going into all the nations / families of the earth and calling out from them God’s elect and / or on the New Earth and New Heavens where only the nations and the families of the redeemed are present, as we see in Rev 21:24-26. There are multiple millions of the elect. I have heard that just in China presently the unregistered (underground) church members number many, many millions. So far, none of the Scriptures you have given refer to a post-mil 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] age (between this present age and the eternal state) wherein righteousness shall reign and wickedness shall be almost eradicated (though somehow post-mils must factor in a massive rebellion of the wicked out to slay the people of God at the very end, where God Himself intervenes –Rev 20:7-9).

You list Ps 2 as demonstrating the post-mil schema, but verses 1-3 find an echo and manifestation in Rev 16:14,16, 17:14, and 20:7-9 where the nations gather to battle the Lamb and His people; while Ps 2:5,9 find fulfilment in Rev 6:12-17, 19:11-21 (especially v 15), and 20:9. These verses in Ps 2 are seen enacted in the battle of “that great day of God Almighty” (Rev 16:14) that shall terminate the church age and usher in eternity.

Dan 2:34,35,44,45 all refer, in fact, to the present millennial period and beyond, where the Lord, and then His church, overcome all the nations and empires of the world in history – victorious through the word of their testimony, and the blood of the Lamb, not loving their lives even unto the death – culminating in their resurrections and the everlasting Kingdom bequeathed to them in their Head and Saviour.

The one New Testament Scripture you gave, the parable of the mustard seed (Matt 13:31,32) indicates that the kingdom of God starts from seemingly insignificant beginnings but ends in enormous growth. There is nothing to support the post-mil view here. The OT Scriptures you gave do support the spread of God’s kingdom over all the earth, but not at all in the manner of a supposed golden age such as you suggest.

What Prof. Hanko objects to (in the article you linked to) is the removal of the antithesis between the church and the world, that implacable enmity between the holy God and His people on the one hand, and the ungodly rebellious world on the other. Can it be that the “Christianizing” of the nations of the world is only “skin deep” seeing as at the end there will be a massive revolt of “the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth” against the church to destroy it (Rev 20:8 – though God does intervene from Heaven)? Were these “golden age” nations actually skulking despisers of God and His people during the millennium, who finally mustered the courage to put an end to the sham and revolt?

I am close to a godly church (not the church I am a member of) which seems to me to proceed on the basis of impacting the culture so as to “make the world a better place to live” by contributing to and enhancing the arts and other aspects of that culture. It is really a joining with unbelievers to work together to improve the world – purportedly in the name of common grace.

I do believe that the culture of the world is the culture of Babylon, which is in opposition to God, and which allures His people to worldliness. Its moral and spiritual condition cannot be improved – it is the world. One must come out of it and into the spiritual kingdom of Christ. So what Hanko says about post-mils and the kingdom of antichrist is, I think, to warn them to beware of the kingdom of the world. I think most people know that post-mil believers are in the main godly, devout, and serious disciples.

I do not believe, as Hanko and Hoeksema, that the kingdom of antichrist will be “a kingdom of peace, of great plenty, of enormous prosperity and uncounted riches, of beauty and splendor such as the world has never seen” – but something quite different, though this is not the place for that.

I’ll end my post with a quote from Kim Riddlebarger’s, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times:

The most serious interpretive problem associated with postmillennialism has to do with the nature of the New Testament’s expectation for the future. Does the New Testament anticipate a future golden age for Christ’s kingdom in which the nations are effectively Christianized, resulting in economic, cultural, and religious advances unsurpassed in human history? Or does the general eschatological expectation of the New Testament center in Christ’s direct intervention to a wicked and unbelieving world like in the days of Noah (Matt 24:37-38)? Postmillenarians anticipate a positive answer to the former question, while amillenarians expect the latter.

When the debate is framed as a contrast between postmillennial optimism or amillennial pessimism, postmillennial criticisms often have great rhetorical effectiveness, especially with optimistic Americans. But such criticism fails to take into account that amillenarians are optimistic about the kingdom of God. It is the kingdoms of this world which give amillenarians pause. [emphasis added] (p 237)​

 

[AlexanderHenderson1647]

Christopher, thanks for the response. What I am left with is that post-millennialists do not like being challenged – even in the mildest terms – and will charge those who do with being “uncharitable”. It is common for postmils to say of amils they are “pessimistic”, which is made more graphic by your term “Chickenlittleism” (which I find quite humorous rather than uncharitable). “Pollyanna” is simply a term for misplaced optimism. It but illustrates optimism unwarranted, without any reference to the characters of those holding such optimism.

I regret that you believe that is what you are left with. If "misplaced optimism" (a far better definition of your term "Polyannaism" that the one I offered) is "mild" then I'd hate to see your extremes when approaching a brother to discuss the merits of an argument. But, if you are convinced of that despite the rebuke of myself and another brother earlier (Tyler,) I can only urge you to reconsider what is the best way to deal with another brother in Christian charity. This will only ever set up defenses. I've read a million quotes in opposition to my eschatalogical position on PB and never uttered word. So, if I just get a 'thin skin' label and repetition of the same insult and a brush off by you, Steve, then I won't attempt to prevail on you at this point. Incidentally I never used the term "Chickenlittleism" to characterize your position and said so from the outset.

I have just read Hanko’s first article you gave the link to, The Illusory Hope of Postmillennialism, and see where he writes, “The Postmillennialists are an ardent group of men. They have little patience with anyone who does not agree with them.” Do you think this true?

No. In fact, I have said that I am very willing to be wrong. Remember?

At any rate, you did present some Scriptures to defend your brand of optimism. To take a quick look at them

In your opinion. Again, I have offered that I am willing to be wrong on the subject, but I don't see my understanding overturned by your argument.

What Prof. Hanko objects to (in the article you linked to) is the removal of the antithesis between the church and the world, that implacable enmity between the holy God and His people on the one hand, and the ungodly rebellious world on the other. Can it be that the “Christianizing” of the nations of the world is only “skin deep” seeing as at the end there will be a massive revolt of “the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth” against the church to destroy it (Rev 20:8 – though God does intervene from Heaven)? Were these “golden age” nations actually skulking despisers of God and His people during the millennium, who finally mustered the courage to put an end to the sham and revolt?

I would only say that in the passages I note, these don't seem to be referring to false professors but to Christ's very own.

I am close to a godly church (not the church I am a member of) which seems to me to proceed on the basis of impacting the culture so as to “make the world a better place to live” by contributing to and enhancing the arts and other aspects of that culture. It is really a joining with unbelievers to work together to improve the world – purportedly in the name of common grace.

What a shame! Tell them to stop that! They need to be preaching the Gospel if they hope to see any lasting fruit. Yes, I despise the very term "common grace!" What is more uncommon than the grace of Christ? In what way could He ever split off His mediatorial work and parcel out some of it to the goats. I believe in no way that the grace of God extends any further than election. I have long argued with many a friend on this point. Now back to the point at hand.

So what Hanko says about post-mils and the kingdom of antichrist is, I think, to warn them to beware of the kingdom of the world. I think most people know that post-mil believers are in the main godly, devout, and serious disciples.

I hope it was as kind as that, else we are all minions of the devil if I read him aright. I'll go with your interpretation!

I’ll end my post with a quote from Kim Riddlebarger’s, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times:

The most serious interpretive problem associated with postmillennialism has to do with the nature of the New Testament’s expectation for the future. Does the New Testament anticipate a future golden age for Christ’s kingdom in which the nations are effectively Christianized, resulting in economic, cultural, and religious advances unsurpassed in human history? Or does the general eschatological expectation of the New Testament center in Christ’s direct intervention to a wicked and unbelieving world like in the days of Noah (Matt 24:37-38)? Postmillenarians anticipate a positive answer to the former question, while amillenarians expect the latter.

When the debate is framed as a contrast between postmillennial optimism or amillennial pessimism, postmillennial criticisms often have great rhetorical effectiveness, especially with optimistic Americans. But such criticism fails to take into account that amillenarians are optimistic about the kingdom of God. It is the kingdoms of this world which give amillenarians pause. [emphasis added] (p 237)​

[/QUOTE]

We could trade quotes all day but as it is, you have already hijacked a thread to take the ax to the root of Postmillenialism. As I mentioned, and I hope you took careful note of, I am not chiliastic - I believe the entire interadvental period is the "last days" or the final week of Daniel, a period in which the Gospel will go forward to a climatic, unprecedented, world-wide peak by way of the work of the Spirit through the preaching of the gospel. The kingdom is now, not just future. The Lamb reigns now. I am not a classical Post-Mil. I am convinced of a great apostasy in the end. So, a good bit of Riddlebarger's polemical jabs miss me as with Dr. Englesma's against DeMar. I am further from Classical Post-Mil than I am from Amillenialism, in any of its forms.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

you have already hijacked a thread to take the ax to the root of Postmillenialism

Come on, Alexander, please be fair. The OP of the thread was so open-ended, and the conversation leading to godly magistrates (like Asa, or Bahati) so organic, and the different eschatological views so pertinent to the different ways of seeing the efficacy of such magistrates, that I don’t think your “hijack” remark is warranted.

Okay, I have gotten this much from you, that referring to the postmil view as “pollyannaistic” is counter-productive in trying to have a civil conversation with you (Tyler did not object to this term specifically – I was the one who brought up the phrase afterwards – but simply to my vigorously seeking to refute the postmil view here on PB where so many post-millers are). I do not want to alienate you in the midst of discussion.

Not to belabor this, but it is worthy of mention; can you not discuss ideas without attacking the character of your opponent?

It is of no great matter to me how you characterize my position (within godly reason) – for ideas may well be ridiculed, satirized, deconstructed, minutely examined for flaws in reasoning, etc, but a person’s character ought not be brought into question without real cause. Though you seem to think it okay to do that. I think it a debate tactic to “poison the well” of the other’s view. Are you not familiar with vigorous debate, and the satirizing of ideas? You want me to be a meek little kitten when talking of views that, if held, will cause great harm to a congregation? When I mentioned (in post 27) the sufferings of our brethren in countries like “North Korea, Eritrea, China, most Islamic nations (and there are many of them!), India, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Columbia, Myanmar (Burma)” etc, it would be cruel in my estimation to give them an eschatology wherein the hope is placed in a coming age of earthly peace and prosperity for the church rather than to gird up their loins and ready their minds to suffer for Christ and patiently await His return, which is the hope of the church in this age before the end.

Do you think it right for me to be “charitable” to – to treat lovingly and kindly – a false teaching? I think I have been charitable to your person – your character – and if not I would apologize for that. But our ideas are fair game, are they not?

When I would prepare African pastors, elders, and evangelists (when teaching in Africa) to be as ready to die well as live well – for these (mostly) South Sudanese men were going back into a country torn by decades of war with the north, some of whose tribes were animistic, and unfriendly to the Gospel, as well as to other tribes – I was only conveying the New Testament vision of persecution and hardship, exactly as befell our Lord. Likewise with believers going back into Egypt, and Iran: I would prepare them to live well and to die well, for that’s the way things are in their countries. Even Kenya is becoming war-torn, and some of my old students are there too.

This business is not a mere academic eschatological discussion to me, but a matter of life and death – preparing souls to endure various manners of suffering and stay true to our Saviour. There are ways to prepare people for such.

I think that in the West we believers are largely unaware of what is befalling our brethren in many other parts of the world. We are ignorant of their plights, we neither pray much for them, nor even know how to pray for them. There are horrors going on, and we are shielded from them. It will come upon us as well, and if we stand in prayerful and supportive solidarity with them, this in itself will be helpful in preparing us for what is to come. (At this point one could say, “Oh, here comes Steve’s ‘Chickenlittleism’,” and if so, so be it.) But it should be noted that I am of no mind to give any quarter – any charity at all – to doctrines that endanger our lives, especially our spiritual lives, and faithfulness to Christ – doctrines that are false to the Scriptures. Below I will excerpt a saying from Gary North as regards the contention between eschatological camps. Yes, Alexander, I note that you are not chiliastic, nor a “Theonomist”; I excerpt Drs. North and Engelsma to show the nature of the conflict in the arena of consciousness in the church.

Alexander, I think you should be able to differentiate between my being “uncharitable” to what I see as a false doctrine – an idea – and being uncharitable to a person. If you (or anyone) were to lambaste the amil position (and really harsh treatments of such have come from both premil – mostly Dispensational – and postmil camps – mostly reconstructionists) but were charitable to the persons of the amillenarians, I would not complain because they were “uncharitable” to what they saw as a false teaching. That’s why we have debates, conducted civilly.

The person in the thread with whom I contended before you seemed to me to be offended because I attacked an idea – a doctrine – that was precious to him. If it were a foundational doctrine such as our Saviour’s deity, His virgin birth, the truth and reliability of the Bible, the goodness of God, and suchlike, I could understand. But eschatology, important as it is, is peripheral to the core teachings of our Faith, and one ought not be offended to see one’s views therein rigorously scrutinized and vigorously refuted, even satirized.

It’s not a big deal for my character to be impugned, as the Lord knows what a wretched character I am apart from His sustaining and purifying grace, and whatever ill you could say about me wouldn’t even approach a fraction of the magnitude of it. If the Lord receives me what do I really care who disdains me? I must carry on in my integrity, for I am drawing nigh my eternal youth. I will have to answer to my Master.

So I gather your post-mil view is highly nuanced, much like Richard’s. I’m glad to see that.

Thanks for the exercise.

From his, A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism (1), David Engelsma’s introduction to Gary North’s remarks:

Reformed and Presbyterian churches and officebearers have apparently decided to tolerate postmillennialism. This is tacit sanctioning of the error. Postmillennialism is, at the very least, a legitimate option for Reformed Christians. It is, therefore, no wonder that these churches and ministers are unable to respond to the sharp attack on amillennialism by the postmillennialists. Much less can they take the offensive against the error.

Postmillennialism wins by default.

Error carries the day because truth is kept from the field.

The notion of some amillennialists that amillennialism and postmillennialism are two valid options for Reformed Christians and that the silence of the amillennialists will result in amillennialism and postmillennialism dwelling together in blest accord is silly.

The aggressive postmillennialists know better than this and intend, in fact, to wipe amillennialism out, root and branch. They have given the Reformed amillennialists fair warning. Gary North has written:


​

There are three main rival views of evangelical eschatology – four, considering dispensationalism. Either all are in error, or all but one is. It is always the task of Trinitarian theologians to discover what is biblically correct. When a theologian has concluded that a particular view is correct, he should seek to make his discovery a test of orthodoxy – if not in his own era, if that is premature, then someday. The goal of the Church should always be an increase in confessional precision. A large part of the Church's confession deals with eschatology. Orthodoxy means straight speaking. One cannot speak straight with a four-way tongue.

It is time to stop believing in theological pluralism as anything more than a temporary stopgap. It is time to reject the idea of the equal ultimacy of incompatible theological positions. Premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism are theologically incompatible. God cannot be pleased with all three. At least two of them should be discarded as heretical, if not today, then before Christ comes in final judgment.

l contend that two of them will be. This is another implication of postmillennialism: the Church will eventually identify other eschatologies as wrong. Amillennialists and premillennialists believe that such eschatological precision and confidence will never come to the Church in history; therefore, they are formally defenders of eschatological liberty (at least in Presbyterian circles) even though they cannot stand postmillennialism. They believe that today's eschatological confusion is a permanent condition: the equal judicial ultimacy of all three. We postmillennialists do not agree. We do not hold eschatologies in dialectical ... tension ("Eschatology and Social Theory," Christianity & Society 4, no. 2, April 1994:11).


​

The delightful Dr. North is wrong on two counts. Protestant Reformed amillennialists do believe that eschatological precision and confidence will come to the Church in history. In fact, they believe that this precision has already come to the church in history. It has come to the church as represented by the Protestant Reformed Churches. It is the confession of amillennialism with its corresponding repudiation of premillennialism and postmillennialism as false doctrines. And this, of course, indicates Dr. North's second mistake.

The quotation does serve to show that postmillennialism is not content peacefully to coexist with amillennialism, contrary to the thinking of the Reformed amillennialists who refuse to speak out in defense of amillennialism.

In this and a few subsequent editorials, I like to do my small part in defending and promoting the biblical doctrine of the last days, namely, Reformed amillennialism. This will necessarily involve demonstrating that postmillennialism is a false doctrine, as well as a vain and dangerous hope.


​

-----------

[end Engelsma / North quotes]

 

[A5pointer]

You guys are some crazy cats......not in a bad way.

 

[RamistThomist]

Come on, Alexander, please be fair. The OP of the thread was so open-ended, and the conversation leading to godly magistrates (like Asa, or Bahati) so organic, and the different eschatological views so pertinent to the different ways of seeing the efficacy of such magistrates, that I don’t think your “hijack” remark is warranted.

To be fair, the point of the thread was ethics and the civil magistrate. I am a premillennial theocrat, so this thread is difficult for me to get my head around. I stand for the same position that Calvin did--the magistrate must further the true religion--but the arguments against the historic reformed view sound like: "Well, postmillennialism is wrong." That's answering a completely different question.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Jacob, I think the point of the thread was, per Pastor Benjamin (post #2), "Do I need to 'have a point'? I was just struck in my general regular reading of the juxtaposition of these two passages and thought I would share it." See also his post #11.

So the thread was open-ended, and the inclusion of eschatological views came along with the magistrates' roles in differing schemas, the first being the "Theonomic", and the differing moral mandates peculiar to each.

 

[TylerRay]

Tyler did not object to this term specifically – I was the one who brought up the phrase afterwards – but simply to my vigorously seeking to refute the postmil view here on PB where so many post-millers are

Steve, I was referring to your use of the the terms "pollyanna theologists" and "foolish eschatological dreams" when I charged you with being uncharitable.

You have described postmillennialism as "misguided optimism." That's fine. But your earlier language seems to point more to a notion of blind optimism. That seems to be the reason you find the doctrine dangerous. Neither Chistopher, Richard, nor I would advocate blind optimism (optimism about the near future in spite of our present circumstances). That is foolish, and I would stand against those who would abuse the Scriptures in that way.

The earth could last for yet thousands of years, and we could be entering a period of deep darkness that lasts for hundreds, or indeed thousands. Those things are not for me to know. God has revealed the general sweep of history (in relation to his Church), and not the particulars.

 

[Miss Marple]

I think the reason that homosexuality is becoming such a giant part of our culture is that the church is uncertain in its response.

If the trumpet call is uncertain, who rallies?

Some say: Homosexuality is not a sin. Big, official churches are saying this.

Some say: It's a sin in the church, but our civil laws should not reflect it.

Some say: It's a sin in the church, but our civil laws should actually support it.

Some say: It's a sin all over, and no special privileges should be given the homosexuals.

Some say: It's a sin all over, some civil sanctions should be placed on homosexual behavior.

Some say: It's a big sin, and heavy sanctions should be placed on the behavior.

Some may even advocate a death penalty for the behavior. Not so much maybe, but remember my George Washington reference. It used to happen.

The church is floundering on this issue in my opinion. Thus, fools rush into the vacuum.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Tyler, I stand corrected. Yet I am not at all convinced that to critique or satirize theological or eschatological ideas is uncharitable, if I continue to treat those persons who may hold to such with respect and kindness.

Miss Marple, and if the church was not floundering, but uniformly – all churches across the board – requested heavy sanctions from the civil magistrate, what do you think that would accomplish? Ever hear of the book, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, by Chris Hedges? There are many who have us in their sights, and would love to see a move such as this.

These are not the days of yore, but a dark time, darker than any we have seen yet in the church age. For all that, the bride of Christ will stand firm, and bring glory to her Husband.

 

[Miss Marple]

"Miss Marple, and if the church was not floundering, but uniformly – all churches across the board – requested heavy sanctions from the civil magistrate, what do you think that would accomplish? Ever hear of the book, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, by Chris Hedges? There are many who have us in their sights, and would love to see a move such as this."

I'd be speculating, but, I think if all the churches across the board called for heavy sanctions, we'd see this trend reversing.

 

[AlexanderHenderson1647]

you have already hijacked a thread to take the ax to the root of Postmillenialism

Come on, Alexander, please be fair. The OP of the thread was so open-ended, and the conversation leading to godly magistrates (like Asa, or Bahati) so organic, and the different eschatological views so pertinent to the different ways of seeing the efficacy of such magistrates, that I don’t think your “hijack” remark is warranted.

Fair enough.

Okay, I have gotten this much from you, that referring to the postmil view as “pollyannaistic” is counter-productive in trying to have a civil conversation with you (Tyler did not object to this term specifically – I was the one who brought up the phrase afterwards – but simply to my vigorously seeking to refute the postmil view here on PB where so many post-millers are). I do not want to alienate you in the midst of discussion.

Not the view, sir, the persons who maintain it. You continue to insist that you did not aim at anyone's character, but I'll quote you here:

“Some pollyanna *theologists* imagine a coming golden age...”

You target the character of the optimistic amil/postmil THEOLOGISTS (sic) when you call them (us) pollyannaist. You and I have gone back and forth on the reach of this term. It involves blind, unfounded, misguided optimism, and in this case, abuse of Scripture. You did not say the ideas/theology were "pollyannaistic" in this instance, but rather that the men/women (the theologists themselves) were "pollyannaistic"- cease denying this.

Not to belabor this, but it is worthy of mention; can you not discuss ideas without attacking the character of your opponent?...It is of no great matter to me how you characterize my position (within godly reason) – for ideas may well be ridiculed, satirized, deconstructed, minutely examined for flaws in reasoning, etc, but a person’s character ought not be brought into question without real cause. Though you seem to think it okay to do that.

with

It’s not a big deal for my character to be impugned, as the Lord knows what a wretched character I am apart from His sustaining and purifying grace, and whatever ill you could say about me wouldn’t even approach a fraction of the magnitude of it. If the Lord receives me what do I really care who disdains me? I must carry on in my integrity, for I am drawing nigh my eternal youth. I will have to answer to my Master.

Steve, may I please ask where I've attacked your character (or anyone else's)? You said this more than once but I must be missing where I've done this. If I am guilty, I owe you (or whomever I've attacked) an apology. Where am I guilty of this, please, so that we can have done with this?

I think it a debate tactic to “poison the well” of the other’s view. Are you not familiar with vigorous debate, and the satirizing of ideas? You want me to be a meek little kitten when talking of views that, if held, will cause great harm to a congregation? When I mentioned (in post 27) the sufferings of our brethren in countries like “North Korea, Eritrea, China, most Islamic nations (and there are many of them!), India, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Columbia, Myanmar (Burma)” etc, it would be cruel in my estimation to give them an eschatology wherein the hope is placed in a coming age of earthly peace and prosperity for the church rather than to gird up their loins and ready their minds to suffer for Christ and patiently await His return, which is the hope of the church in this age before the end.

I will not minimize the sufferings of those blessed brethern (of whom this world is unworthy) - that would be a measure of heartlessness that would not accurately represent our Great Shepherd. But, Steve, my point stands. There was a time in the world when there was as few as one family in the whole earth, later one nation (eventually an occupied one until it ceased to exist,) then 11 Gospel teachers (IN THE ENTIRE WORLD WITH ROMAN AND JEWISH AUTHORITIES DOGGING THEIR EVERY STEP!!!) You can despair of our surroundings now, but you would do these brothers of yesterday no justice to swear that current conditions outstrip theirs (which you may or may not have done.) What might happen, how much worse, how much longer, what nation may fall? I'll not hazard. You are the one making Biblically unsubstantiated claims that swear that the world will be soon awash in worldwide cataclysm. To wit:

...the flood of lawlessness and iniquity will soon enough carry away all these foolish eschatological dreams”

Do I read you aright? Are you hazarding a claim that this will occur soon? It must be tiresome to witness disturbing world events and swear that THIS is the one, only for another decade and century to roll along. I think of this more from my former theological background of dispensationalism. Every time a tyrant donning a funny hat popped up on the world scene, it was immediately claimed as a slam dunk proof that the end was near! Do you not see how "girding up loins" by swearing that a massive flood will wipe us all out very soon and instilling terror when you have no warrant for such is problematic? Yes, every believer must know that if the world hated Christ, the same world will hate them. Withholding this spiritual food from them would be impeachable. I continually tell those around me that, shy of God's mercy, our nation will likely be in utter peril soon. I pray each day against the logical consequences of what we are bringing upon ourselves as a nation in America. I further pray with my family that God will withhold his wrath and convert many, turning our hearts OR that if he will not that he would teach us to endure under persecution or lawlessness. I pray likewise that if God will not spare us that He might take us to that place where we will be free to openly name His name without fear of recourse.

Do you think it right for me to be “charitable” to – to treat lovingly and kindly – a false teaching? I think I have been charitable to your person – your character – and if not I would apologize for that. But our ideas are fair game, are they not?

Nice try. I do not see the teaching as "false" so I will not sustain your question. What I’ll do is make the question tenable for us both.
Q:“Given that we stand at odds and interpret passages differently, might we not criticize ideas so that we can set forward what we believe to be true, even if we sharply criticize the merits of the opposing argument presented?”
A: “Yes.”

(At this point one could say, “Oh, here comes Steve’s ‘Chickenlittleism’,” and if so, so be it.)

*Sigh* Oh, Steve. How I have tried to tell you that I DO NOT characterize your position in this way. Must you insist on accusing me so in order to bolster your argument?

But it should be noted that I am of no mind to give any quarter – any charity at all – to doctrines that endanger our lives, especially our spiritual lives, and faithfulness to Christ – doctrines that are false to the Scriptures...Alexander, I think you should be able to differentiate between my being “uncharitable” to what I see as a false doctrine – an idea – and being uncharitable to a person. If you (or anyone) were to lambaste the amil position (and really harsh treatments of such have come from both premil – mostly Dispensational – and postmil camps – mostly reconstructionists) but were charitable to the persons of the amillenarians, I would not complain because they were “uncharitable” to what they saw as a false teaching. That’s why we have debates, conducted civilly.

I believe I have sufficiently demonstrated that you have attacked the characters of anyone who hold any but your view. It is this with which I am concerned.

It might surprise you to learn that I've defended you before, even approached the moderators, when I saw what I believed was an attack on your character and reported those that I felt were guilty.

Here, I saved the message:

“Thanks for considering and looking into it. I'm just really disturbed by some of the things said (mind you, I see how the gentleman from Astoria may be pressing a word in a passage from the Greek to an unreasonable place.) Did you see and find any concern in those two posters making reference to him being like a cult member or reminding them of cult involvement? For all my disagreements with him on his point, saying things like that question not only his salvation but suggest that he purposefully leads people from Christ. I don't want to damper spirited discussion and debate, but I personally would never want to be charged with cult-like leanings and can't imagine he's relishing it much. Again, he seems to be getting way far-fetched in his reasoning, but I do believe he deserves charity.”

So, please be done with suggesting I do not understand or appreciate spirited, brotherly debate. No more lectures on my capacity for dealing in heated theological discussions.

Furthermore, you might like to know that I am surrounded by Amils - my church is (to the person, Amil)- I'm the lone standout. The Amils in my life have made me a the Postmil I am. I'm grateful to them. We debate and discuss and get heated and walk away brothers. There's no reason we can't, Steve. So let's do this. I've shown what I believe is wrong on your part and have asked you to show me where I'm guilty (as you've claimed time and again.)

And last, I challenge you with this. Now you’ve claimed that you can support and pray the second petition of the Lord’s Prayer a la question 191 of WLC. But, you said earlier that:

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. (caps mine)

Are you praying for something that you believe and teach will never occur? If you are so conscientiously convinced that the time is over according to God’s will, how can you pray contrary? How can you pray something disagreeable to His will? Do you not see the conflict in that? Here is the Q & A:

“Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
A. In the second petition, (which is, Thy kingdom come,) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed...the church...be countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate” et al

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Alexander, it does seem we are miscommunicating! I hope to clear some of this up!

When I said “some pollyanna theologists imagine a golden age coming” [theologist – a word I heard in Cyprus – refers to a person not a theologian theologizing] I was speaking of a person’s theology not a person’s character. If I’d said, “some pollyanna people” you would be right, but I spoke of theologists qua theologists – in their capacity as theologists. It is their theology – eschatology in this case – that is overly optimistic.

If I’d said, “some pessimistic theologians . . .” I would be referencing their theology as pessimistic, not their characters. Maybe it is that you don’t want to accept the distinctions I make, but please understand I was referencing theologies not persons. Maybe you still won’t accept my usage, but please take my word that my meaning is as I have said.

------

When you say I am being “uncharitable” for making the above remarks you reference my character. It would be true if I were referencing the people per se rather than the people in their capacity as theologians. I suppose this is how some wars, divorces, fights start – people misunderstanding each other!

I think your way of saying be charitable to a false teaching is better (less loaded) than mine!

You said, “I believe I have sufficiently demonstrated that you have attacked the characters of anyone who hold any but your view. It is this with which I am concerned.” Alexander, this troubles me as I genuinely seek to do the exact opposite – to attribute good qualities to them even as I may dispute their views, for such is the command of Scripture: “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves” (Phil 2:3). I have tried to make that the “signature” of my approach in discussions and teaching. I can see that you are led to this view of me due to misunderstanding my usage of language spoken of in the beginning of this post.

------

With regard to your question about the LC Q&A 191. You will have noted, if you saw my profile, is that my confessional subscription is the Three forms of Unity. I have changed to that after some long and hard thinking.

I appreciate the WLC 191 gives the Scripture proof 1 Tim 2:1-2 to its saying, “the church...be countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate”.

1 Tim 2:1-2 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

“Countenanced and maintained” – does this mean the civil magistrate so governs and maintains order in the land “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” and the church is unmolested? I hold to that. Does it mean that the civil magistrate is able to interfere in the workings of the church and its governance? I do not hold to that.

I have sought to come to clarity on the relation between the church and the civil magistrate, especially on the Two Kingdom teaching, whether it be right or wrong – and I have sought counsel from those on both sides of the discussion (though I have not always been answered) – and I think where I have settled is spelled out in this article: The Messianic Kingdom and Civil Government, by David J. Engelsma.

At this moment the civil magistrate in America (and in Europe and the U.K.) has wickedly turned against the laws of God, and the stage is clearly being set for the unlawfulness – criminalization – of those who holds to it, as it is written,

“Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?” (Ps 94:20) and “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.” (Prov 17:15)

I shall pray that we have godly magistrates once again that bring order and peace in the land, but I also know that we shall be brought before kings and rulers (Lk 21:12) for our Faith, and that we shall be as “sheep for the slaughter” (Ro 8:36-37) if the Lord so ordains it.

In sum, Alexander, I do perceive you are a godly man of good character; please do not take my views on doctrine you may hold as having any bearing on the quality of your heart.

 

[AlexanderHenderson1647]

Alexander, it does seem we are miscommunicating! I hope to clear some of this up!

When I said “some pollyanna theologists imagine a golden age coming” [theologist – a word I heard in Cyprus – refers to a person not a theologian theologizing] I was speaking of a person’s theology not a person’s character. If I’d said, “some pollyanna people” you would be right, but I spoke of theologists qua theologists – in their capacity as theologists. It is their theology – eschatology in this case – that is overly optimistic. If I’d said, “some pessimistic theologians . . .” I would be referencing their theology as pessimistic, not their characters. Maybe it is that you don’t want to accept the distinctions I make, but please understand I was referencing theologies not persons. Maybe you still won’t accept my usage, but please take my word that my meaning is as I have said.

Ah, the fault is mine. Please let me beg pardon for overworking a nonexistant point, sir!

When you say I am being “uncharitable” for making the above remarks you reference my character. It would be true if I were referencing the people per se rather than the people in their capacity as theologians. I suppose this is how some wars, divorces, fights start – people misunderstanding each other!

No, no! Please reread. I referred to what you said as uncharitable. I did not say that you are an uncharitable person. One might well be full of charity and yet say something that is uncharitable. That is the total of what I meant, but I see that I was mistaken as you clarified this.

I think your way of saying be charitable to a false teaching is better (less loaded) than mine!

Come, come :/

With regard to your question about the LC Q&A 191. You will have noted, if you saw my profile, is that my confessional subscription is the Three forms of Unity. I have changed to that after some long and hard thinking.

Ah, I saw that you were a PCA member and ran with that. Love the 3 Forms.

I appreciate the WLC 191 gives the Scripture proof 1 Tim 2:1-2 to its saying, “the church...be countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate”.

1 Tim 2:1-2 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

“Countenanced and maintained” – does this mean the civil magistrate so governs and maintains order in the land “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” and the church is unmolested? I hold to that. Does it mean that the civil magistrate is able to interfere in the workings of the church and its governance? I do not hold to that.

You'd get some gawks from the Confessors were any alive to hear you suggest this. Take a look at how the Assembly was brought together and subsequent actions that were taken. History and the adjacent statements regarding the magistrate given in the WCF in its original form enforce what I say. The Solemn League and Covenant along undoes this speculations.

At this moment the civil magistrate in America (and in Europe and the U.K.) has wickedly turned against the laws of God, and the stage is clearly being set for the unlawfulness – criminalization – of those who holds to it, as it is written,

“Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?” (Ps 94:20) and “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.” (Prov 17:15)

Agreed!

I shall pray that we have godly magistrates once again that bring order and peace in the land, but I also know that we shall be brought before kings and rulers (Lk 21:12) for our Faith, and that we shall be as “sheep for the slaughter” (Ro 8:36-37) if the Lord so ordains it.

In this, our voices shall blend.

In sum, Alexander, I do perceive you are a godly man of good character; please do not take my views on doctrine you may hold as having any bearing on the quality of your heart.

As I do you, sir. Were I to have better understood what the "pollyannaist" term modified, I would have avoided dragging this so far along. I hope you know and trust my clarification above that I maligned nothing in your character. I have defended you before and would be loathe to now turn on you!

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Alexander, thanks for your understanding. You have surely made me aware of how careful I must be when communicating. As a writer and poet I have long held it incumbent on the author to be clear (in an age when some poets think to make readers labor to decipher their work).

To clear up another thing; when I say – in mildly self-depreciating humor – here comes Steve’s “Chickenlittleism”, I am sort of poking fun at myself, without reference to you at all. You playfully coined the term, but now it has a life of its own, and you bear no responsibility for how it is put to use henceforth.

You know, were any of the Confessors alive today (does the Lord allow any of them to see what is transpiring in the earth? But the newly departed to the intermediate Paradise can surely give them accurate reports!) they would not be gawking at me, but at what is rapidly becoming a dystopia world where the wicked are in ascendency, and the righteous reviled. They would also gawk incredulously at the chief civil magistrates over the nations and their godless agendas.

I see we both agree that this is what is; where we disagree is on how it shall resolve.

You mentioned The Solemn League and Covenant. Isn’t it remarkable what has happened to those nations involved! And even to our American states!

Thanks, Alexander, for resolving our lively discussion so amicably!

 

[RamistThomist]

Tyler, I stand corrected. Yet I am not at all convinced that to critique or satirize theological or eschatological ideas is uncharitable, if I continue to treat those persons who may hold to such with respect and kindness.

Miss Marple, and if the church was not floundering, but uniformly – all churches across the board – requested heavy sanctions from the civil magistrate, what do you think that would accomplish?

Using that logic consistently, why should hte magistrate punish anything?

These are not the days of yore, but a dark time, darker than any we have seen yet in the church age. For all that, the bride of Christ will stand firm, and bring glory to her Husband.

With all due respect, this is where I think you are confused on the thread, and the difference between ethics and eschatology. Who cares if the days are getting darker? I am to live faithfully in my calling and as Rutherford said, "The consequences are God's." If that calling is a Civil magistrate, then I have the obligation to ban behavior that unleashes aids and all sorts of horrible diseases on the commonwealth.


wITH

 

[RamistThomist]

You mentioned The Solemn League and Covenant. Isn’t it remarkable what has happened to those nations involved! And even to our American states!

Thanks, Alexander, for resolving our lively discussion so amicably!

I know I sound like a broken record, but who cares what happened to those countries? It is the simple difference between *is* and *ought.* You are committing the naturalistic fallacy.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Jacob, what you are saying seems so academic and hypothetical. Of course we are to do the right thing regardless of consequences.

So what is the right thing – the “law of God” thing – we are to do with regard to the civil magistrate, and the laws which govern the land? What can we do? Besides just theoretically discussing it?

 

[RamistThomist]

Jacob, what you are saying seems so academic and hypothetical. Of course we are to do the right thing regardless of consequences.

So what is the right thing – the “law of God” thing – we are to do with regard to the civil magistrate, and the laws which govern the land? What can we do? Besides just theoretically discussing it?

It's not academic. If logic is academic, so be it. Now you are getting back to the thrust of the thread with your last question. And I think I have answered it numerous times:

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Jacob, maybe it's just a typo that you didn't finish your sentence. On a practical level, what "ought" we to do – people like you and me?

 

[RamistThomist]

To use Covenanter language, and they knew after Cromwell they would be politically marginalized, "raise the Lord's standard," confess against the Enemy, etc.

To be honest, I am not giving a definite answer because, as Rutherford demonstrated in Lex, Rex, how you respond to the coming tyranny really depends on a number of factors. I am going to write a long essay in the near future on how to resist tyranny and I will answer some of those questions, then.