JohnV,
I meant irenic sincerely, as in “Promoting or intending to promote peace”. And thanks for your latest response. I do not find anything in it to disagree with at all.
Dennis,
I think I now understand what you meant when you said, “Amillennialism is a subset of Postmillennialism. In other words, all amils are postmils but not all postmils are amils.” But I do not agree. Because what an amil means by
millennial and what a postmil means are radically different. Yes, I know we both accept Christ returns after “the millennium”, but as the word is used so differently in the respective camps there really is no parallel of agreement.
Meg,
Thanks for the word. I will tone it down.
Adam (Christusregnat),
I apologize for my inflammatory language. I certainly do not mean to slander anyone (make a false or malicious statement that damages someone’s reputation)! As I said to Meg, I will cool my jets.
When talking
to people I keep it low key, but when talking
of ideas I do not restrain the vigor of either my approval or disapproval. It was said of Spurgeon that in fellowship and personal discourse he was ever the gentleman, and gracious; but in the pulpit he took off his gloves and did not pull his punches when it came to doctrine and truth.
I suppose it would help if we said which version of the Westminster Confession we hold to, the original 1647, or the 1788 / 1936, which latter is currently used by the OPC and PCA. There is a significant difference between them as regards Chapter 23.3, concerning the civil magistrate (i.e., the state) and its relationship to the church. I hold to that used presently by the PCA / OPC.
Upon first becoming a ruling elder (functioning as a teaching elder) in this mission field church, I used to describe it as Presbyterian (noting so here on PB also), until I realized that we were not in fact Presbyterian, there being no presbytery we were under (none in the country), and the nearest, in Cairo, Egypt, was not involved with us, nor do I know their spiritual or doctrinal state. So I had to change the church designation to Reformed. I am willing to Reform in light of the truth, Scriptural truth.
While I acknowledge using dramatic and vivid language over the issue of Christian Reconstruction / Theonomic Postmillennialism (which, as I said, I will tone down), I admit I often find it useful to illustrate – literally,
picture – things somewhat abstract so they can be seen and understood. This is my style of writing and speech; I am a poet, functioning as a preacher / teacher.
This is
The Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647, 23.3:
He [the civil magistrate] hath authority, and it is his duty to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God
It was the view of Calvin, Beza, and other of the Reformers that to the state belonged the right – ordained by God – to promote the Gospel with the state’s sword, and with that sword to forbid the public worship of false religions and false churches, as well to punish those who do not worship God rightly or at all. I don’t think this is contested, so I will not encumber the space with quotations.
Nor is it contested that it is the position of some leading Theonomic Postmillennialists that the Mosaic laws punishing adultery and homosexuality with death, in fact,
whatever civil laws were on the books of the old Theocratic state, should be on our present-day law-books.
Perhaps you will have read the quote of Engelsma I provided in the link in post #81 above:
It is amusing, how Christian Reconstructionist Greg Bahnsen shrewdly backed away in public debate from the stand of theonomic Christian Reconstruction, that the coming Christian, or “Christianized,” state must and will execute idolaters and heretics. The question to him was, “Should we execute idolaters?” Bahnsen answered: “The prima facie understanding of the biblical texts would seem to support the justice of punishing idolatry, even today. But I have not done sufficient homework and reflection on this question” (God and Politics: Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government, ed. Gary Scott Smith, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1989, p. 268). In fact, it is not difficult to imagine North, De Mar, Gentry, and the other disciples of Rushdoony stoning to death, among all the others, the few remaining uncompromising Reformed amillennialists as blasphemers. For Rousas J. Rushdoony’s charge that Reformed amillennialism is “blasphemy,” see his article “Postmillennialism versus Impotent Religion” in the Journal of Christian Reconstruction 3, no. 2 (Winter, 1976-77): 126, 127.
Blasphemy? Impotent Religion? The justice of punishing idolatry, even today? And you say, Adam,
my words are too strong?!
Blasphemy? And this by one of the leading thinkers of the movement? Now listen, were such folks to have their way with the government and its laws, by the very act of writing against them I would seal my own death warrant. And this is laughable to you?
Slanderous, you said? I tell you this, if we proceed according to the manner of our Puritan / Presbyterian forebears, some of them, we are heading for trouble.
Perhaps you think it was alright, even by contemporary standards, Calvin’s handing Servetus over to the magistrates to be burned – I do not know what you think about that; but some Presbyterians today approve of it. Do I slander the honorable Calvin by denouncing this act? (I know, those were different times, with different laws and customs – but still, the Kingdom of God has
its laws, which supersede man’s laws.) I do not; but sin is sin, whoever commits it. And if the sin is held up as righteousness, it must be brought down, publicly.
I believe it was with Augustine that the persecuting spirit entered the church, primarily the Roman Catholic, but also the later Protestant. In the
extermination of the Donatists, which he inspired the Imperial government to undertake (see
A History of Christianity, Paul Johnson, pp. 116, 117), his thinking was, if the state used such methods for its own miserable purposes, was not the church entitled to do the same, and more for its own far greater ones?
In our own country, we can see the persecuting spirit imported into the Massachusetts Bay Colony, where multitudes of Quakers were punished, imprisoned, flogged, and three of them hanged. It was a bloodthirsty crowd of Puritans, particularly the ministers! (See
Saints and Strangers, by George F. Willison, pp. 377, 380)
Do I slander in recounting history? I know we remain sinners, having to struggle against remaining corruption, yet redeemed by the blood of the Son of God; I do not condemn these men and women who sinned greatly in their harrowing and even killing other children of God because they differed in doctrine and practice. I myself have done wickedly since being saved, and the Lord has not dealt with me according to my iniquities. But the
wicked ideas that seized upon these brethren and led them into cruelties unworthy brothers and sisters of Christ,
these I may pounce upon and trample into the dust – may I not?
Baptists have not fared better than the Quakers at the hands of the Presbyterian and Reformed.
In 1526, Zwingli and the Council of Zurich, previously failing to dissuade the Baptists from re-baptizing anyone, declared that henceforth any rebaptizer would be drowned. For this crime they would be “immersed permanently”, as their Christian tormenters would say.
Women were not exempt. “Three days after the Baptist leader, Balthazar Hübmaier was burned at the stake, his beard having been caked with sulphur and gunpowder, his loving wife was thrown from a bridge into the Danube with a stone tied to her neck.” (See,
What hath God Wrought!, by William P. Grady, pp. 85, 86)
But enough of this. Impartial readers will get my point that for the church to envision union with the state, and having the state undertake to punish those not in compliance with this “true church”, will
again bring disaster and ignominy upon the people of God, the previous examples of which our reputations still suffer from.
Suffice it to say, it is
not slander to decry sin in our own house. If we drank, through Augustine, an evil spirit of persecution, along with Rome, it does not mean we are papists, but rather have a common evil. The reason some Baptists are (rightly) wary of the P&R is just because of the well-documented history of all this. I am not making these things up. I am not ignorant of our history.
And it is not slander to say that world domination through psychic intimidation and physical force – which is all the state has going for it in terms of “persuasion” – is the modus operandi of the world government of the beast. It is, remember, an
evil idea I am casting down (2 Cor 10:4, 5) –
imaginations – and not people’s reputations or characters. But if I in fact show an idea to be evil, then do not embrace it, rather flee from it, that you not partake of its spirit.
Meg, if you think this is still too inflammatory, I have indeed toned it down; a powerful evil must be met with powerful good, a vigorous error with vigorous truth. My postmil / theonomic brethren may well be better-hearted and more godly than I – I do not malign their characters at all – but we are talking of ideas, and what happens when godly people are taken by bad ideas.
-------
Concerning Isaiah 2:1 – 4, and 11:1 – 10; E.J. Young, in his commentary,
The Book of Isaiah, vol. 1, holds precisely the same exegesis as Roldan does in his posts above. With regard to the first of the prophecies, he writes,
This passage is difficult to interpret. It teaches that the blessings described will take place within the latter days, and it is this fact which supports the postmillennial interpretation of Boettner and others. Cf. Roderick Campbell, Israel and the New Covenant (Philadelphia, 1954). At the same time other passages speak of wars continuing until the end. Some, therefore, like Boettner (whose book is admirable) believe that the world will become relatively better, merely a foretaste of heaven. But the present passage does not speak of relative improvement but of an absolute change.
It is necessary then to maintain that the prophecy will be absolutely fulfilled in principle during the last days. When at the second advent sin is removed, we shall realize all of the blessings which are promised. This interpretation has its difficulties, but it is all that one can do if he would be faithful to the language of the Bible. The postmillennial interpretation does not do adequate justice to those passages which emphasize the evil character of this present world (e.g., Joel 3:9ff.), an evil that continues to the end. [pp. 108, 109]
Calvin says of it (in his commentary on Isaiah 2:5),
...the good [among men –SMR] are always mixed with the bad; and not only so, but the good have not yet reached the goal, and are widely distant from that perfection which is required of them. The fulfillment of this prophecy, therefore, in its full extent, must not be looked for on earth. It is enough if we experience the beginning... (p. 102).
Concerning Isaiah 11:1 – 10, Young says, talking of the animals at peace with one another,
When, however is this change to appear? In answer it should be noted that Isaiah has emphasized the fact that Messiah is the Prince of Peace. When the Messiah has completed His Messianic work, peace in introduced into the hearts of men, and insofar as men are true to the principles of peace which they have received from the Messiah, so far do the blessings herein depicted obtain. In its fullness, however, this condition will not be realized until the earth is covered with the knowledge of the Lord, and that condition will only obtain in the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. “Wherever there is sin,” says Bracker, “there is lack of peace. Only where righteousness reigns, is there peace.” For this reason the condition herein described cannot apply to a supposed millennium. Advocates of a millennial theory maintain that even during the millennium there is sin, for after the millennium the nations will gather again for battle. The picture before us, however, is one where there is no sin, but in which the fullest manifestation of peace is to be seen. (p. 391)
So it appears Roldan is in good company in his exegesis.
Ken, if Edward J. Young, pastor in the OPC, and professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, could preach and teach concerning the amillennial doctrine, so may I.
Note, please, my strong objections are not to postmillennialism per se, but to Theonomic Christian Reconstruction, with its imposition of old Israel civil law on society and on the New Testament community.
