One sentence on Postmillenialism

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Peter

(BTW, I am aware that there have been some postmils, like J. Edwards, who espoused a literal future millennium . . . I am obviously not talking about them.)

The majority of postmills historically. As you have pointed out there is no difference between optimistic amills and the current trend of postmillennialism popularized by RJ Rushdoony. This form of postmill is infact amillennialism, but as fred said, amillennialism became pessimistic and i believe those with a positive eschatology felt the need to distinguish themselves from the doom-and-gloomers.

Very cool! I just learned something!


In that case, call me what you like: postmil, or optimistic amil.


For what it's worth, I subscribe to Dr. Kenneth Gentry's flavor or Postmil.

 

[Peter]

The essentials between postmil & optimistic amil are the same:
1. general resurrection & judgment immediately after the return of Christ
2. optimistic outlook for the progress of the kingdom in the NT age

The only difference is the meaning and time of the millennium, viz. interpretation of Rev 20. To amills the mill. is the time between the 1st & 2nd advent. Postmills believe the mill. is the time when satan's ability to deceive the nations will be stoped and all the nations will kiss the son. Optimistic amills speak of a "golden age" within the millennium to the Postmill the golden age is the millennium.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Peter
The essentials between postmil & optimistic amil are the same:
1. general resurrection & judgment immediately after the return of Christ
2. optimistic outlook for the progress of the kingdom in the NT age

The only difference is the meaning and time of the millennium, viz. interpretation of Rev 20. To amills the mill. is the time between the 1st & 2nd advent. Postmills believe the mill. is the time when satan's ability to deceive the nations will be stoped and all the nations will kiss the son. Optimistic amills speak of a "golden age" within the millennium to the Postmill the golden age is the millennium.

I believe that is true for J. Edwards.

But that is not true for Dr. Kenneth Gentry, or for me.

Dr. Gentry wrote what I believe is the definitive book on Postmillenialism. And He teaches that the "golden age" is within the millennium. I agree with him that the mill. is the time between the 1st & 2nd advent.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Peter
The essentials between postmil & optimistic amil are the same:
1. general resurrection & judgment immediately after the return of Christ
2. optimistic outlook for the progress of the kingdom in the NT age

The only difference is the meaning and time of the millennium, viz. interpretation of Rev 20. To amills the mill. is the time between the 1st & 2nd advent. Postmills believe the mill. is the time when satan's ability to deceive the nations will be stoped and all the nations will kiss the son. Optimistic amills speak of a "golden age" within the millennium to the Postmill the golden age is the millennium.

That is accurate.
The neo-Postmill position, so ably defined by Greg Bahnsen, states,



Question 1: "Is the church age inclusive of the millennium? (Alternatively: Will the end-time events of Christ's return, the resurrection, and judgment synchronize with each other?)" [2]

Question 2: "Will the church age (identical with or inclusive of the millennial kingdom) be a time of evident prosperity for the Gospel on earth, with the church achieving worldwide growth and influence such that Christianity becomes the general principle rather than the exception to the rule (as in previous times)?" [3]

[1] Greg Bahnsen, "The Prima Facie Acceptability of Postmillennialism" in The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, Winter 1976-77, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 64ff..

[2] Ibid., p. 65.

[3] Ibid.

 

[New wine skin]

Another distinctive to help grasp the Amil position is Progressive Parallelism. Hoekema does a good job of explaining the "progressive parallelism" to understand Revelation in his book Bible and the Future. After I had studied that, it made sense how we can have so many forms of eschatology. Under progressive parallelism, you have seven divisions of Rev which start w current time and move into future statements, as you progress to each section, more is revealed about the future, but each section will always begins with the "now". Thus, w the Milennium, the split for Rev ends at chp 19, then begins the new section at Rev 20-22, hence the binding of satan can be understood to occur at the time of Christ, and during the milennial reign, while satan being bound (restrained), allows the progress of the gospel to spread more freely, although not without the promised persecution of the church. The milennium under this method must occur prior to the Parousia and resurrection. See Hoekema for more specifics as this is a high level stmt. Or maybe someone else can explain it better?

 

[Answerman]

How about two one-liners,

Isaiah 65:20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days; for the child shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner being a hundred years old shall be accursed.

This seems to indicate a progressive reversal of the curse of death before the eternal state.

And here is a good follow up to that thought:

1 Cor 15:24-26 Then (cometh) the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be abolished is death.

Note the chronology that Paul gives and the and tenses that he uses.

In Christ,
David

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by webmaster
If Paul says that in latter times many will depart from the faith, do you think Postmillennialism's ideology will recover that blow?

No, in fact this is precisely what our thesis states will happen. So, all this would be is a confirmation of our thesis.

Postmillenialism does not discount the Biblical teaching of a final apostacy. (see here)

 

[rgrove]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by webmaster
If Paul says that in latter times many will depart from the faith, do you think Postmillennialism's ideology will recover that blow?

No, in fact this is precisely what our thesis states will happen. So, all this would be is a confirmation of our thesis.

Indeed. Sounds like an apostasy at the end of the age to me. But I don't think it's a question that can differentiate well between postmills and amills (even of the most pessimistic variety). Both can state this with equal force I should think. The contrast is starker in postmillennialism, however, because Satan will be loosed and allowed to decieve the nations as he did in the OT era. After a period of gospel prosperity, a "golden age" if you will, then the contrast would be greater than an amill could muster depending on how optimistic he is of future kingdom success. But even a real pessimist could say that inside the church at the end there will be a lot of apostasy. So I would say it doesn't damage anyone, but the contrast is clearer in postmill teaching.

Yours In Christ,
Ron

 

[Formerly At Enmity]

the church that Jesus Christ bought will NOT apostasize!!!!

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Scott,

I repeat:

"Postmillenialism is the one and only optimistic eschatology."


Amillenialists believe that far more people will go to hell than to Heaven. Amils believe that Christ died to save few of Adam's descendents.

Postmillenialists believe that far more people will go to Heaven than to hell. Postmils believe that Christ died to save most of Adam's descendants.

So, I would definitely say that optimism is a distinctive between Postmil and Amil.

It's another post perhaps -- but Joseph, you're incorrect!

Prove what you assert, OK? That "pessimisstic" label is a dead-horse/straw-man --- and is completely diversional and empty.

The Amill position adheres to God's Promise to Abraham:

Genesis 15:1-6

After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision: "Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great." But Abram said, "O Lord GOD, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?" And Abram said, "Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir." And behold, the word of the LORD came to him: "This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir." And he brought him outside and said, "Look toward heaven, and number the stars if you are able to number them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be." And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

Forgive me, but it is tiresome to hear misrepresentations of what we hold dearly.....



Robin

 

[bradofshaw]

I feel that this is a more important question to ask:

Does it make any practical difference which view of eschatology one holds to if we all agree that are task on earth is to be ambassadors of Christ, to spread His gospel to all nations, and to be salt and light to a dying world, all the while preparing ourselves and hoping for Christ's return?


Perhaps it makes a difference to some, but I don't see the point in quibbling endlessly about the final form of events which the scripture purposely obscures, when what is clear is the commission that Jesus gave us before his assencion. We all seek that the lost will be found, and we all wait expectantly for Christ's return.

I understand that differing mindsets do lead to different attitudes regarding varied subjects as government, ecology, etc. I personally see the amillennial picture of Christ's return as less far fetched and more consistent with scripture. However, I consistently find myself having the same mindset as post-mils regarding the work set before us until Christ's return. (Which also seems to be there biggest accusation against a-mills)

I'm not trying to downplay the importance of having a correct teaching on the subject, I just am concerned that the implications for our lives are the important matter for debate, and not just the specific details of what will happen in the future. Those will make themselves evident in time, and we all might just feel silly to know how wrong we were!

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by bradofshaw
I feel that this is a more important question to ask:

Does it make any practical difference which view of eschatology one holds to if we all agree that are task on earth is to be ambassadors of Christ, to spread His gospel to all nations, and to be salt and light to a dying world, all the while preparing ourselves and hoping for Christ's return?


Perhaps it makes a difference to some, but I don't see the point in quibbling endlessly about the final form of events which the scripture purposely obscures, when what is clear is the commission that Jesus gave us before his assencion. We all seek that the lost will be found, and we all wait expectantly for Christ's return.

I understand that differing mindsets do lead to different attitudes regarding varied subjects as government, ecology, etc. I personally see the amillennial picture of Christ's return as less far fetched and more consistent with scripture. However, I consistently find myself having the same mindset as post-mils regarding the work set before us until Christ's return. (Which also seems to be there biggest accusation against a-mills)

I'm not trying to downplay the importance of having a correct teaching on the subject, I just am concerned that the implications for our lives are the important matter for debate, and not just the specific details of what will happen in the future. Those will make themselves evident in time, and we all might just feel silly to know how wrong we were!

If I take a dispensational view and see the world about to explode any moment now, I won't engage in multi-generational covenantal faithfulness. Instead, I will give money to Israel to hurry things up.

If I take a postmil/amil view then I know that such things are beyond my comprehensive knowledge, and that me time is better spent taking dominion and bringing thoughts to obedience to Christ.

 

[Poimen]

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by bradofshaw
I feel that this is a more important question to ask:

Does it make any practical difference which view of eschatology one holds to if we all agree that are task on earth is to be ambassadors of Christ, to spread His gospel to all nations, and to be salt and light to a dying world, all the while preparing ourselves and hoping for Christ's return?


Perhaps it makes a difference to some, but I don't see the point in quibbling endlessly about the final form of events which the scripture purposely obscures, when what is clear is the commission that Jesus gave us before his assencion. We all seek that the lost will be found, and we all wait expectantly for Christ's return.

I understand that differing mindsets do lead to different attitudes regarding varied subjects as government, ecology, etc. I personally see the amillennial picture of Christ's return as less far fetched and more consistent with scripture. However, I consistently find myself having the same mindset as post-mils regarding the work set before us until Christ's return. (Which also seems to be there biggest accusation against a-mills)

I'm not trying to downplay the importance of having a correct teaching on the subject, I just am concerned that the implications for our lives are the important matter for debate, and not just the specific details of what will happen in the future. Those will make themselves evident in time, and we all might just feel silly to know how wrong we were!

If I take a dispensational view and see the world about to explode any moment now, I won't engage in multi-generational covenantal faithfulness. Instead, I will give money to Israel to hurry things up.

If I take a postmil/amil view then I know that such things are beyond my comprehensive knowledge, and that me time is better spent taking dominion and bringing thoughts to obedience to Christ.

 

[rgrove]

Originally posted by Formerly At Enmity
the church that Jesus Christ bought will NOT apostasize!!!!

Rev 10:7-10 "And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. 9 And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, 10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."

So, considering I've not read a postmill that I know of that doesn't believe that Satan will be loosed to deceive the nations for a time because of this passage, where do you propose all these people that are being decieved will come from? Obviously the elect that Jesus Christ bought at Calvary will not fall away, but will persevere to the end. That's hardly in question on a Reformed board I should think... But large numbers who were at one time in the visible chuch must leave as I read the text. Nobody knows how long Satan will be loosed to decieve the nations, but it's seems clear it's long enough that it has great effect. Especially if the postmillennial hope is true. Or do you not believe that Satan will be loosed to deceive the nations?

Yours In Christ,
Ron

 

[Fernando]

I call myself an optimistic amillennialist. I'll offer two sentences:

The world will in the end turn out to be a wheat field with some tares in it, rather than a tares field with here and there some wheat in it.

The "Great Apostasy" or falling away will occur after a "Great Coming Toward" the gospel.

 

[Puritanhead]

I invented my own novel eschatological view... I am preamillennial... Guess what that means?

 

[Fernando]

I have used "pre-amillennial" to describe the views of George Eldon Ladd and his followers. I'll tell you what I mean after you tell us what you mean.

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by Fernando
I have used "pre-amillennial" to describe the views of George Eldon Ladd and his followers. I'll tell you what I mean after you tell us what you mean.

Same thing, but I was being tongue-in-cheek... though actually I am kind of beholden to George Eldon Ladd's views... I've jumped through the eschatological hoola-hoops, read books on the major views, and I am back at premil-- albeit the historic premillennialism of C.H. Spurgeon, G.E. Ladd, W.J. Erdman, R.A. Torrey, Theodor Zahn, Frederic Godet, as well as early church leaders like Ireanaeus, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian. If I were to ever consider another view it might be amillennialism similar to that espoused by Kim Riddlebarger.

Postmil-- particularly the dominion theology, theonomic variety is too quixotic and utopian in my estimation, as if human nature can be transcended by implementation of the law. Things will never get better until Jesus Christ's Second Advent, and all believers getting their glorious resurrection bodies. I found Keith Mathison's book wanting in answers and not the best apologetic for postmil--.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Puritanhead


Postmil-- particularly the dominion theology, theonomic variety is too quixotic and utopian in my estimation, as if human nature can be transcended by implementation of the law.

Postmillennialism does not believe this.

[Edited on 8--5-05 by Draught Horse]

[Edited on 8--5-05 by Draught Horse]

 

[Formerly At Enmity]

ron,
i was simply responding to the original idea which was to give a one sentence description of the postmil position. when i think of postmil, that is what i think (my above statement)....i, like a gentleman a few posts back, have read much material on the various positions and am left with some variant ideas.....i DO believe my above statement and i feel it would be a great place to start from with regard to an eschatological position but you raise an obvious question, indeed!!!! it is difficult when Abrahams descendants and those who seemingly get duped by the devil are both described as "numerous as the sands of the sea" or something similar??? i wish i could give you more of a solid response....
do you believe that there is a clear distinction to be made between
1.) the church will not apostasize and..
2.) all of the elect will be saved

it seems to me they are one in the same?? am i off base??
i welcome any responses!!!!!!

 

[RamistThomist]

We do not believe that ALL the church will apostazie. Second. if one takes the distinction that the New Covenant contains non-elect in it, then that solves #2.

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by Puritanhead


Postmil-- particularly the dominion theology, theonomic variety is too quixotic and utopian in my estimation, as if human nature can be transcended by implementation of the law.

Postmillennialism does not believe this.

[Edited on 8--5-05 by Draught Horse]

J - Be careful...there is a predominant postmill view embracing a "golden age" of Christian success in the world - as you said:

TextGospel prosperity? The preaching and teaching of the gospel (and the baptizing of babies) will have a noticeable effect on history and institutions that will progress toward a glorious point. In Micah 2:14 we read "For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea." Does the gospel only go out to representative groups of people here and there, or does it overwhelm the earth? How does the water cover the sea? It overwhelms it!

And precisely, whatever is meant by " glorious point" and "noticeable effect on history and institutions..." tips it to triumphalism - which leads to the unholy mix if church and state and something contrary to Jesus' teaching about what the Kingdom is. The Apostle Paul also teaches against triumphalism - and remember, his teachings about God's work in the world APPEARS foolish and weak, but in reality are powerful.

Christians are to walk by faith not by sight...so anything emphasizing "signs" "results" Etc., puts me on guard. This means we should trust the Word of God rather than what culture looks like. This is tough--creating a tension because we are either pulled towards seperatism or activisim...the right Christian stance is to be "in the world but not of it." Is the New Testament pessimistic in its warnings?

Thinking out-loud.....



Robin

Robin

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Robin

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by Puritanhead


Postmil-- particularly the dominion theology, theonomic variety is too quixotic and utopian in my estimation, as if human nature can be transcended by implementation of the law.

Postmillennialism does not believe this.

[Edited on 8--5-05 by Draught Horse]

J - Be careful...there is a predominant postmill view embracing a "golden age" of Christian success in the world - as you said:

TextGospel prosperity? The preaching and teaching of the gospel (and the baptizing of babies) will have a noticeable effect on history and institutions that will progress toward a glorious point. In Micah 2:14 we read "For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea." Does the gospel only go out to representative groups of people here and there, or does it overwhelm the earth? How does the water cover the sea? It overwhelms it!

And precisely, whatever is meant by " glorious point" and "noticeable effect on history and institutions..." tips it to triumphalism - which leads to the unholy mix if church and state and something contrary to Jesus' teaching about what the Kingdom is. The Apostle Paul also teaches against triumphalism - and remember, his teachings about God's work in the world APPEARS foolish and weak, but in reality are powerful.

Christians are to walk by faith not by sight...so anything emphasizing "signs" "results" Etc., puts me on guard. This means we should trust the Word of God rather than what culture looks like. This is tough--creating a tension because we are either pulled towards seperatism or activisim...the right Christian stance is to be "in the world but not of it." Is the New Testament pessimistic in its warnings?

Thinking out-loud.....



Robin

Robin

God converting the world does not equal men forcing conversions by the State! Read carefully what I write. Read carefully what Ryan wrote:

as if human nature can be transcended by implementation of the law

I said that law does not change natures. Still, if we are going to be governed by law, which law should it be: tyrannical natural/positive law, or biblical law (however you define it)? I will quote from Rushdoony to rebut this. I reason that if i quote from the most wild-eyed radical theonomist, who argues precisely the point you accuse my people of, then I win the debate on this point:

Rushdoony writes:

Our critics sometimes imply or state outright that we are engaged in a subtle, covert attempt to capture conservative, right-wing politics in order to gain political power, which we will then use to "spring" Biblical law on our nation. This is flatly false...

We believe in regeneration , not in revolution. Men are not changed fundamentally by politics, but by the power of God. Men's hearts are changed by regeneration (Jn. 3:3). They are translated from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of God's dear Son (Col. 1:13)...

No government in any form can make men Christians or truly obedient; this is the work of God' sovereign grace. Much less should civil government try to impose Biblical law on an unbelieving society. Biblical law cannot be imposed; it must be embraced.
taken from http://www.chalcedon.edu/credo.php
taken from http://www.chalcedon.edu/vision.php

So I ignore categorically any charge of triumphalism.


Really? How does triumphalism equal unholy mixture between church and state (does anybody here actually know what that historically means? It is often used by secularists to keep Christians quiet. Since nobody has an accurate undestanding of it, I just ignore the charges).

This means we should trust the Word of God rather than what culture looks like.

Irony of ironies, just the other day you told me that you could not be a postmillennialist because of the decaying culture that you read in the newspaper!

I have rebutted the charges that my belief system teaches revolution, social change by implementation of law (which all conservative Christians to some extent will agree with--like vetoing abortion et al). My opponents have systematically ignored all my references to God converting the world through the power of the Holy Spirit and the preaching of the Gospel. I therefore must conclude that some opponents of postmillennialism on this board are just not familiar with it. Or, if they are familiar with it they are not dealing with the strongest arguments but rather, straw-men that are easy to knock down.

I don't like dichotomizing the differences between postmillennialism and amillennialism because, as Fred pointed out, it is only the recent amillennial interpretations that gave rise to the the pessimism. Ironically enough, it is actually the interpretations of Mathison, Bahnsen et al that has swung postmillennialism back to an amillennial base.

Riddlebarger in his latest book counters that Hodge and Warfield are not exactly postmillennial but rather amillennial in their exegesis. To which I respond, "If that is indeed the case, then so what? I maintain that they are taking SOME of the amillennial exegesis to its logical conclusions." Which was exactly Bahnsen's point in his three lectures on postmillennialism; and here I quote Bahnsen,
"I tell my Amillennial brothers, 'You have the right exegesis and foundation, now follow it though!'"

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
1. I said that law does not change natures. Still, if we are going to be governed by law, which law should it be: tyrannical natural/positive law, or biblical law (however you define it)?

2. I have rebutted the charges that my belief system teaches revolution, social change by implementation of law (which all conservative Christians to some extent will agree with--like vetoing abortion et al).

3. My opponents have systematically ignored all my references to God converting the world through the power of the Holy Spirit and the preaching of the Gospel.

Jacob, to point #1, Romans 13 teaches all the governments are set in place by God. Period. That includes evil ones. This is not to say we should stand-by and tolerate an evil government, if we can do something about it. But, it's a serious misapplication of Scripture to assume the OT theonomic system stands today; and a mistak to assume that a pagans cannot codify laws that benefit civil society. Chrstianity is not a culture. God has provided governments to restrain evil.

#2. Peace, brother! Who is accusing you? No one's saying you're for revolution, hyper-Theonomy. However, it is a meaningful question or all of us to consider: what do we expect to see "out there" as the Gospel progresses?

#3. Your opponents? This sounds personal. (I don't know.) I haven't ignored your points (I hope)...but as I've said before, how one expects the Gospel to prevail in the world tilts them towards on position or another. As you say, for PM and AM, it's not a big deal...but it is a real distinction. No one is dichotomizing....at least, I don't mean to, nor have I noticed that in other posts.

Finally....one other idea...

I'm sure you're passionate about all the right things, J. My bit is only this (and a response is not required) I'd like to see more devotion to what Scripture says about these matters. Not Bahnsen; Rushdoony; DeMar; Gentry; Riddlebarger; Etc. I think there's an inappropriate emphasis on teachers (especially those with gifts of showmanship) rather than on mature, focused handling of the Text. But that's just me. I hope I'm accused of this and am fully prepared to die for it.

If we have questions about what culture will look like as the Gospel prevails....I say, read the Bible. Go with the Apostle Paul's teachings. Trust that.

In courtesy and honor,

Robin

 

[RamistThomist]

Jacob, to point #1, Romans 13 teaches all the governments are set in place by God. Period. That includes evil ones. This is not to say we should stand-by and tolerate an evil government, if we can do something about it. But, it's a serious misapplication of Scripture to assume the OT theonomic system stands today; and a mistak to assume that a pagans cannot codify laws that benefit civil society. Chrstianity is not a culture. God has provided governments to restrain evil.

I have refuted that several times on this board. Anyway, Andrew for one is not theonomic and he holds to the resistance to tyranny led by the lesser civil magistrate, although what that has to do with postmillennialism I don't know.

I'm sure you're passionate about all the right things, J. My bit is only this (and a response is not required) I'd like to see more devotion to what Scripture says about these matters. Not Bahnsen; Rushdoony; DeMar; Gentry; Riddlebarger; Etc. I think there's an inappropriate emphasis on teachers (especially those with gifts of showmanship) rather than on mature, focused handling of the Text. But that's just me. I hope I'm accused of this and am fully prepared to die for it.

I have a funny feeling that my opinion of Paul's theology is slightly different from your's.

#2. Peace, brother! Who is accusing you? No one's saying you're for revolution, hyper-Theonomy. However, it is a meaningful question or all of us to consider: what do we expect to see "out there" as the Gospel progresses?

Ryan had stated (although we cleared that up)

as if human nature can be transcended by implementation of the law.

in the context of theonomic postmillennialism.

I responded with qhotes from Rushdoony categorically denying this.

I used "opponents" in the purely technical sense.

 

[RamistThomist]

Forgive me for double-posting but to answer

Jacob, to point #1, Romans 13 teaches all the governments are set in place by God. Period. That includes evil ones. This is not to say we should stand-by and tolerate an evil government, if we can do something about it. But, it's a serious misapplication of Scripture to assume the OT theonomic system stands today; and a mistak to assume that a pagans cannot codify laws that benefit civil society. Chrstianity is not a culture. God has provided governments to restrain evil.

Scroll down until you see my response to a good question that Mrs. Augusta raised (I do not want to argue theonomy, btw at the moment. I don't know why people keep bringing it up). I outline the preconditions for the removal of tyrants from office. You might not like it; that is fine. But realize that my position is in the norm of Reformed political thought:

Preconditions for the removal of tyrants

[Edited on 8--6-05 by Draught Horse]

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Scroll down until you see my response to a good question that Mrs. Augusta raised (I do not want to argue theonomy, btw at the moment. I don't know why people keep bringing it up). I outline the preconditions for the removal of tyrants from office. You might not like it; that is fine. But realize that my position is in the norm of Reformed political thought:

Preconditions for the removal of tyrants

[Edited on 8--6-05 by Draught Horse]

Well, I read and understand your position...my heart is with it of course....but, according to Scripture - our repentance does not incite God's actions in many cases. We are not to presume upon God's mercy and power. Obviously, we need to repent -- any mature Christian understands this....but we can't pose it like, "if we do X then God will do X." I know you probably don't hold to that...but it must be said...I'm sure Paul and the early church did a good job of repenting; spreading the Gospel -- wow, notice how far the Gospel went?!! But they were still martyred. Foxe's book attests. A sober question for us all is: "when we view the historic-legacy of the Gospel; good men died unjustly for its defense and propagation...then where do we get the arrogant, self-aggrandizing idea we should be spared - when our own Lord was not?" Explain why God will fix it to be different for us? Is that consistent with His ways as recorded in His revelation? A scary and solemn question.

I'm NOT saying be passive. I say we cannot design a formula different than Scripture. The Apostle teaches were are to suffer and yet do battle with weapons "not of this world." If your (or my) take on things is different than the Apostle's...that needs to change. Btw, NO your position is not consistent with Scripture - which IS the prevailing Reformed political stance - and THAT is what should matter -- not the prevailing concensus of sinners. My pastor would cringe at the idea we repent to achieve better governmental administrations. We pray fervently, appeal for God's mercy and trust Him. His mercy is expected because we know He is good - and yet, we know evil men are restrained by His sovreign power in the midst of their wrongdoing.

Meanwhile, when it comes to repentance or reaching for holiness, we all must tread lightly, reverently, circumspectly, corum Deus...Peter warns.....

2 Peter 3:14-16

Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.



r.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Robin

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Scroll down until you see my response to a good question that Mrs. Augusta raised (I do not want to argue theonomy, btw at the moment. I don't know why people keep bringing it up). I outline the preconditions for the removal of tyrants from office. You might not like it; that is fine. But realize that my position is in the norm of Reformed political thought:

Preconditions for the removal of tyrants

[Edited on 8--6-05 by Draught Horse]

Well, I read and understand your position...my heart is with it of course....but, according to Scripture - our repentance does not incite God's actions in many cases. We are not to presume upon God's mercy and power. Obviously, we need to repent -- any mature Christian understands this....but we can't pose it like, "if we do X then God will do X." I know you probably don't hold to that...but it must be said...I'm sure Paul and the early church did a good job of repenting; spreading the Gospel -- wow, notice how far the Gospel went?!! But they were still martyred. Foxe's book attests. A sober question for us all is: "when we view the historic-legacy of the Gospel; good men died unjustly for its defense and propagation...then where do we get the arrogant, self-aggrandizing idea we should be spared - when our own Lord was not?" Explain why God will fix it to be different for us? Is that consistent with His ways as recorded in His revelation? A scary and solemn question.

I'm NOT saying be passive. I say we cannot design a formula different than Scripture. The Apostle teaches were are to suffer and yet do battle with weapons "not of this world." If your (or my) take on things is different than the Apostle's...that needs to change. Btw, NO your position is not consistent with Scripture - which IS the prevailing Reformed political stance - and THAT is what should matter -- not the prevailing concensus of sinners. My pastor would cringe at the idea we repent to achieve better governmental administrations. We pray fervently, appeal for God's mercy and trust Him. His mercy is expected because we know He is good - and yet, we know evil men are restrained by His sovreign power in the midst of their wrongdoing.

Meanwhile, when it comes to repentance or reaching for holiness, we all must tread lightly, reverently, circumspectly, corum Deus...Peter warns.....

2 Peter 3:14-16

Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.



r.

With all due respect here, I am done. You just said a whole bunch of things that are not contradictory to my position. My whole line was predicated (and if this was left out, that's my fault; I updated this several times on several different message boards, so my mind might have been in a differnet place) that if there is a lesser magistrate, then he is duty-bound to defend his citizens (ie. Vindicae Contra Tyrannus by du Plissis Mornay) against tyrannical magistrates, for he, too, must obey the laws--laws that require him to maintain order and a decent society. In other words, the rule of law must be upheld.

With all due respect you don't understand my position. I am done discussing postmillennialism/theonomy/and the rule of law in society for a while. I will suffer the postmillennial view to be misrepresented for a while, mainly so I don't have to re-write the same thing over and over.

Please understand, I hold you in the highest regard, but for both of us I will try to refrain from posting in eschatology for a while.