Is Theonomy Compatible to Amillennialism?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Carl Copsey

Puritan Board Freshman
So I'm wondering, and I feel like I know this pretty well, but your observations would be very helpful to me!

We all know that theonomists are post-millennials, more specifically, reconstructionists. Here's my question:

Do you see any inconsistencies with one holding to theonomy with an amillennial View?

I'm not asking opinions about theonomy being inconsistent. But whether or not amillennialism is consistent with theonomy.

Sent from my SCH-I545PP using Tapatalk
 
So I'm wondering, and I feel like I know this pretty well, but your observations would be very helpful to me!

We all know that theonomists are post-millennials, more specifically, reconstructionists. Here's my question:

Do you see any inconsistencies with one holding to theonomy with an amillennial View?

I'm not asking opinions about theonomy being inconsistent. But whether or not amillennialism is consistent with theonomy.

Sent from my SCH-I545PP using Tapatalk

They are logically independent. Theonomy is theonomy in Christian ethics. It is a specific interpretation of Matthew 5:17. It has no bearing on the millennial reign.

Further, one could even be a premil and hold to theonomy. Some countries could come under God's law while holding out against Antichrist.
 
So I'm wondering, and I feel like I know this pretty well, but your observations would be very helpful to me!

We all know that theonomists are post-millennials, more specifically, reconstructionists. Here's my question:

Do you see any inconsistencies with one holding to theonomy with an amillennial View?

I'm not asking opinions about theonomy being inconsistent. But whether or not amillennialism is consistent with theonomy.

Sent from my SCH-I545PP using Tapatalk
A Mil viewpoint is not concerned with getting Christian ethics implemented, as that system tends to see world getting worse and more anti God over history.
 
A Mil viewpoint is not concerned with getting Christian ethics implemented, as that system tends to see world getting worse and more anti God over history.

Strictly speaking, postmil isn't either. Postmil is an eschatological system saying what will happen in the future, not what we must do to make it happen.
 
A Mil viewpoint is not concerned with getting Christian ethics implemented, as that system tends to see world getting worse and more anti God over history.

Amillenialism and postmillenialism are eschatological systems. Alone they say nothing about we are to do until Christ returns. It is entirely possible to hold to both amillenialism and establishmentarianism.
 
Strictly speaking, postmil isn't either. Postmil is an eschatological system saying what will happen in the future, not what we must do to make it happen.
It does seem though that certain aspects of the Post Mil view would be much more into establishing the law of God as law of the land.
 
Amillenialism and postmillenialism are eschatological systems. Alone they say nothing about we are to do until Christ returns. It is entirely possible to hold to both amillenialism and establishmentarianism.
The attempt to have the society reflect the Law of God does seem to be much more prevalent among those holding to reconstructionism though.
 
True, its just that based upon what I have read, it does seem that the Post Mil holders are much more onto Kingdom ethics/law becoming norm of the land than in either A Mil/Pre Mil views.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top