Postmilennialism

Greg · #1 (**permalink**) 09-08-2007, 09:40 AM

I've read somewhere that there are two "types" of postmilennialism. I believe they were referred to as covenantal and theonomic? Is this correct? What are the differences and similarities between the two?

Ivanhoe · #2 (**permalink**) 09-08-2007, 10:05 AM

Bahnsen did not see the difference, but modern interpreters to show a difference, mainly to show that the covenantal types are hte "good" guys and the theonomic types are the bad guys.

The theonomic types stress that as the gospel progresses, we should see a similar progression in God's sanction in history.

Theonomic types stress this a little more than than the older types. I see it is an obvious corrolary. If people get converted, the will--surpise--act like Christians. This can change cultures. Only those who advocate a secular faith model have problems with this.

Anton Bruckner · #3 (**permalink**) 09-08-2007, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

If people get converted, the will--surpise--act like Christians.

You mean like this

YouTube - Speaking in Tongues - Wedding Style

On getting serious, converted people will act like Christians depending upon the level of exposition of the gospel. There is a difference between milk and meat. And we serve soda pop in America. The level of exposition of the gospel is directly correlated to the level of sanctification.

Brian Schwertley in preaching a sermon once said that the guy he knew when he was in Pentecostalism is still there at the same level. Tragedy of the commons.

Southern Presbyterian · #4 (**permalink**) 09-08-2007, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slippery

There is a difference between milk and meat. And we serve soda pop in America.

Great analogy.

May I borrow it?

Anton Bruckner · #5 (**permalink**) 09-08-2007, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southern Presbyterian

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slippery

There is a difference between milk and meat. And we serve soda pop in America.

Great analogy.

May I borrow it?

sure. Just being on the PB you will come across great quotes from members who never really think that they can write anything great. check out Mr. Marrow's quote in my signature.

turmeric · #6 (**permalink**) 09-08-2007, 10:54 PM

Ironic, that the folks who talk about "carnal Christians" actually produce them!

I always thought that the two types of Post-mills were, those who expect the Gospel to spread, and those who also work through the political system to make things better.

Ivanhoe · #7 (**permalink**) 09-08-2007, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turmeric

Ironic, that the folks who talk about "carnal Christians" actually produce them!

I always thought that the two types of Post-mills were, those who expect the Gospel to spread, and those who also work through the political system to make things better.

Let's be a little more precise. Chris Rhoades produced several dozen long, primary source-ish quotations showing how theonomic postmils DO NOT expect to use the political system to make things better. Using the State to make things better? The State is the cause of most of the problems!

But I know what you are trying to get at. There is a hard political edge among theonomic postmils, and not without good reason. Most of them are American. America's early history was fiercely anti-statist. Theonomists just repeat the same political arguments, to some degree, as the early Puritan and later American theorists produced.

Such theonomists seek the state to enact just laws. And how can we define justice except in the fear of God (see 1 Samuel, 8 and maybe 23? I forget the later reference). But to use the state to make things better? Heavens no.

turmeric · #8 (**permalink**) 09-08-2007, 11:25 PM

Okay, that might have been phrased better...

Ivanhoe · #9 (**permalink**) 09-08-2007, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turmeric

Okay, that might have been phrased better...

I know what you are getting at. And sadly, there are some younger, radical theonomists who do say stupid things. And even more sadly, there are seminary professors who can't recognize the difference between someone as erudite as Bahnsen and a 15 year old's blog.

Theonomists have routinely stressed that Christ's redemption extends as far as the curse is found, and this includes politics.

I am theonomic, but not postmillennial.

Anton Bruckner · #10 (**permalink**) 09-08-2007, 11:47 PM

I have a whole new respect for theonomists after listening to John Weaver's series on Application of Biblical Law.

I admit, I was number one in attacking the theonomists, but it is only now that my eyes have been opened to see all that they are really preaching is pure calvinism, meaning that if we are christians we ought to let the light of Christ shine in every facet of our lives which is not restricted to personal piety and family, but in our work, recreation, and politics. And the only manner in which Christians can be involved in politics whereby it would bring glory to God is to stand for righteousness and justice that is Biblically based and not evolutionary and humanistically based. This is made necessary by the fact that God judges individually and nationally.

I think the theonomists ought to be embraced and given a more vocal role in the reformed community. They will bring the proper perspective that christians ought to have concerning politics and society. And this is the key to us winning the culture. Its shamefully when the superficial and novice types (theologically speaking) of James Dobson, Pat Roberston are the ones that dictate how christians should be involved in politics. While these men mean good, they are not aptly qualified and educated enough in relation to Biblical doctrine and its application to lead christians effectively in the area of politics. Evangelicalism have no depth and they can only go so far in contending for the faith. They are going to and they usually meet their match and are trounced by the upity northeastern liberals from harvard, yale, columbia and cornell via the NY Times, Boston Globe and the L.A Times.

It is so tragically easy to confound an evangelical by simply asking, "Since you believe that abortion is wrong, should women who perform such get the death penalty?" They become shriveled and ashamed of the word of God then they try to seek some amelioration and say, "not necessarily". Truly tragic.

Another question is, Was the Tsunami of 2004 and Sept 11 ordained by God? This one brings out a sorrowful comedy. Trust me, only the theonomists can adequately answer these questions without backing down in the political arena. Evangelicals usually fold, and they are then disregarded as ignorant inconsistent myth believing Nazis that can be easily placated with nationalistic sentiments and money.

The reality is that the statists and the liberals consistently preach lies that they become entrenched and believed as the truth. Then Christians are easily tackled. But what we Christians need to start doing is consistently preach the truth knowledge of the truth becomes entrenched and believed. Only the theonomists are adequately prepared to confront the liberals on this in the arena of politics. I myself am longing for the day when theonomists start writing op ed pieces in the mainstream newspapers.

Ivanhoe · #11 (**permalink**) 09-08-2007, 11:48 PM

what he said.

Ivanhoe · #12 (**permalink**) 09-08-2007, 11:49 PM

In Millennialism and Social Theory, which you can find online, Gary North demonstrates the difference between himself and Lorraine Boettner.

Southern Presbyterian · #13 (**permalink**) 09-08-2007, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slippery

I have a whole new respect for theonomists after listening to John Weaver's series on Application of Biblical Law.

I admit, I was number one in attacking the theonomists, but it is only now that my eyes have been opened to see all that they are really preaching is pure calvinism, meaning that if we are christians we ought to let the light of Christ shine in every facet of our lives which is not restricted to personal piety and family, but in our work, recreation, and politics. And the only manner in which Christians can be involved in politics whereby it would bring glory to God is to stand for righteousness and justice that is Biblically based and not evolutionary and humanistically based. This is made necessary by the fact that God judges individually and nationally.

I think the theonomists ought to be embraced and given a more vocal role in the reformed community. They will bring the proper perspective that christians ought to have concerning politics and society. And this is the key to us winning the culture. Its shamefully when the superficial and novice types (theologically speaking) of James Dobson, Pat Roberston are the ones that dictate how christians should be involved in politics. While these men mean good, they are not aptly qualified and educated enough in relation to Biblical doctrine and its application to lead christians effectively in the area of politics. Evangelicalism have no depth and they can only go so far in contending for the faith. They are going to and they usually meet their match and are trounced by the upity northeastern liberals from harvard, yale, columbia and cornell via the NY Times, Boston Globe and the L.A Times.

It is so tragically easy to confound an evangelical by simply asking, "Since you believe that abortion is wrong, should women who perform such get the death penalty?" They become shriveled and ashamed of the word of God then they try to seek some amelioration and say, "not necessarily". Truly tragic.

Another question is, Was the Tsunami of 2004 and Sept 11 ordained by God? This one brings out a sorrowful comedy. Trust me, only the theonomists can adequately answer these questions without backing down in the political arena. Evangelicals usually fold, and they are then disregarded as ignorant inconsistent myth believing Nazis that can be easily placated with nationalistic sentiments and money.

The reality is that the statists and the liberals consistently preach lies that they become entrenched and believed as the truth. Then Christians are easily tackled. But what we Christians need to start doing is consistently preach the truth knowledge of the truth becomes entrenched and believed. Only the theonomists are adequately prepared to confront the liberals on this in the arena of politics. I myself am longing for the day when theonomists start writing op ed pieces in the mainstream newspapers.

JohnV · #14 (**permalink**) 09-09-2007, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Quote:

Originally Posted by turmeric

Okay, that might have been phrased better...

And sadly, there are some younger, radical theonomists who do say stupid things. And even more sadly, there are seminary professors who can't recognize the difference between someone as erudite as Bahnsen and a 15 year old's blog.

Way to go, Jacob. Well said!

Greg · #15 (**permalink**) 09-09-2007, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slippery

I have a whole new respect for theonomists after listening to John Weaver's series on Application of Biblical Law.

I just downloaded the series and plan on listening to it soon. Has anyone listened to his series called Christian and Civil Government?

Anton Bruckner · #16 (**permalink**) 09-12-2007, 09:49 PM

I will listen to that tomorrow.

KMK · #17 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 09:01 AM

I also recommend Weaver's series titled "Principles of Deliverance" (The account of Gideon and its political implications for today)

wsw201 · #18 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 12:39 PM

I always heard that the two postie positions were those who believed that there would be an actual 1000 year "golden age" and those who believe that there won't actually be a golden age but that the gospel will progress until the vast majority of the earth will be Christian then Christ will return?

tewilder · #19 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wsw201

I always heard that the two postie positions were those who believed that there would be an actual 1000 year "golden age" and those who believe that there won't actually be a golden age but that the gospel will progress until the vast majority of the earth will be Christian then Christ will return?

There there is the old liberal type of every day in every way the world is getting better an better. Very evident already in the 18th century in the writings of Richard Price on education.

Blueridge Baptist · #20 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slippery

I have a whole new respect for theonomists after listening to John Weaver's series on Application of Biblical Law.

I just downloaded the series and plan on listening to it soon. Has anyone listened to his series called Christian and Civil Government?

Yes and it will blow your mind.

Robert Truelove · #21 (**permalink**) 09-17-2007, 09:49 AM

The thing is...it is not as simple as this...most of the Theonomists I have interacted with present the case as follows...

You are either...

1. A Theonomist and believe the case laws along with their penal sanctions should be more or less applied directly to the law today (example: death penalty for adultery, rebellious children, heretics, etc) or...

2. A Humanist who believes the state is neutral/secular and that laws are to be made according to humanistic standards.

I believe this is a false dichotomy. There is a multitude of saints who believe that the Bible should govern all areas of life (including the civil government) who are not Theonomists.

You say that Theonomy is pure Calvinsim, but Calvin did not argue like a Theonomist. Indeed, many Theonomists accuse Calvin of being humanistic with his view of government being based upon 'natural law'. What such fail to understand is that Calvion was not speaking as a secular humanist when he taught such things but as a Christian with Romans 1:19&20 in view.

The real issue for Christians is not whether or not the law of the land should be based upon the Bible...but HOW the Bible applies. A good comparision of divergent views within this Christian sphere is seen when reading Rushdoony or Bahnsen as compared with many of the founding fathers of the USA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slippery

I have a whole new respect for theonomists after listening to John Weaver's series on Application of Biblical Law.

I admit, I was number one in attacking the theonomists, but it is only now that my eyes have been opened to see all that they are really preaching is pure calvinism, meaning that if we are christians we ought to let the light of Christ shine in every facet of our lives which is not restricted to personal piety and family, but in our work, recreation, and politics. And the only manner in which Christians can be involved in politics whereby it would bring glory to God is to stand for righteousness and justice that is Biblically based and not evolutionary and humanistically based. This is made necessary by the fact that God judges individually and nationally.

I think the theonomists ought to be embraced and given a more vocal role in the reformed community. They will bring the proper perspective that christians ought to have concerning politics and society. And this is the key to us winning the culture. Its shamefully when the superficial and novice types (theologically speaking) of James Dobson, Pat Roberston are the ones that dictate how christians should be involved in politics. While these men mean good, they are not aptly qualified and educated enough in relation to Biblical doctrine and its application to lead christians effectively in the area of politics. Evangelicalism have no depth and they can only go so far in contending for the faith. They are going to and they usually meet their match and are trounced by the upity northeastern liberals from harvard, yale, columbia and cornell via the NY Times, Boston Globe and the L.A Times.

It is so tragically easy to confound an evangelical by simply asking, "Since you believe that abortion is wrong, should women who perform such get the death penalty?" They become shriveled and ashamed of the word of God then they try to seek some amelioration and say, "not necessarily". Truly tragic.

Another question is, Was the Tsunami of 2004 and Sept 11 ordained by God? This one brings out a sorrowful comedy. Trust me, only the theonomists can adequately answer these questions without backing down in the political arena. Evangelicals usually fold, and they are then disregarded as ignorant inconsistent myth believing Nazis that can be easily placated with nationalistic sentiments and money.

The reality is that the statists and the liberals consistently preach lies that they become entrenched and believed as the truth. Then Christians are easily tackled. But what we Christians need to start doing is consistently preach the truth knowledge of the truth becomes entrenched and believed. Only the theonomists are adequately prepared to confront the liberals on this in the arena of politics. I myself am longing for the day when theonomists start writing op ed pieces in the mainstream newspapers.

Ivanhoe · #22 (**permalink**) 09-17-2007, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prespastor

The thing is...it is not as simple as this...most of the Theonomists I have interacted with present the case as follows...

You are either...

1. A Theonomist and believe the case laws along with their penal sanctions should be more or less applied directly to the law today (example: death penalty for adultery, rebellious children, heretics, etc) or...

2. A Humanist who believes the state is neutral/secular and that laws are to be made according to humanistic standards.

I believe this is a false dichotomy. There is a multitude of saints who believe that the Bible should govern all areas of life (including the civil government) who are not Theonomists.

You say that Theonomy is pure Calvinsim, but Calvin did not argue like a Theonomist. Indeed, many Theonomists accuse Calvin of being humanistic with his view of government being based upon 'natural law'. What such fail to understand is that Calvion was not speaking as a secular humanist when he taught