Postmill - Theonomy - Presuppositionist Distinctions

[Robin]

My theology teacher responded to my question: is there a connection with Postmillennialism, Theonomy and Presuppositional apologetics?

He explained that most Postmillennialists are not Theonomists; but Theonomists must be postmillenial and that connection necessarily creates a relation to presuppositional apologetics. Another distinction made was that though certain Theonomists may recoil from strong Reconstructionism, Theonomy still reconstructs God's law in some sense - so in its basic design, all theonomy is reconstructionistic: mild or strong.

Only dispensational and amillennial views look forward to Christ intervening a rescue in His Second Advent. The fork in the road for traditional Postmillennialism and modern Amillennialism is the same as for Theonomy: both PM and Theonomy see Christ arriving/returning to a world where God's law will have already transformed it to some degree. The Amill have never held that lack of a transformed earth equates with the failure of the Gospel - but that the transformation of the world is via the Gospel (not law) in the hearts of men and that the success of the Gospel looks different to the naked eye - Christ's return will be a rescue (as was His first Advent.)

My hope is that this information incites some reflection, useful questions and perhaps conversation about (what I think are) important ideas. Eschatology drives theology whether we are conscious of it or not. in my opinion, it is worthwhile work of maturing Christians to know what they believe and why they believe it.

(For the record, though I've joked about it, I don't desire competition or contention. I know why I hold to an Amill stance --- thinking it makes the best sense of the Biblical data. I also remember from whence I came (dispensational roots.)

I am wondering if a meaningful conversation can be had about the above issues using Scripture only - not the works of the teachers of the eschat camps?



Robin

[Edited on 8-9-2005 by Robin]

{edited title for spacing}

[Edited on 8-12-05 by pastorway]

 

[RamistThomist]

I refuse to debate this subject again, but suffice a few comments:

but Theonomists must be postmillenial and that connection necessarily creates a relation to presuppositional apologetics.

There is no necessary connection between a millennial view and theonomy. Bahnsen went to much pained lengths to point this out, especially in God and Politics: Four Views (response to the National Confessional response to Theonomy). One of the more polished theonomists, the unfortunate as of late Craig Sowder, was firmly amillennial.

I do think that theonomists are presuppositonalists. What other standard is there but God's word? I tried to read Lee Irons's quick critique of theonomy at upper-register, but when he said that "One way to respond to this argument is to question the assumption that Scripture is a sufficient source of guidance for societal and political questions." I didn't know if I was reading a Catholic or a liberal at that point.

I don't think you are combative or competive; I just don't think you have taken the time to learn the "other side's view." Yes, I know that you said taht you studied Bahnsen's stuff, but I haven't seen that in the forums, practically speaking.

I am wondering if a meaningful conversation can be had about the above issues using Scripture only - not the works of the teachers of the eschat camps?

Sure, but all facts are interpreted within a worldview and that is the heart of the matter. I can quote scripture after scripture, yea, even from the New Testament that shows victory for God's people. You will doubtless respond with Paul's suffering passages, but that causes me no worry. I have never said that victory is easy; therefore, the Pauline suffering passages don't hurt my system.

 

[Myshkin]

Originally posted by Robin
I am wondering if a meaningful conversation can be had about the above issues using Scripture only - not the works of the teachers of the eschat camps?



Robin

I hope that this comes to fruition.

 

[wsw201]

There is no necessary connection between a millennial view and theonomy. Bahnsen went to much pained lengths to point this out, especially in God and Politics: Four Views (response to the National Confessional response to Theonomy).

Though this may be true, but in all practicality, virtually all Theonomists are Postmil

 

[crhoades]

Curious question...would everyone here consider themselves presuppositional in their apologetic outlook?

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by crhoades
Curious question...would everyone here consider themselves presuppositional in their apologetic outlook?

Well, Chris...while I believe presuppositional has an awful lot going for it...I'm not a full-presupp. I also think evidential has some merit...but am not devoted to it. As I reflect, it's probably not possible to codify what "method" I use - It's really not a method, but more after the examples in the New Testament - and has a lot to do with the catechisms (Belgic/HC.)

r.

 

[Robin]

As an aside....and I don't know if it matters, my theology teacher is Professor Ken Samples. His credentials are attached. The point is the assessment comes from no amateur source.

http://www.christreformed.org/about/index.shtml?main#ks

Faith seeking understanding....

r.

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by Robin

Originally posted by crhoades
Curious question...would everyone here consider themselves presuppositional in their apologetic outlook?

Well, Chris...while I believe presuppositional has an awful lot going for it...I'm not a full-presupp. I also think evidential has some merit...but am not devoted to it. As I reflect, it's probably not possible to codify what "method" I use - It's really not a method, but more after the examples in the New Testament - and has a lot to do with the catechisms (Belgic/HC.)

r.

Just a clarification of your post...what are your conceptions of full-presup and evidential? Full-presup has no problems using evidences...

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by wsw201

There is no necessary connection between a millennial view and theonomy. Bahnsen went to much pained lengths to point this out, especially in God and Politics: Four Views (response to the National Confessional response to Theonomy).

Though this may be true, but in all practicality, virtually all Theonomists are Postmil

[personal bio - I'm not settled on the a/post debate. I have much reading to do. Just trying to ensure that this discussion is on a fair footing without strawmen]

As far as theonomist's view of ethics and eschatology...Here is an excerpt that was Bahnsen's reply to an article critiquing his book Theonomy in Christian Ethics. This was written in 1978. That was 27 years ago. This type of stuff is contained in his lectures, books, and as everyone can see here - his articles.

People are wanting to stick with the Scriptures and I admire that. So did Bahnsen: that is why there are over 18 pages of double column references in his appendix in TiCE. But where the theonomic views are misrepresented, and especially where it has been clearly articulated by the major proponents, there is something else here. Take a moment to read this excerpt or even better - the whole article. This topic has been here. This very excerpt and topic of the post/theonomic link has been discussed here before...

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe041.htm
PE041

(distributed by the Session of St. Paul Presbyterian Church, Jackson, MS, 1978),
taken from:
God´s Law and Gospel Prosperity: A Reply to the Editor of the Presbyterian Journal
Rev. Greg L. Bahnsen, Th.M., Ph.D.

The Coming of the Kingdom

Let me now change the subject completely and turn to a consideration of the editor´s remarks about postmillennialism (9-6). Again, certain misleading descriptions and weak criticisms call for a response so that readers will have an adequate basis on which to evaluate and study this important millennial position, either negatively or positively.

When Jesus our Lord ministered among men, he made it dramatically clear that the kingdom of God had arrived (Mk. 1:14-15; Lk.4:16-21; Mt. 12:28). The inauguration of that kingdom was also a theme of the apostles (Acts. 2:25-36; 20:25; 28:23,31; Heb. 12:28; Rev. 1:5-6). The kingdom of Jesus Christ is here, established, and a functioning reality. Nevertheless, Jesus taught his disciples to pray "œThy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth" (Matt. 6:10), and the apostles anticipated future developments for the kingdom (Rom. 1:4-5; I Cor. 15:24-28; Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 1:3-29; Heb. 2:8-9; Rev. 10:7; 11:2, 8, 13, 15; 19:11-21; 20:4-6). The kingdom is developing, growing, and will not be consummated until the end of history. Postmillennialism is particularly concerned with this dynamic element of growth and development for Christ´s kingdom before the final judgment of mankind (after which, of course, the kingdom does not increase but is complete).

The Bible teaches us that although the kingdom starts out small like a mustard seed, it will grow to large proportions (Mt. 13:31-32). Like a divinely cut stone which consumes the world empires, Christ´s kingdom will grow to be a mountain filling the whole earth (Dan. 2:31-45). All nations will flow into God´s exalted house and be instructed in His law (Isa. 2:2-4), so that of the increase of Christ´s kingdom there will be no end and justice will be established in the earth (Isa. 9:7). The earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea (Isa. 11: 1-10), with appropriate effects being felt throughout the various departments of life "“ every common thing will be devoted to the Lord´s service (Zech. 14:20-210. There will be, to speak in hyperbole, no need to evangelize because all men will already know the Lord (Jer. 31:34); from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same God´s name will be great among the nations (Mal. 1:11). Christ shall have dominion "“ with its appropriate effects in the daily and social affairs of men "“ from sea to sea, with all nations serving Him, and his enemies licking the dust (Ps. 72). The uttermost parts of the earth will be His possession (Ps. 2:7-9) as He rules in the midst of His enemies and makes them His footstool (Ps. 110:1-3). All the ends of the earth will thus come to praise and reverence Him (Ps. 67). He will not fail to establish justice in the earth (Isa. 42:1-4), meaning that He will send forth judgment unto victory as the Gentiles hope in His name (Mt. 12:17-21). Presently the Lord is reigning; He is progressively subduing every enemy so that He will be Lord over all (I Cor. 15:24-28; Col. 1:18). All nations are being brought to the obedience of faith (Rom. 1:4-5) because Satan has been bound (Rev. 20:1-3). Since all power and authority in heaven and earth belong to Christ, who is with the church continuously, He has commissioned it to make all nations His disciples and to teach them to observe whatsoever He has commanded (Matt. 28:18-20).

The postmillennialist believes that these things will surely be accomplished in the power of God´s Spirit prior to the great apostasy at the very end of history which will trigger the Lord´s return in fiery judgment (Rev. 20:7-10; 2 Thes. 1:7-10; 2 Peter 3:3-13). There will be no time or opportunity given for evangelism, conversion, or kingdom growth after that time; therefore, since no word of God can fail of accomplishment, the kingdom will increase in the ways described above prior to the Lord´s return. In broad strokes, this is the postmillennial confidence. We would gladly hear the Spirit´s word to the churches, beckoning them to "œbe victorious (or, overcome)" and thereby have an open door to missionary success (e.g., Rev. 3:7-13) and to ruling with Christ over the nations (Rev. 2:26-29; 3:21-22). God´s "œkingdom of priests," the church (I Peter 2:9), reigns upon earth with Christ (Rev. 5:9-10; 20:4-6); following her Lord, the church will conquer the nations with the preaching of the gospel (Rev. 19:11-21). The kingdoms of this world will indeed become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ (Rev. 11:15). The Great Commission is not a futile or impossible task laid on the church by her Lord; it will be accomplished in covenant blessing upon "œall the ends of the earth," who "œshall remember and turn unto Jehovah; and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee" (Ps. 22:27). The conversion (or "œturning") of the nations cannot take place after the Lord returns in final judgment, for that day itself will settle the final destiny of all men (Mt. 25:31-46).

With this brief sketch of postmillennialism (and some of its biblical under-pinning) in mind now, we can reply to the editor´s comments about it. The first and most important misconception that I wish to set straight is the editor´s claim that, for the theonomist and postmillennialist, "œGod´s law (is) the dynamic means of grace for the transformation of the nations" ((-6, p. 14c). Elsewhere he claims that for theonomic ethics, "œThe vehicle to accomplish God´s ultimate purpose for humanity on earth is God´s law" (9-13, p. 9c); in particular, alleges the editor, the carrying out of the law´s penal code by the state "œis how the whole world ultimately will become obedient to God" (9-13, p. 9b). But this is a grotesque counterfeit of the actual position of theonomists and postmillennialists. It is so patently false that it can be disproved by simply looking at one of the editor´s quotations from me in his own article: I have clearly stated in print that "œthe church triumphs in the preaching of the gospel and discipling the nations through the supernatural agency of the Holy Spirit," and the editor has quoted me to that end (9-6, p. 9c). Moreover, in my book Theonomy in Christian Ethics I have gone to lengths to make explicit that the law of God is itself impotent to accomplish God´s saving purposes or to bring about obedience in us (chapter 4 is entirely devoted to those truths). The editor´s claims are so terribly mistaken, I will take the space to quote some relevant points from Theonomy so as to eradicate completely this false picture. I have written: "œOnly the Holy spirit of God can bring power to obey to the sinner, and that Holy Spirit was received not by law-works but by faith (Gal. 3:2). The law is simply not a quickening power; it is without power because of sin (Rom. 8:3), and therefore unable to impart life and righteousness (Gal. 3:21) . . .. Grace grants the power which the law fails to provide. "˜But now we have been released from the law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter´ (Rom. 7:6). Because of the weakness of sinful human nature the law could not overcome sin´s power, but in the believer the power of the Holy spirit frees him from the power of sin unto death, thereby enabling him to accomplish what the law demands (Rom. 8:1-4). The conclusion of the mater, then, is that a man must trust in God´s grace and Christ´s righteousness rather than his own works, which only condemn him under the law´s curse; the letter is unto death, but the Spirit gives new life and spiritual power" (Theonomy, pp. 132, 135). The same gracious truths are reaffirmed throughout chapter 7, whose title itself tells the story: "œSanctification by the Holy Spirit"; one subtitle in that chapter itself declares, "œGod´s Spirit as the Dynamic of Sanctification."

It is a basic falsification to say that theonomic ethics or postmillennial eschatology teaches that God´s law is a transforming means of grace or vehicle for the coming of Christ´s kingdom to the nations. I have taught contrary to that portrayal in many of my publications. The power for changing the hearts of men resides in the Holy spirit of God (Jn. 3:3-8; Ezek. 11:19-20; Titus 3:3-7). The agency by which the nations will be converted and believe the gospel will be, not God´s law, but the pentecostal Spirit of power (Acts 2:1-47; I Cor. 2:4, 14-16; I Thes. 1:5). Revival is prerequisite for men to come to a saving knowledge of Christ and thereby expand His kingdom; men must be born again. And the law cannot accomplish that: "œthe letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor. 3:6). There has never been any legitimate question about this conviction of those who advocate theonomic ethics. The editor´s unguarded and irresponsible misrepresentation is a real low point that prejudices readers (quite understandably) against those of us who nevertheless praise God for His grace in our salvation and the salvation of others (even the nations of the world eventually). The law is not, for the theonomist or postmillennialist, a transforming means of grace for the bringing in of Christ´s kingdom.

Furthermore, the way that the world becomes obedient to God is not, as the editor alleges, by the state enforcing the penal sanctions of the Old Testament. While there might well be some favorable influence on it as a pedagogical device, evangelism does not accomplish its goals through the state´s use of the sword. Paul states quite directly that "œthe weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh" (2 Cor. 10:4), for we rather advance Christ´s kingdom with "œthe sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Eph. 6:17). This truth is again belabored in my book, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (see, for instance, pp. 1415 with its discussion of "œThe Two Swords"). I believe that the editor is responsible to be familiar with positions which he criticizes and ought not to paint such an obviously inaccurate picture of them as we find here. Nowhere do I claim that the world will become obedient to God through the use of the Old Testament penal sanctions.

The state´s endorsement and use of those sanctions is the result of Christ´s kingdom spreading throughout a nation and it striving to live in obedience to the king "“ not the cause for such advance. One almost gets the picture from the editor´s portrayal that theonomists would bring in the kingdom by violent means, harshly imposing an external law-code on an enemy people who resist it in a widespread and vigorous way; they are then dealt with according to the law´s penal sanctions. However the picture is pure fiction and a complete reversal of the truth. The penal sanctions of God´s law will only be enacted in a country where there has already been widespread turning to the gospel and an appropriate nurturing period of personal and social sanctification; those penalties are enforced (and can be enforced) only by a populous that loves the Lord and His blessed direction for its well-being. That is, the theonomist believes that there must be revival and pervasive success in evangelism; then those who are believers will more and more attempt to live obedient lives in gratitude to their Savior, and in time that sanctification will also be seen to call believers to a distinctive and righteous lifestyle in social and political matters. Eventually, graciously, and willingly the sanctions of God´s law will come to be obeyed, just as faithful believers will desire to obey all of God´s commandments. This will not be harsh eternal imposition (although criminals will always make such self-serving claims) but the natural outworking of an internal commitment and dynamic.

When and if Christians have the positions and influence necessary to bring about social change and establish public policy, they will naturally desire to gain as much guidance as is available from God´s inspired word. Only at that point "“ at the end of a period where God´s gracious Spirit has brought about kingdom growth and its subsequent strengthening in righteous living "“ will the sanctions of God´s law be popularly endorsed and enforced. The kingdom eventually brings obedience to the penal sanctions; obedience to those sanctions does not bring in the kingdom. The Great Commission requires us to work toward the day when the nations will have been discipled to Christ and taught to observe whatsoever He has commanded, and as I have said above as well as in many publications the Great Commission depends for its success on the gracious and powerful work of God´s Holy Spirit.

The editor´s contrary representation is a serious and disheartening misconstrual of the theonomic position "“ a misleading error that could have and should have been avoided. To use but one ready example from Theonomy, note that a fair reading of the book would have disclosed this and other statements: "œThe serious alternative which the church offers to a dying world is to turn in faith to Christ and keep His commandments; both elements are demanded by the great commission. As obedience to it is empowered by the Holy spirit, the law of God establishes righteousness in human affairs and human hearts" (p. 489). Or again: "œThe day is coming when, in the power of the Holy Spirit, all citizens and relatives, from the small to the great, will know the Lord . . .. The great commission will one day be fulfilled, a day in which all nations (not just representative individuals in them) shall have been disciplined . . .. The great commission includes the first mentioned provision of the New Covenant as well: All nations are to be taught to observe Christ´s commandments, in other words, all the law of God (Matt. 28:19f.; cf. Matt. 5:17f.). The power and presence of Christ is the seal and guarantee of the great commission´s success . . .. The New Covenant will bring with it the power to convert sinners to God; its prosperity will be overwhelming "“ such is God´s promise, and if the Spirit can convert one individual sinner, why should we hesitate to see Him having the power to effect a world-wide revival?" (pp. 192-193). There is nowhere to be found even a hint of the editor´s violent picture of imposing the penal sanctions of the law and thereby advancing Christ´s kingdom; such a representation is unfair to the thoroughly Spiritual character of the theonomic position.

Distinguishing What Will from What Ought to Happen


The second mistake in the editor´s description of theonomic ethics and postmillennial eschatology is his assertion that the two perspectives require each other. According to him theonomy and postmillennialism go "œhand in hand" (9-6, p. 3a) and are "œindispensable to each other" (9-6, p. 14b). Of course, if both positions are scriptural, then they would naturally complement and strengthen each other as part of a unified system of truth (just as do, for instance, the doctrines of sin and redemption). However such a harmony between the two positions does not mean that people must choose them in tandem or reject them as a pair. Logically there is a distinction to be drawn between what will in fact happen and what ought to happen. Let me illustrate. Someone can readily believe that Congress will increase the Social Security Tax, and yet not at all believe that Congress ought to do so. On the other hand, someone could believe that the church ought to develop a deaconal system for relieving the poor, and still not believe that the church will actually do it. What will happen, and what should happen are (unhappily) very often quite contrary to each other. Accordingly the editor has committed a logical lapse in saying that postmillennialism and theonomic ethics are indispensable to each other. Postmillennialism says that the nations of the world will be converted and come to enace God´s law in their societies, while theonomic ethics maintains (among other things) that nations ought to enact God´s law in their societies. One can believe one totally without the other. Someone might believe that nations ought to enforce God´s law, but never will do so. Someone else might believe that nations will enforce God´s law, but ought not to do so. Therefore, the two positions of theonomic ethics and postmillennial eschatology are logically separate from each other. They are also psychologically separate from each other, for as a matter of fact some postmillennialists are not theonomic in their ethical outlook "“ just as some theonomists are not postmillenial in their eschatological outlook. Many people come to these positions separately, as did myself, without the one suggesting or influencing the other. Again, I feel that there is a beautiful harmony between the two positions, for I believe that they are both the teaching of God´s word. But logically and psychologically a person can surely hold to one without the other.

Another passing indication that postmillennialism and theonomic ethics do not require each other is the existence of varying schools of postmillennial eschatology. Roughly speaking I can delineate at least four distinct options proposed through history which might be (with greater or lesser accuracy) designated "œpostmillennialism." (1) Some have held that the gospel will prosper throughout the world, bringing widespread revival so that the large majority of people are believers; such gospel prosperity, with Christian nurture over time, is bound to have public consequences (cf. "œYe are the salt of the earth . . .. Ye are the light of the world"). Thus revival will eventuate in Christ´s commandments being obeyed in all walks of life. This is, I believe, the classic Reformed version of postmillennialism (as evidenced in my article in the Journal of Christian Reconstruction, Vol. III, No. 2). (2) Others have maintained that the coming of Christ´s kingdom is to be identified with social progress, public reform, and better relations among all men; such goals will be accomplished through humanistic but peaceful means of persuasion and reform movements. Here we have the typical "œsocial gospel" version of postmillennialism "“ a secularization and truncating of the Reformed perspective. (3) Still others have laid their stress on social reformation, but have advocated the means of violent revolt, overt warfare, and external imposition of new social conditions. This might be deemed a kind of Anabaptist version of postmillennialism, sometimes expressed in the Reformation period and condemned by many Calvinists as "œsecitious" or "œstupid." (4) Finally we can mention the view that many people around the world will come to believe the gospel so that our churches will be overwhelmingly filled with Christians and the nations of the world will worship God aright; however (amazingly) this gospel prosperity will not have distinctive and positive consequences for social and political righteousness. It is hard to find a fair, descriptive label for this position since it seems to me to truncate the Reformed view, to represent a retreat from a scriptural world-and-life-view, and to be biblically implausible; thus to label it pietistic postmillennialism or "œpurely revivalistic" postmillennialism simply reflects an adverse personal evaluation "“ and does despite to the full-orbed Reformed position by suggesting that it might be disinterested in piety or that genuine biblical revival could be restricted to internal matters of the heart and at best the church. So recognizing the inherent problem in choosing a fair designation, I will be content to call this fourth option ecclesiastical postmillennialism.

Thus it is manifest that for the editor to make theonomic ethics and postmillennialismindispensable to each other is unfair to those versions of postmillenialism which "“ in contrast to the Puritans, who were vitally interested in missions and the social use of God´s law "“ are indifferent to the public consequences of Christian belief (ecclesiastical postmillennialism), are indifferent to the revivalistic foundation of social reform (the social gospel), or are interested in altering social conditions in an antinomian fashion (Anabaptist postmillennialism). Not all postmillennialists would want to be affiliated with the position of theonomic ethics. This is not the place to critique such versions of postmillennialism (which I find biblically and theologically weak or inconsistent), but simply to make the relevant observational point. Therefore, on logical, psychological, and dogmatical grounds we must separate our consideration of theonomic ethics from that of postmillennialism eschatology. In what follows I will be defending postmillennialism in response to the editor´s critique of it; what I say will not be directly germane to theonomic ethics as such.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by wsw201

There is no necessary connection between a millennial view and theonomy. Bahnsen went to much pained lengths to point this out, especially in God and Politics: Four Views (response to the National Confessional response to Theonomy).

Though this may be true, but in all practicality, virtually all Theonomists are Postmil

Granted, but practically being postmillennial and necessarily being so are two different horses.

 

[Answerman]

I see a connection, they are all necessary consequences of the overarching principle of sola scriptura.:bigsmile:

In Christ,
David

 

[Robin]

Some clarifications of terms:

Theonomy: Theos/God nomis/Law - the definition is interchangeable with reconsructionsim.

Reconstructionism: in the latter church-age, the Church is so victorious in the world that the impact will require society to reconstruct its legal system after the Law of God.

Postmillennialism:

The church will be so victorious in the world before Christ's Second Advent, essentially converting the nations, that society must reconstruct its legal system after the Law of God - which leads to a strong emphasis of:

Presuppositionalism:

Frequently emphasizes 2 points: 1. human-beings are fallen, therefore their thinking/reasoning is distorted/unreliable ... therefore requires:

2. man must rely on the the Law of God

Though there are variations of Postmillennialists (some OPC vigorously opposed to Theonomy) the above 3 ideas fit hand in glove.



r.

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by Paul manata
Anyway, I know amill guys who are theonomic.

Interesting, Paul....I'm going to ask about this. I can't guess how that would work. Maybe, theonomic is different than theonomist?

I know I have a very strong devotion to theonomic principles....



r.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Robin
Some clarifications of terms:

Theonomy: Theos/God nomis/Law - the definition is interchangeable with reconsructionsim.

Reconstructionism: in the latter church-age, the Church is so victorious in the world that the impact will require society to reconstruct its legal system after the Law of God.

Postmillennialism:

The church will be so victorious in the world before Christ's Second Advent, essentially converting the nations, that society must reconstruct its legal system after the Law of God - which leads to a strong emphasis of:

Presuppositionalism:

Frequently emphasizes 2 points: 1. human-beings are fallen, therefore their thinking/reasoning is distorted/unreliable ... therefore requires:

2. man must rely on the the Law of God

Though there are variations of Postmillennialists (some OPC vigorously opposed to Theonomy) the above 3 ideas fit hand in glove.



r.

Presuppositionalism ought to be your premise, not your conclusion. Quite a number of presuppositionalists are vigorously opposed to theonomy. So your argument should read like, presuppositionalism could (lessen the degree of potentiality) lead to theonomy; but obviosuly does not (cf., Van Til, Vern Poythress, John Frame, and Andrew Meyers for one ). Now we can all argue whether the above are being consistent, but that is a different debate for a different day.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Robin

Originally posted by Paul manata
Anyway, I know amill guys who are theonomic.

Interesting, Paul....I'm going to ask about this. I can't guess how that would work. Maybe, theonomic is different than theonomist?

I know I have a very strong devotion to theonomic principles....



r.

Again, it all depends on your definition of theonomy and how you would apply it to society.

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
There is no necessary connection between a millennial view and theonomy.

Here's an "owie" Jacob Please explain HOW this works given the definition of Theonomy/Reconstructionism (below.) But, I guess I'm aghast at this comment, given your reputation for thinking clearly - I expect better from you.

(If I'm off, you may hit me with the Nerf-bat.)

Seriously, though, please state your definition of Theonomy, OK? And/or does yours match with the one I posted?

??



.r

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Presuppositionalism ought to be your premise, not your conclusion.

FTR, this is not a syllogism - but merely demonstrates the necessary- connected parts.

r.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Robin

Originally posted by Draught Horse
There is no necessary connection between a millennial view and theonomy.

Here's an "owie" Jacob Please explain HOW this works given the definition of Theonomy/Reconstructionism (below.) But, I guess I'm aghast at this comment, given your reputation for thinking clearly - I expect better from you.

(If I'm off, you may hit me with the Nerf-bat.)

Seriously, though, please state your definition of Theonomy, OK? And/or does yours match with the one I posted?

??



.r

Your definition:

Theonomy: Theos/God nomis/Law - the definition is interchangeable with reconsructionsim.

Reconstructionism: in the latter church-age, the Church is so victorious in the world that the impact will require society to reconstruct its legal system after the Law of God.

Postmillennialism:

The church will be so victorious in the world before Christ's Second Advent, essentially converting the nations, that society must reconstruct its legal system after the Law of God - which leads to a strong emphasis of:

I would define theonomy as the continuing validity of Old Testament laws (moral/case/judicial), properly interpreted in their Old Covenant context and rightly applied with their New Covenantal conditions (this is Ken Gentry's definition). Your definition isn't wrong, per se, it is just incomplete.

Theonomy states what civil magistrates (among others) ought (normative) to do. Postmillennialism (or a corrollary of it, anyway) states what society will look like (descriptive).

They usually go together; they explain each other rather well, but I see no logical connector between the two.

[Edited on 8--9-05 by Draught Horse]

 

[RamistThomist]

For instance, many postmillennialists: RC Sprouls Sr and Jr, John Jefferson Davis (what a wonderful name) and others of that stripe are not theonomic (holding to some form of natural law).

 

[JohnV]

Personally, I don't see that there has to be an either/or choice between the evidential and presuppositional approaches to defending the faith. As someone said, Presuppers have no problem using evidences. And I'm not a Presupper, and I have as much problem with the way some are approaching evidences as they do. It doesn't have to be either/or.

What is trickier is the escatology. It is quite unusual to think of them in the same way, that there doesn't have to be an either/or. There are some mutually exclusice tenets there. But I believe that it has to come at the end of theology, not theology be based on it. It is speculative, and if theology is based on it, then it is not based on certainty as it should be. That takes discipline, to carefully separate the one from the other, so that your millennial view does not drive your theology. There is nothing so plain a give-away as to say that eschatology ( read: your millennial view ) drives your theology.

[Edited on 8-9-2005 by JohnV]

 

[JohnV]

To the original question, that there is a direct tie between the "isms" named, I think that this is just answering like to like. There were some who were all these, and stuck their necks out. A lot of that has been alleviated by good accounting. Those who put them together to form a particular form of Reconstructionism have become strangely silent as of late. I think their pretence has been exposed, and more thoughtful Theonomists also distance themselves from that. It is to no purpose to continue to critique Theonomy in that way, since the better Theonomists have taken over the cause.

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by Paul manata
Amillennialism: the belief that we should spiritualize everything, if we an.

Gnosticism: the belief that the spiritual is more important than the material.

So, amillennialism has a necessary connection to gnosticism.



[Edited on 8-9-2005 by Paul manata]

It needs to be said for the benefit of the post that my definition is sound. (They are NOT a syllogism.) The definitions are upheld by the solid Reformed scholarship, including WTS. For crying-out-loud, Wikipedia even gets it right! (Whoo-Knoo?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theonomy

Anyway... I think it's interesting to probe past one's own sphere of convictions and knowledge. (I hold no hostility or frustration.) Some would say Theonomy is "heresy"...but I'm not ready to do that, yet. I think it's one alternative, not quite fitting the plain reading of Scripture.

WTS, would criticize T more vigorously...for sound reasons. (Paul, maybe that's why passion on the matter is elevated? I don't know.)

Meanwhile, I'm surprised to read the above definition for Amill are mis-represented - ad hominum attack, unworthy of Christian character.

I still hope a wise, patient and considerate dialog may be had between those of different viewpoints.

At the end of the day, is impatience or anger a sign that our theology is in line with God's Word? I mean, the fruit of the Spirit is peace, isn't it?

Christians have good reasons they become Amill; Postmill; Preterist, Etc. I should hope that it's "safe" in Christ's Church to explore the differences.

To Paul, I cordially invite you to come down to one of our forums and offer your objections to Riddlebarger or Samples. We have stimulating discussions with an open floor - no hostility, and lots of great questions. I admire your work, Paul...I think your contributions would be valued. Just a thought (no reply necessary.)

In Christ,

R.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Robin

Originally posted by Paul manata
Amillennialism: the belief that we should spiritualize everything, if we an.

Gnosticism: the belief that the spiritual is more important than the material.

So, amillennialism has a necessary connection to gnosticism.



[Edited on 8-9-2005 by Paul manata]

It needs to be said for the benefit of the post that my definition is sound. (They are NOT a syllogism.) The definitions are upheld by the solid Reformed scholarship, including WTS. For crying-out-loud, Wikipedia even gets it right! (Whoo-Knoo?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theonomy

Anyway... I think it's interesting to probe past one's own sphere of convictions and knowledge. (I hold no hostility or frustration.) Some would say Theonomy is "heresy"...but I'm not ready to do that, yet. I think it's one alternative, not quite fitting the plain reading of Scripture.

WTS, would criticize T more vigorously...for sound reasons. (Paul, maybe that's why passion on the matter is elevated? I don't know.)

Meanwhile, I'm surprised to read the above definition for Amill are mis-represented - ad hominum attack, unworthy of Christian character.

I still hope a wise, patient and considerate dialog may be had between those of different viewpoints.

At the end of the day, is impatience or anger a sign that our theology is in line with God's Word? I mean, the fruit of the Spirit is peace, isn't it?

Christians have good reasons they become Amill; Postmill; Preterist, Etc. I should hope that it's "safe" in Christ's Church to explore the differences.

To Paul, I cordially invite you to come down to one of our forums and offer your objections to Riddlebarger or Samples. We have stimulating discussions with an open floor - no hostility, and lots of great questions. I admire your work, Paul...I think your contributions would be valued. Just a thought (no reply necessary.)

In Christ,

R.

Whether they are a syllogism or not, they are formed as an argument and are dealt with as such. No, they aren't major premise, minor premise, conclusion, but the skeleton is there all the same. While wikipedia might be okay, it is more scholarly to quote the big dogs on theonomy, mainly Bahnsen--chapter and page number.

Paul's passion is probably similar to my own: it gets really annoying (and to your credit, your arguments against theonomy are sounder now than they were 4 months ago) to see your position portrayed as "almost heresy" while the position being portrayed is not yours at all.

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by JohnV
Personally, I don't see that there has to be an either/or choice between the evidential and presuppositional approaches to defending the faith. .....

What is trickier is the eschatology. ... it takes discipline, to carefully separate the one from the other, so that your millennial view does not drive your theology. [Edited on 8-9-2005 by JohnV]

Heavy, on the discipline point, John!

It came as a surprise though, in a Berkof class of all things, to learn that aware of it or not, eschatology necessarily drives theology. Example: Genesis 3:15 is a pregnant eschatological declaration. How one interprets the value of it will affect everything else. Now, it doesn't appear to have an impact on Last Things in general....but ponder it a bit. Then there's the increasing progression of eschatalogical language in the OT as Redemptive history travels through human events....which ties-in with the nature of the Kingdom; what it is; is not. Etc. I've always wondered at the strange tone of Christ's statements -- He seems to be implying deeper things in many of the confrontations He had with the pharisees; disciples, et al.



curiouser and curiouser

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Robin
Anyway... I think it's interesting to probe past one's own sphere of convictions and knowledge.

Originally posted by JohnV
Personally, I don't see that there has to be an either/or choice between the evidential and presuppositional approaches to defending the faith. .....

What is trickier is the eschatology. ... it takes discipline, to carefully separate the one from the other, so that your millennial view does not drive your theology. [Edited on 8-9-2005 by JohnV]

Heavy, on the discipline point, John!

It came as a surprise though, in a Berkof class of all things, to learn that aware of it or not, eschatology necessarily drives theology. Example: Genesis 3:15 is a pregnant eschatological declaration. How one interprets the value of it will affect everything else. Now, it doesn't appear to have an impact on Last Things in general....but ponder it a bit. Then there's the increasing progression of eschatalogical language in the OT as Redemptive history travels through human events....which ties-in with the nature of the Kingdom; what it is; is not. Etc. I've always wondered at the strange tone of Christ's statements -- He seems to be implying deeper things in many of the confrontations He had with the pharisees; disciples, et al.



curiouser and curiouser

First, Robin, your opinions are not respectable unless you do go beyond your own spehere of convictions. Discussing or debating with those who cannot see, or believe there is not, a world beyond their own views is a waste of time. Truth does not stop with one individual. To pursue truth is to reach out beyond yourself. And those who do pursue truth progress toward grasping God's revelation to us of Himself, both in general revelation and in special revelation.

On the Berkhof class, there is a note of truth to that. However, it is not our eschatological views, but God's. We would put it much plainer if we called God's plan of salvation. There is no warrant here, however, to form our theology on our millennial views. Our millennial views can never be more than speculative because so much its meaning depends on the time of fulfilment. The cultural givens, the historic situation, or a host of other major and minor effects can and will play a part in how these prophecies will be fulfilled. We are called to faith, hope and love. That is our driving force in our theology.

These will also make a difference in how we approach defending the faith, and how we view the place and role of the law. The last thing we want to do is cite Jesus' criticism of the Pharisees and Saducess, only to become modern manifestations of them ourselves. If by Theonomy we mean legalism, and if by Presuppositionalism we mean that the whole of truth has to be diagnosed through our opinions, then we've become nothing but noisy gongs. I'm not saying that these are what Theonomy or Presuppositionalism are, but some make it depend on themselves far too much instead of upon the self-evident truth itself.

What I was trying to say was that your professor's critique may or may not be accurate; it doesn't matter because it does no good either way. He has to go to the heart of the matter, not negating the truth that is there, even if the proponents of certain views are, to his understanding, wrong. If they're wrong, he won't help the situation by taking that approach.

 

[Robin]

I think the burden of proof is on Paul to demonstrate my definition of Theonomy is incorrect. Though, as I recall, I started this post, asking that a civil dialog be pursued. So far, I'm hearing that Paul is devoted to his system with a zeal so intense he is willing to slander and boast. Or am I mistaken? I might ask, how can Paul know that he knows more about a thing than a theologian with a degree in apologetics; on the WTS staff -- who he does not know personally? You should be ashamed at the arrogance and pride, Paul. I never said my definition was Riddlebarger's. All I could add is, I think Kim's stance would be more critical (perhaps?) as his is consistent with WTS. So are you also saying WTS is wrong, too?

The definitions that I wrote and agree with were written by a personal friend/colleague of Bahnsen.

To John, you missed my point entirely, I think. I've travelled a long way from whatever it was I held to over 6 years ago to this moment. This includes studying material by those with opposing view points, carefully. (Unlike Jacob's former comment about not even finishing Iron's material.) I know Lee Irons...he is not Catholic nor liberal. How very sad that one's zeal for eschatology would close a heart or mind toward a brother without knowing the particulars of the case.

Among many reasons...here is a quote from Church History that leans me away from Theonomy:

"The state of the monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth, for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth and set upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called gods."

King James I circa 1611 (the acts of this King speak volumes) I wonder what King James eschatology was?????



r.

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by crhoades

Originally posted by Robin

Originally posted by crhoades
Curious question...would everyone here consider themselves presuppositional in their apologetic outlook?

Well, Chris...while I believe presuppositional has an awful lot going for it...I'm not a full-presupp. I also think evidential has some merit...but am not devoted to it. As I reflect, it's probably not possible to codify what "method" I use - It's really not a method, but more after the examples in the New Testament - and has a lot to do with the catechisms (Belgic/HC.)

r.

Just a clarification of your post...what are your conceptions of full-presup and evidential? Full-presup has no problems using evidences...

This best describes my stance:

Arguments are useful, but are not themselves salvific.

There is common ground of some sort between believers and unbelievers, but not neutral ground

Sin has so darkened the mind and heart that we all, by nature, suppress the truth; and the Law of God is written on the hearts of all men

There is a place for reason, evidences, and Scripture in apologetics

Only by the proclamation of Christ in the Gospel does one actually come to faith

Robin

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
For instance, many postmillennialists: RC Sprouls Sr and Jr, John Jefferson Davis (what a wonderful name) and others of that stripe are not theonomic (holding to some form of natural law).

I know of these...and agree! I suppose I'm akin to the natural law idea in ways....There is quite a variety of postmillenialists who are not Theonomists ---

But Theonomists MUST be postmillennial....I found that intriquing when I heard about it. And no matter what one claims, they simply cannot be Amillennarian....it defeats the Theonomic premise. Unless, somehow, they're shifting over to another side, perhaps unaware of the change at present?

 

[pastorway]

{Admin stepping in}

I guess we just cannot discuss apologetic methods, eschatology, or Theonomy with any sense of love, mercy, gentleness, or longsuffering. How many times have we proved that point?

Pity that a discussion of "Scripture" is so not bearing the fruit of the Spirit.....

Phillip

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by Robin
Some clarifications of terms:

Theonomy: Theos/God nomis/Law - the definition is interchangeable with reconsructionsim.

Reconstructionism: in the latter church-age, the Church is so victorious in the world that the impact will require society to reconstruct its legal system after the Law of God.

Postmillennialism:

The church will be so victorious in the world before Christ's Second Advent, essentially converting the nations, that society must reconstruct its legal system after the Law of God - which leads to a strong emphasis of:

Presuppositionalism:

Frequently emphasizes 2 points: 1. human-beings are fallen, therefore their thinking/reasoning is distorted/unreliable ... therefore requires:

2. man must rely on the the Law of God

Though there are variations of Postmillennialists (some OPC vigorously opposed to Theonomy) the above 3 ideas fit hand in glove.



r.

1. your definition of theonomy is false since you said it is interchangable with your definition of reconstructionism.

2. Your definition of postmillennialism beggs the question against non-theonomic postmillennialist.

3. Your definition of presuppositionalism is very odd??? First off, point one sounds like total depravity. But then you throw in the "unreliable" aspect of man's reasoning.
[Edited on 8-9-2005 by Paul manata]

Paul, I hope this won't take too much time....but, since you made these points, I ask (politely) to demonstrate that my first point is wrong. I mean, please show how Theonomy differs from Reconstructionism in a classic, basic description, OK? So are you saying Theonomy does not require society to redo thier laws to fit God's? And for #2. Begs what question? Posmillennialism, at the bare-bones says this: the church will be so victorious that society will transform thus adjusting its legal system to coincide with God's Laws. Right? Explain how this begs a question to any postmillennialist that is not a Theonomist? And for #3. Well, pretend that unreliable isn't there, OK? What's left? IS man's thinking distorted to the point of requiring man's dependance on God's Law? What does that look like?

I hope this clarifies my position.

(Pssst...of course I knew the Amill remark was bogus. It's the spirit of it that was beneath virtue. I think you know my struggles with these ideas are sincere and respectful.)

For the record....I have no problem whatsoever being corrected. If the reasons for my convictions are off-track, I want to know about it. I think there's enough evidence out-there to find it.



r.